|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 23, 2020 19:09:35 GMT -5
Yes, all black bears combined. They have enormous regional variation, thus the total average is smaller. I see. So then we cant say that on average the ABB is the 3rd largest species. But still, there are some subspecies/populations that average more, like the Easten black bear from Pennsylvania who averages 402 lbs. We still would have to see the Asiatic black bear who is supposed to average less than the ABB.
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Nov 23, 2020 19:28:12 GMT -5
King KodiakWe have to remember that there also is a smaller type of sloth bears, the Sri Lankan subspecies. General average for the species as a whole will most likely be lower than 290lbs.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 23, 2020 19:42:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 29, 2020 17:19:59 GMT -5
theundertaker45 : I think we need to revise the Kodiak bear's average weight:
By Ursus Arctos: 835 pounds is an average for a sub-adult 8-9 year old Kodiak. Notice the section under Adult Weight. "Willard A. Troyer writes: Four males weighed in the fall ranged from 960 - 1,346 pounds and three spring species ranged from 813 - 1190 lbs." Take the median value between 813 and 1190, and you'll come up with an average of about 1000 lbs for boar Kodiak Brown Bears.
domainofthebears.proboards.com/post/28333/thread
So this is based on the Troyer and Hensel chart, to be exact, the average for those 3 spring specimens taking into consideration the median, is 1001.5 lbs. This to me sounds much more reliable than the 1077 lbs that we currently have on page 1, (that average has always seemed excessive to me).
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Nov 29, 2020 17:29:00 GMT -5
King Kodiak Why should we exclude the fall specimens? They have been weighed as legitimately as the spring specimens. The 1077lbs average is based on the 4 adult specimens (9y+) definitely weighed: 960+1346+813+1190 = 4309 4309/4 = 1077.25 So: 1077.25lbs for the age group 9y+ (n=4)
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 29, 2020 17:40:06 GMT -5
Well yes, but then we should have 2 sets of weights, for fall, which is before hibernation, 1077 lbs. And for spring 1001 lbs. You should add them both to page 1. Thing is the more correct way to weight bears is in the Spring.
If i am in a debate, and i have to state the Kodiak bear's average weight, i would definitely quote the Spring weight, not the fall one. Anyhow, an 1001 lbs average weight is still humongous.
The 835 lbs average has 8 year olds included, so those may not be fully grown yet.
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Nov 29, 2020 17:45:54 GMT -5
King KodiakWell yes, we can split them up adjusted to the season they have been weighed in but when determining the overall average all reliably weighed individuals must be included regardless of other factors.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 29, 2020 17:53:14 GMT -5
There is alot to analyze here. Is not that simple. Question #1, are those weighted specimens to the right included in the chart to the left? Because it seems to me that some might be, like the 1190 lb Spring bear. Question #2, how about combining the 7 specimens to the right with the 5 specimens in the chart to the left, what number would we get then?
Am pretty sure that 835 lbs average in the left are spring specimens. Problem is it has 8 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Nov 29, 2020 18:05:17 GMT -5
Regarding your Question 1: Some of them might have been included (the ones at 9y old) as the age group is 8-9y of age.
Regarding your Question 2: That can't be done as the 5 specimens on the chart left also included 8y old bears which wouldn't be considered fully grown yet. The safest approach would be taking the 4 specimens with precise weights on the right side under the section "Adult Weight"; we can be sure that he only included bears of 9y+ in this short statement, otherwise he wouldn't have created a seperate section on adult weight.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 29, 2020 18:15:13 GMT -5
I got it. So the most reliable equation that we have for only the 9+ year old specimens is those 4 weighted to the right under adult weight (the lowest and highest of their respective seasonal ranges). So this gives us a 1077 lb average for both fall and Spring combined. 4 specimens.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Nov 29, 2020 19:29:59 GMT -5
These average weights are close to the average weight of most polar bears except these from Foxe Basin.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 7, 2020 4:41:30 GMT -5
Food for thought: the average brown bear ( Ursus arctos ) should be a fairly large bear considering the numbers within each population. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the greatest populations are the coastal brown bear populations: Kodiak bear, Kamchatka bear, and Alsaskan peninsula brown bears. Also consider, that the smallest brown bears are those living in barren places and thus low in population numbers.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 8, 2020 6:36:10 GMT -5
I'm sure that I have this posted here ( somewhere ) but after ( hours - days ) searching, I finally found it over in Wildfact by your's truly. About those outlaw grizzlies, the cattle and sheep killers of the American West. Notorious Grizzly Bears by W.P. Hubbard - 1960 - Pelage and Character - Weight. A safe estimate of the average weight of adult grizzlies in our western states would be about eight hundred and fifty pounds. This conclusion results from a careful check on grizzlies killed and weighed by numerous hunters, trappers, and old-time bear men. Nevertheless, there are exceptions. Several outlaw grizzlies investigated were known to have weighed over one thousand pounds. ( These outlaw grizzlies were hunted and killed before the Boone and Crockett Club established the idea of preserving bear skulls ). *Average historical grizzly of the American West: 850 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 9, 2020 0:50:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Dec 9, 2020 10:24:32 GMT -5
I'd feel more comfortable if they described the method of obtaining the weight but I am definitely more positive about the reliablity of this account (note that the data was extracted from the hunter's diary as the author mentions).
