|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 1, 2017 19:44:44 GMT -5
Arctodus simus  |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on May 2, 2017 17:26:57 GMT -5
www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/a/arctodus.html The skeleton also reveals hints to both the travelling and predatory ability of Arctodus, with special reference to the long limbs. These could be seen as giving Arctodus a significant reach advantage that allowed it to swipe at prey animals, but the problem here is that first Arctodus would have to get close enough to its prey to do this. In terms of speed the long legs with their broad strides are thought to have given Arctodus a top speed approaching fifty kilometres an hour, something that would have seen it able to comfortably match most of the available prey species. However these same legs are proportionally much thinner than they are in other running animals, and are considered too fragile to be able to support a heavy animal like Arctodus if it made a sharp turn when running at speed. This could mean an injury such as a break or dislocation that probably would have been serious enough to cause the death of the injured bear as it could no longer move about. But it is actually these long legs that further support the scavenger theory as since they are lightweight they would not require a great amount of effort to move. Additionally the long sweeping arc of the feet meant that Arctodus could comfortably cover more ground with each step, making locomotion such as walking or even running extremely energy efficient. This means that Arctodus could cover territories that spanned several hundred square kilometres on a reduced amount of food than would be required by a dedicated predator. This is a vital survival adaptation when you consider that a scavenger does not know when or where its next meal is coming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 8, 2019 13:34:35 GMT -5
www.researchgate.net/figure/Representative-teeth-of-the-Rainbow-River-Arctodus-simus-UF-216950-1-R-c1-2-R_fig2_250071137 ... The maxillary teeth of Arctodus are distinguished from those of Ursus based on the protocone in P4 at a more anterior position than in Ursus, in the presence of an enamel ridge that extends between the apices of the paracone and metacone forming a shearing blade on P4, and by molars that are relatively short and broad in Arctodus ( Merriam and Stock, 1925;Kurté n, 1967). Larger, wider, and more crowded teeth, as well as molar proportions differentiate A. simus from A. pristinus (Kurté n, 1967;Kurté n and Anderson, 1980;Emslie, 1995;Schubert et al., 2010). Because A. pristinus is restricted in time to no later than the middle Pleistocene (Emslie, 1995;Schubert et al., 2010), and to a geographic range in eastern North America (Kurté n, 1967) and Central Mexico (Dalquest and Mooser, 1980), we regard the Arctodus specimens described above as too young and too distant from the geographic range of A. pristinus to be assignable to that species. ... ... Larger, wider, and more crowded teeth, as well as molar proportions differentiate A. simus from A. pristinus (Kurté n, 1967;Kurté n and Anderson, 1980;Emslie, 1995;Schubert et al., 2010). Because A. pristinus is restricted in time to no later than the middle Pleistocene (Emslie, 1995;Schubert et al., 2010), and to a geographic range in eastern North America (Kurté n, 1967) and Central Mexico (Dalquest and Mooser, 1980), we regard the Arctodus specimens described above as too young and too distant from the geographic range of A. pristinus to be assignable to that species. ... ... The ecology of giant short-faced bears informs their occurrence at the fossil locality. Typically characterized as an open adapted species (Kurté n and Anderson, 1980;Harington, 1973;Matheus, 2003;Churcher et al., 1993;Richards et al., 1996), the distribution of giant short-faced bears indicates its occupation of diverse settings ( Schubert et al., 2010). Even though these bears were not restricted to open areas and could occur in different environments, the timing of the regional shift from an open pine woodland habitat to a densely forested vegetation regime with the occurrence of the giant short-faced bear remains at Pellucidar Cave implies that these vegetation changes contributed to the local extirpation of this species. ...   
|
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Dec 28, 2019 3:28:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 28, 2019 5:08:10 GMT -5
I had discovered this information once; then misplaced it. Thank you for finding it Americanus.
Yes at size-parity, a grizzly could probably out-wrestle a short-faced bear. This is further evidence that the giant was not a hunter.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Dec 28, 2019 5:29:12 GMT -5
Even a polar bear can out wrestle a giant short faced bear at size and weight parity. The short faced bear is surprisingly not as heavily built as other bears yet they are still large enough to displace smilodons.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 28, 2019 5:42:13 GMT -5
Even a polar bear can out wrestle a giant short faced bear at size and weight parity. The short faced bear is surprisingly not as heavily built as other bears yet they are still large enough to displace smilodons. Arctodus simus is not as robust as a bear of the genus Ursus at size-parity - but there are no bears at size-parity with the GIANT.  |
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 28, 2019 6:07:39 GMT -5
Even a polar bear can out wrestle a giant short faced bear at size and weight parity. The short faced bear is surprisingly not as heavily built as other bears yet they are still large enough to displace smilodons. Arctodus simus is not as robust as a bear of the genus Ursus at size-parity - but there are no bears at size-parity with the GIANT.
domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/547/pleistocene-steppe-bear |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 28, 2019 7:34:27 GMT -5
Thats partly true, Simus was taller, but dont forget that largest bear ever of the genus Ursus, the Steppe brown bear, who weighted up to 2200 lbs. If these weight estimates are correct as is recorded on several online sites, and possibly equaled only among Ursus bears by Ursus Kanivetz / Ursus Ingressus, then I would wager all of my worldly goods on the grizzly in a face-off against the giant. I wish we could find some data from an actual scientific study - just to verify. |
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Dec 28, 2019 16:25:28 GMT -5
Thats partly true, Simus was taller, but dont forget that largest bear ever of the genus Ursus, the Steppe brown bear, who weighted up to 2200 lbs. If these weight estimates are correct as is recorded on several online sites, and possibly equaled only among Ursus bears by Ursus Kanivetz / Ursus Ingressus, then I would wager all of my worldly goods on the grizzly in a face-off against the giant. I wish we could find some data from an actual scientific study - just to verify. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 12, 2020 2:52:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jan 15, 2020 1:03:24 GMT -5
Arctodus simus is not as robust as a bear of the genus Ursus at size-parity - but there are no bears at size-parity with the GIANT.
domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/547/pleistocene-steppe-bearNot just the steppe brown bear. There are records of 1800 to 2200 pound Kodiak bears sadly shot by hunters as well as the 2200 pound polar bear also shot by hunters. |
|
