Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 8:25:12 GMT -5
The polar bear is said to be larger but less robust than other living bears today yet we have the extinct giant short faced bear which is even less heavily built than a polar bear. The spectacled bear is also from the short faced bear family and may also be less heavily built than a polar bear. Lets discuss.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 22, 2018 8:33:51 GMT -5
If someone here has the computer skills to do some accurate picture comparisons, that might be a good start.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 23, 2018 12:20:45 GMT -5
From - carnivora.net/index.php - Arctodus simus. Arctodus (Greek, "bear tooth") — known as the short-faced bear or bulldog bear — is an extinct genus of bear endemic to North America during the Pleistocene ~3.0 Ma.—11,000 years ago, existing for approximately three million years. Arctodus simus may have once been Earth's largest mammalian, terrestrial carnivore. It was the most common of early North American bears, being most abundant in California. It was native to prehistoric North America from about 800,000 years ago, and became extinct about 12,500 years ago. It has been found from as far north as Ikpikpuk River, Alaska to Lowndes County, Mississippi. It is one of the largest bears in the fossil record and was among the largest mammalian land predators of all time. The type specimen came from Potter Creek Cave in Shasta County, California. In a recent study, the mass of six A. simus specimens was estimated, one-third of them weighed about 900 kg (1 short ton), the largest being UVP 015 at 957 kg (2,110 lb), suggesting specimens that big were probably more common than previously thought.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 23, 2018 12:22:51 GMT -5
From - carnivora.net/index.php - Polar bear. Polar Bear - Ursus maritimus The polar bear (Ursus maritimus), a bear native to the Arctic, is the apex predator within its range. Its thick blubber and fur insulate it against the cold. Its fur is hollow and translucent but usually appears as white or cream coloured, thus providing the animal with effective camouflage. Its skin is actually black in color, however. The bear has a short tail and small ears that help reduce heat loss, as well as a relatively small head and long, tapered body to streamline it for swimming. The polar bear is a semi-aquatic marine mammal that depends mainly upon the pack ice and the marine food web for survival. It has adapted for life on a combination of land, sea, and ice. Scientists and climatologists believe that the projected decreases in the polar sea ice due to global warming will have a significant negative impact on of this species within this century. The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is the largest species of all bears and is the largest terrestrial carnivore on earth. Fully grown male polar bears range from 7' to 11' when standing upright, and weigh from 660 to 1,320 pounds. Females stand from 6' to 8' and weigh anywhere from 400 to 700 pounds. The largest polar bear on record was over 12' and weighed 2,210 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 23, 2018 12:34:46 GMT -5
ChocolateCake123 posted: Here is a study posted by Aztec on short faced bear grappling skills, to help everyone out Anyways, I think Ceratosaurus would win. It is not that much shorter, is more manouverable, and has much deadlier jaws. Plus the bear doesn't seem to be very adept at using its forelimbs in combat, according to Aztec's study: Oh well, It is in picture-form so I can't post it. Bottom line - short-faced bears had inferior grappling abilty to the genus Ursus and to the big cats. This is more evidence that they were scavengers rather than active hunters. Note - I sent an invitation to ChocolateCake.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 23, 2018 12:39:42 GMT -5
Chocolate cake is bullshit, lmao. The short faced bear was a scavenger but he also hunted big game because of its size. And big cats had better grapling ability than that bear? Sounds like a bunch of horse crap to me.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 23, 2018 13:46:50 GMT -5
Chocolate cake is bullshit, lmao. The short faced bear was a scavenger but he also hunted big game because of its size. And big cats had better grapling ability than that bear? Sounds like a bunch of horse crap to me. No, this is from an actual study found by Aztec. It actually is strong evidence of what I already believe... go to... carnivora.net/index.php Go to... Interspecific Conflict. Topic... Arctodus simus v Ceratosaurus nasicornis - post #2 - Please copy and post study here. This lesser grappling ability plus a less-robust body plan has me convinced that the short-faced bear needed a huge weight advantage to take down a massive grizzly or polar bear.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 23, 2018 13:56:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 24, 2018 18:02:45 GMT -5
The biggest polar bear ever actually measured and weighed was the 2100 pound monster. Mounted, he measured 11 feet tall. However, it has been noted that he was mounted incorrectly, and would be in reality 10 feet and so many inches. Now, lets consider that a polar bear is a more heavily built bear than Arctodus simus, and a heck-of-a-lot fatter. Therefore, a short-faced bear 11 feet tall will weigh less than 2100 pounds. My point - I believe that the giants were rarely 2000 pounds - just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 11, 2019 5:00:39 GMT -5
Sculpture of a short faced bear. Arctodus simus was humongous. But, when compared with an eleven-foot-tall polar bear, was he heavier?
