Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 15:21:36 GMT -5
Hello, there are some interesting data on the forum about the shoulder height of bears. Some of them are accurate, some of them are questionable. I think it would be good to collect here some scientific data or serious evaluations by people who presents their methods to do these evaluations.
We can begin with data provided by theundertaker45 about grizzly bears of Yellowstone: As we were talking about shoulder heights some time ago, I decided to give something a try. There is a study from Blanchard on the dimensions of Yellowstone grizzlies in the late 20th century; the sample of adult males (5y+) averaged 193kg and the shoulder height measured in a proper way was 95cm. The bears used for the sample were predominantly captured in summer, so not really in fat condition. Coincidentally there is a study on Alaskan Peninsula brown bears by Glenn with a fairly big sample size just like the Yellowstone sample; the average weight for the adult males (5.5y+) was ~357kg in this case and all of the bears were also captured during August. I suppose these bears were not fat.
I propose to begin with the genus Ursus arctos.
The first method i propose is very trivial but it give us a first approximation: the rule of three with volume, ASSUMING THE SAME PROPORTIONS. Please don't include for the moment polar bears or other species. They are not built like Ursus arctos.
The first method:
1. I take these values as reference : 96cm -> 193kg.
2. I take the mean weight of a male Kodiak bear which is 357kg. (it is larger than the mean mass of smilodon populator, the heaviest big cat that i know)
3. Calculation: 357 / 193 = 1,85. So if a grizzly has a volume of 1, a kodiak bear has a volume of 1,85 because it is the same density.
4. Assuming the same proportions in all dimensions, we have: x³ = 1,85 which give us x = 1,228.
Based on this little calculation, a male kodiak bear of 357kg is 122 cm at the shoulders.
The largest Ursus arctos that i know from scientific litterature is Ursus arctos priscus.
For a specimen of 700kg we have a shoulder height of: 153cm.
For a specimen of 1000kg we have a shoulder height of 173cm.
Here of course some results are too high for one simple reason: i didn't multiply the results by 0,96. If we multiply we have:
Kodiak bear 357kg: 118cm.
Ursus arctos priscus 700kg: 146cm.
Ursus arctos priscus 1000kg: 166cm.
The new results are better i think.
Of course this calculation is a little joke but you could propose other methods and we can compare the results.
We can begin with data provided by theundertaker45 about grizzly bears of Yellowstone: As we were talking about shoulder heights some time ago, I decided to give something a try. There is a study from Blanchard on the dimensions of Yellowstone grizzlies in the late 20th century; the sample of adult males (5y+) averaged 193kg and the shoulder height measured in a proper way was 95cm. The bears used for the sample were predominantly captured in summer, so not really in fat condition. Coincidentally there is a study on Alaskan Peninsula brown bears by Glenn with a fairly big sample size just like the Yellowstone sample; the average weight for the adult males (5.5y+) was ~357kg in this case and all of the bears were also captured during August. I suppose these bears were not fat.
I propose to begin with the genus Ursus arctos.
The first method i propose is very trivial but it give us a first approximation: the rule of three with volume, ASSUMING THE SAME PROPORTIONS. Please don't include for the moment polar bears or other species. They are not built like Ursus arctos.
The first method:
1. I take these values as reference : 96cm -> 193kg.
2. I take the mean weight of a male Kodiak bear which is 357kg. (it is larger than the mean mass of smilodon populator, the heaviest big cat that i know)
3. Calculation: 357 / 193 = 1,85. So if a grizzly has a volume of 1, a kodiak bear has a volume of 1,85 because it is the same density.
4. Assuming the same proportions in all dimensions, we have: x³ = 1,85 which give us x = 1,228.
Based on this little calculation, a male kodiak bear of 357kg is 122 cm at the shoulders.
The largest Ursus arctos that i know from scientific litterature is Ursus arctos priscus.
For a specimen of 700kg we have a shoulder height of: 153cm.
For a specimen of 1000kg we have a shoulder height of 173cm.
Here of course some results are too high for one simple reason: i didn't multiply the results by 0,96. If we multiply we have:
Kodiak bear 357kg: 118cm.
Ursus arctos priscus 700kg: 146cm.
Ursus arctos priscus 1000kg: 166cm.
The new results are better i think.
Of course this calculation is a little joke but you could propose other methods and we can compare the results.
