|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 19, 2019 12:18:41 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 given 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. Yeah i know. A comparisson side by side would be awesone. I was just giving my intake of a fight between these two.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 14:27:48 GMT -5
Yeah i know. A comparisson side by side would be awesone. I was just giving my intake of a fight between these two. Yes, that would be interesting. IMO ( simply based on observation ) The polar bear is on average about 6 inches ( 15 cm ) shorter at shoulder height than Actodus. I believe that with each at their max size, we would still have about the same difference. Again - IMO - I believe that these two bears would prove to be at weight-parity. Arctotherium angustidens would prove to be a different story.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 19, 2019 17:11:55 GMT -5
ARCTODUS SIMUS-URSUS MARITIMUS TYRANNUS-URSUS MARITIMUS.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 17:28:03 GMT -5
Whoever created this was onto the same wavelength as myself, although I believe he over-did it. I figure these two predators to be pretty-much at weight-parity. If I'm correct ( and its all theory ) then the California grizzly and the European Steppe bear would share second place as the biggest bears ever after the South American giant short-faced bear.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 19, 2019 17:50:48 GMT -5
Hold it right there brobear, Arctodus Simus should still hold the second place, its always been like that historically. I do believe that alot more specimens of Arctodus Simus reached 2000+ lbs than the California grizzly and the Steppe brown bear. The average weight has different opinions though.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 19, 2019 18:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 18:26:33 GMT -5
Size: Arctodus simus (2 to 1.9 Ma.), 110.2 kg (240 lb) and 800 kg (1,800 lb) as noted by Legendre and Roth, inhabiting a generally more northern and larger range. 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. Males from the Yukon region - the largest representatives of the species - would have stood about 1.80 m (5.9 ft) at the shoulder (on all fours), 4 m (13.1 ft) upright and may have weighed about 800 kg (1,864 lb). Arctodus simus was the largest carnivorous mammal that ever lived in North America. The shoulder height of an adult polar bear is 122 to 160 cm (4 ft 0 in to 5 ft 3 in). Note: so the biggest ever discovered A. simus measured about 5 feet 10 inches high. The difference between the biggest of each is 7 inches. But, with the polar bear being a much thicker fatter bear, the weight difference is likely minimal. The average mature male of each ( very likely ) even less inches difference. I just don't believe that Arctodus simus had a substantial weight advantage over the polar bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 18:31:41 GMT -5
1000 kilograms is equal to 2,204.62 pounds (avoirdupois) However, this report came out in 2010, leaving room for further research. Edit and add: looking at numerous online sites. The weights given range from 800 kg to 1000 kg. ( basically from 1800 pounds to 2200 pounds ). An adult male polar bear weighs around 775 to 1,200 lbs. (351 to 544 kilograms). The largest polar bear recorded weighed 2,209 pounds (1,000 kg), according to Polar Bear International. Females weigh half as much as their male counterparts, at only or 330 to 650 lbs. (50 to 295 kg).
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 19, 2019 18:45:04 GMT -5
Well a scientific report from 2010 is not that old when it comes to prehistoric bears. Anyways, i definatly agree that the weight advantage was not substantial, from all the reports i read, Simus had a weight advantage on maritimus thats for sure, but not substantial.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 18:48:54 GMT -5
Well a scientific report from 2010 is not that old when it comes to prehistoric bears. Anyways, i definatly agree that the weight advantage was not substantial, from all the reports i read, Simus had a weight advantage on maritimus thats for sure, but not substantial. Well, from what I'm reading, the difference would be from 600 to 1,000 pounds. That's a big difference. Your post - Quote: In this study, we review the previous evidence on the paleobiology of the giant, ‘short-faced’ bear Arctodus simus (Mammalia: Carnivora: Ursidae) and contribute new ecomorphological inferences on the paleobiology of this enigmatic species. Craniodental variables are used in a comparative morphometric study across the families Felidae, Hyaenidae, Canidae, and Ursidae. Principal components analyses (PCAs) do not show an ecomorphological adaptation towards bonecracking or hypercarnivory in the ‘short-faced’ bear. In contrast, PCAs and discriminant analyses restricted to the craniodental data set of ursids suggest close morphological resemblance between A. simus and the extant omnivorous bears. In addition, the scaling of snout length on neurocranial length in bears indicates that the face of A. simus was not particularly short. Body mass estimates obtained from major limb bone measurements reveal that A. simus specimens of around 1000 kilograms were more common than previously suspected. Scaling relationships in extant bears of limb lengths on the least width of the femoral shaft (the variable best correlated with body mass) indicate that A. simus was not as relatively long-legged as previously thought. For these reasons, although the isotopic signature of A. simus has been interpreted as evidencing that it consumed large amounts of flesh relative to some contemporary populations of Ursus arctos, our results do not support the previous views of A. simus as a fast-running super-predator or as a specialized scavenger. In contrast, the picture that emerges from this study is one of a colossal omnivorous bear whose diet probably varied according to resource availability. © 2010 by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 19, 2019 18:59:56 GMT -5
Well 1000 kg (2200 lbs), should be the max weight of Simus, and that report is from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, so it cant get any better than that. Polars reach 1500 lbs, but not many. Looks like Simus reached its max weight alot more than maritimus according to the report. So yeah, at max weights, simus had about a 700 lb weight advantage on maritimus. Now we really dont know the average weight of simus, that is what i meant, that maybe at average weights, the difference is not that substancial.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 19:19:51 GMT -5