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jan 24, 2019 20:00:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 0:38:42 GMT -5
The biggest polar bear ever actually measured and weighed was the 2100 pound monster. Mounted, he measured 11 feet tall. However, it has been noted that he was mounted incorrectly, and would be in reality 10 feet and so many inches. Now, lets consider that a polar bear is a more heavily built bear than Arctodus simus, and a heck-of-a-lot fatter. Therefore, a short-faced bear 11 feet tall will weigh less than 2100 pounds. My point - I believe that the giants were rarely 2000 pounds - just my opinion. Agreed, the polar bear will be heavier than a giant short faced bear at equal weights. I have always suspected the 2250 pound polar bear to be skin stretched - looks like you beat me to it.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 3, 2019 6:11:04 GMT -5
The short-faced bear had a huge hulking body on long limbs which were less robust than the limbs of Ursus bears. For this reason most biologists deny this giant bear of being an active hunter. If Arctodus were compared with a polar bear at equal shoulder height ( on all fours of course ) the polar bear would outweigh the giant considerably.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 3, 2019 6:20:21 GMT -5
What we have here is a weird situation. Surprising at least when we found all this out. yes, obviously being taller the Short faced bear had less robust limbs than polar bears. also, according to experts, had less grappling ability. Now, you would think that just the sheer size of this bear would make it a better hunter than even a polar bear, or at least better hunter than the ursus arctos species, but it looks like it wasnt.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 3, 2019 6:34:29 GMT -5
The limb bones of Arctodus simus were ( comparable to body size ) thinner than those of the genus Ursus. Gracile. If he were chasing prey and had to make a quick turn ( as happens in nearly every chase ) the giant would probably break a leg. He was therefore unlikely to have been a hunter. According to recent studies, Arctodus simus could cover ground quickly in a "camel trot" going basically in a straight line following his nose to a carcass. I know that a big Actodus could stand perhaps 6 feet high at the shoulders while a big polar bear might stand as high as 5 feet 3 inches tall. But it seems to me that this polar bear should be equally as heavy as the giant. *Note: simply my own speculation.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 3, 2019 6:48:29 GMT -5
You do have some great points there brobear. Arctodus could break a leg, it was possible sure. Now, just by looking at the pictures there, its clear that the polar bear is more robust, especially the limbs.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 0:51:47 GMT -5
You do have some great points there brobear. Arctodus could break a leg, it was possible sure. Now, just by looking at the pictures there, its clear that the polar bear is more robust, especially the limbs. Polar bears are brown bears modified for their arctic/aquatic lifestyle. They have the robust build of a brown bear. The limb-bones of the giant have been described by paleontologists as being gracile. Arctodus simus was a lean bear in comparison. I have noticed that most art-work we find of the giant portrays a bear with grizzly-like physiques; which is wrong. Here is a likeness I believe to be fairly accurate:
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 0:57:25 GMT -5
Polar Bear vs Arctodus Simus ( a contest of weight and girth ).
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 19, 2019 9:33:30 GMT -5
The obvious happens here. at max weights, if we have a 2200 lb Short faced bear vs a 1500 lb polat bear, the Arctodus should win most times. Now, at same weight, both specimens at 1500 lbs, the polar should win most times. Its better built, thicker overall, stronger legs, better grappler, better fighter.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 10:55:57 GMT -5
The obvious happens here. at max weights, if we have a 2200 lb Short faced bear vs a 1500 lb polat bear, the Arctodus should win most times. Now, at same weight, both specimens at 1500 lbs, the polar should win most times. Its better built, thicker overall, stronger legs, better grappler, better fighter. I'm not talking about a fight. I'm talking about which bear is actually the heaviest. It appears to me that the giant's weight is giver according to his shoulder height as if he had the build of a brown bear. However, he had proportionately longer legs. The giant averaged ( as is my understanding ) about 5 feet 6 inches tall at shoulder height. The polar bear measures on average roughly 5 feet tall. What would be great here - a good side-by-side visual comparison.
|
|