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 9, 2020 11:03:53 GMT -5
I'd feel more comfortable if they described the method of obtaining the weight but I am definitely more positive about the reliablity of this account (note that the data was extracted from the hunter's diary as the author mentions). This here is the source we have always known:
"The greatest weight recorded for a Kodiak bear in the wild is 1656 lb 751 kg for a male shot at English Bay. Kodiak Island in 1894 by J C Tolman. The stretched skin (pegged to the side of a cabin on a frame and then weighted with rocks at the bottom edge for maximum effect) measured 13 ft 6in 4-12m from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail, and the hindfoot was 18in 46cm long (Phillips-Wolley. 1894)."
As we can see, that method (The stretched skin pegged to the side of a cabin on a frame and then weighted with rocks), is not mentioned in the original source, why is that? Maybe it was misquoted or a confusion or something? Who added that phrase? If we had only seen the original source, which says "actually weighted", then we would have never had doubts about this record.
Am thinking this changed everything to be honest, we really have to go by the original source. Am definitely quoting this as a record in the future, i dont see any reason not to. The original source should be shown, not the other one.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Dec 9, 2020 12:35:17 GMT -5
I'd feel more comfortable if they described the method of obtaining the weight but I am definitely more positive about the reliablity of this account (note that the data was extracted from the hunter's diary as the author mentions). My guess is they may have used a length vs girth measurement to determine and estimated weight. But the article did state the Bear was weighed? I couldn't find much about what scale would have been available in late 19th century Kodiak Island if any. However if there was... I doubt there was anything remotely sophisticated. This is a measurement method for determining the weight of cattle. cals.arizona.edu/backyards/sites/cals.arizona.edu.backyards/files/p11-12.pdf
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 9, 2020 18:04:36 GMT -5
I'm sure that I have this posted here ( somewhere ) but after ( hours - days ) searching, I finally found it over in Wildfact by your's truly. About those outlaw grizzlies, the cattle and sheep killers of the American West. Notorious Grizzly Bears by W.P. Hubbard - 1960 - Pelage and Character - Weight. A safe estimate of the average weight of adult grizzlies in our western states would be about eight hundred and fifty pounds. This conclusion results from a careful check on grizzlies killed and weighed by numerous hunters, trappers, and old-time bear men. Nevertheless, there are exceptions. Several outlaw grizzlies investigated were known to have weighed over one thousand pounds. ( These outlaw grizzlies were hunted and killed before the Boone and Crockett Club established the idea of preserving bear skulls ). *Average historical grizzly of the American West: 850 pounds. William P. Hubbard was the "grizzly expert" of his time; but I believe that his estimation was high ( being the weight of an Alaskan peninsula brown bear ). However, I do believe those "old bison hunters" to be larger than the Rocky Mountain grizzlies of Wyoming and Montana.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 16, 2020 12:39:55 GMT -5
Quote from Warsaw: The problem is that we don't know exactly what "large brown bears" mean .Right now, we have very little information from old/recent literature.There is no exact description Without any addidional data (i.e morphometry...) the world "large"mean nothing. And this is clear example Bromley state that "large males" of black bears have a body length of 150 cm.Paradoxically the same author shows that mean body length is 164 cm .So awerage male black bear is > than "large" male (150 cm) black bear" carnivora.net/siberian-tiger-v-ussuri-brown-bear-t8294-s2895.html
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Dec 24, 2020 6:19:45 GMT -5
Revision on the weight of Siberian tigersIn this posts I will take a closer look at the reliable weight data available for Siberian tigers using Guate Gojira's two tables including specimens of the past and present; so let me share those two tables for you below: What I will do first is calculating the total average of all individuals using these two tables: (190*23)+(216.5*10)/33 is the formula I am going to use as this would determine the actual total average; this leads me to a weight of ~198.06kg (~436.65lbs) for the male Siberian tiger. Now Guate had a weight of 203kg in his size comparison graphic but he used a different approach; he took the median of both average figures, it would look like that in terms of a formula: (190+216.5)/2 = 203.25kg = 203kg rounded off.In my opinion that approach isn't really suitable at all as one has to expect both samples to be absolutely stable when increasing the sample size for one part and as that number doesn't represent the actual average number recorded for the specimens in the list. So the weight figures would be: Contemporary Siberian Tiger: 190.04kg (419lbs; n=23) Historical Siberian Tiger: 216.49kg (477.28lbs; n=10) Total Average of all reliably weighed Siberian Tigers: 198.06kg (436.65lbs; n=33)
|
|