In addition, the scaling of snout length on neurocranial length in bears indicates that the face of A. simus was not particularly short. Scaling relationships in extant bears of limb lengths on the least width of the femoral shaft (the variable best correlated with body mass) indicate that A. simus was not as relatively long-legged as previously thought. Looks like we're painting a new Arctodus simus: phys.org/news/2018-03-short-faced-largest-carnivores-ice-age.html The scientific community previously thought that this extinct animal from North America was exclusively carnivorous, but Mr Figueirido says, "We dethroned the largest hypercarnivorous mammal ever to roam the Earth. Our results also suggest that the Arctodus simus population in southern North America was more omnivorous than the highly carnivorous populations in the northeast." Read more at: phys.org/news/2018-03-short-faced-largest-carnivores-ice-age.html#jCp
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 19, 2019 21:43:52 GMT -5
Ok, let's say we have a 1500-pound polar bear who wandered down to the southerly limits of his range. At the same time, a 2000-pound giant short-faced bear travels up the the most northerly limits of his domain. The giant is leaner and about half-a-foot taller than the big white bear. What the king of the north lacks in size he makes up for in girth and grappling ability. The giant has powerful jaws. Both are predators.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 19, 2019 21:55:03 GMT -5
Ok, let's say we have a 1500-pound polar bear who wandered down to the southerly limits of his range. At the same time, a 2000-pound giant short-faced bear travels up the the most northerly limits of his domain. The giant is leaner and about half-a-foot taller than the big white bear. What the king of the north lacks in size he makes up for in girth and grappling ability. The giant has powerful jaws. Both are predators. Yeah, even though the polar is all around thicker and more robust, stronger legs, better grappler, a 500 lb weight advantage is just too much brobear, not to mention that Simus also knows how to fight. Also, we have seen how polar bears are, lets say “wary” of much smaller grizzly bears. Arctodus simus takes this match at least 7/10 times, in my opinion. How about you? Something tells me you favour the maritimus right?
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 20, 2019 2:13:26 GMT -5
Ok, let's say we have a 1500-pound polar bear who wandered down to the southerly limits of his range. At the same time, a 2000-pound giant short-faced bear travels up the the most northerly limits of his domain. The giant is leaner and about half-a-foot taller than the big white bear. What the king of the north lacks in size he makes up for in girth and grappling ability. The giant has powerful jaws. Both are predators. Yeah, even though the polar is all around thicker and more robust, stronger legs, better grappler, a 500 lb weight advantage is just too much brobear, not to mention that Simus also knows how to fight. Also, we have seen how polar bears are, lets say “wary” of much smaller grizzly bears. Arctodus simus takes this match at least 7/10 times, in my opinion. How about you? Something tells me you favour the maritimus right? No. Size matters. The giant short-faced bears were just too big for a polar bear. In reality, if these two ever met, they very likely avoided each other. *Note: in my theory about polar bears being equally as heavy as Arctodus - I am very likely very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 20, 2019 7:24:30 GMT -5
I agree that they would probably avoid each other. At max weights, Simus is heavier by far. At average weights, Simus should be heavier but not by much. Still the polar has greater girth, thats for sure.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Feb 20, 2019 15:25:46 GMT -5
ARCTODUS SIMUS-URSUS MARITIMUS TYRANNUS-URSUS MARITIMUS. I've seen so many weight estimates for Simus that vary by incredible amounts. In this caption they say he was likely closer to 1200 lbs (not 2000 lbs) which is more in line with the weight of an adult male Polar Bear. So what this tells me is that no really knows for sure how heavy he was and that 1200 lbs might be the most accurate estimation of all??
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 20, 2019 16:58:28 GMT -5
ARCTODUS SIMUS-URSUS MARITIMUS TYRANNUS-URSUS MARITIMUS. I've seen so many weight estimates for Simus that vary by incredible amounts. In this caption they say he was likely closer to 1200 lbs (not 2000 lbs) which is more in line with the weight of an adult male Polar Bear. So what this tells me is that no really knows for sure how heavy he was and that 1200 lbs might be the most accurate estimation of all?? Yeah, but even if the average weight of Simus was 1200 lbs, that is still more than the average polar bears who weight about 900 lbs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 20:55:35 GMT -5
The only advantage artodus simus has over the polar bear is weight (1200 pounds vs 900 pounds on average). The polar bear is more heavily built and has much better grappling skills to control the fight, so at close weights, polar bear would win but since artodus is larger for every one polar bear which weighs 2200 pounds, there would be 30 (on estimate) artodus which weighs the same and the largest at around 3500 pounds. Therefore, the polar bear is out gunned in the weight department.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 27, 2019 21:46:08 GMT -5
The only advantage artodus simus has over the polar bear is weight (1200 pounds vs 900 pounds on average). The polar bear is more heavily built and has much better grappling skills to control the fight, so at close weights, polar bear would win but since artodus is larger for every one polar bear which weighs 2200 pounds, there would be 30 (on estimate) artodus which weighs the same and the largest at around 3500 pounds. Therefore, the polar bear is out gunned in the weight department. Well The bear that weighted 3500 lbs was Arctotherium Angustidens, not Arctodus Simus. Simus probably reached a max weight of about 2500 lbs. but yeah, we all agree that at same weights a polar bear should win due to its greater girth and fighting ability. Should be stronger also at same weight. It would have to be the largest polar bear possible vs the smaller Arctodus Simus possible, maybe both at about 1800 lbs. good fight.
|
|