|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Dec 29, 2019 1:12:34 GMT -5
Credited to Tonatiuh from Carnivora.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 29, 2019 2:10:43 GMT -5
Drawing by W. Gornig: According to W. Gornig, the Steppe bear ( Pleistocene European brown bear ) was bigger than the biggest cave bear. Who is W. Gornig? But no doubt that the Steppe bear was huge and as big if not bigger than any cave bear in Pleistocene Europe. While the cave bears were mostly vegetarian, the Steppe bear was mostly carnivorous. The bear mistakenly named, Ursus maritimus tyrannus ( tyrant sea bear ) was probably from a population of the Steppe bears. His drawing is probably based on this fact.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Dec 29, 2019 2:24:13 GMT -5
Cave bear vs cave lion. Bear killed the lion. At minute 1:40 it is stated that the ice age “favored power over speed” one of the people who made this recreation was a Paleontology expert.
The cave lion actually initiated the attack by ambush yet still failed to kill the bear. It is dangerous therefore for a big cat to attack a larger bear even by ambush because of its more flexible forearms which helps when it comes to grappling.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 29, 2019 2:38:41 GMT -5
Cave bear vs cave lion. Bear killed the lion. The "Animal Face-Off" TV show also had, "American Lion vs Giant Short-Faced Bear" and "Tiger vs Grizzly". This show always had experts for both animals and after feeding information into the computer - let the computer decide. In all three scenario's the bear was victorious.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 29, 2019 2:41:53 GMT -5
Credited to Tonatiuh from Carnivora. Skulls of ? - ( I assume Ursus Ingressus is one of them )
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Dec 29, 2019 3:21:32 GMT -5
The bigger skull is Ursus Ingressus while the smaller skull is Ursus Artos.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 29, 2019 3:35:48 GMT -5
Verdugo How did you get this? Did you take this with your camera when you went to the museum or did it come from certain websites? (it it was the latter, can you link me to the website?) Do we have more information on this specimen or this is all we have? I'm still a bit cautious with the figures here simply because they are unbelievably high and they are not from peer-reviewed sources. Yes, i never heard of a skull of this size in literatures. It's larger than the largest Arctodus simus's skull that i know of, both in Skull length and Mastoid width. For example, Figueirido 2010 Supplementary Table 2S. The largest Arctodus skull in the study, FM 30492: Greatest skull length: 496 mm Mastoid Width: 242.7 mm Or Ottawa Naturalist 1911, Arctodus simus specimen 'Actotherium yukonense'. See page 24: Greatest skull length: 506 mm Mastoid width: 240 mm Assuming the measurements of the Cave bear skull are legit, i can't really see a Bear with a skull of that size weighing less than 1 tonne. The Arctodus simus skulls i listed here are already 1 tonne candidates and they are still not quite as large as the Cave bear skull here.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 18, 2021 17:39:19 GMT -5
palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-2-articles/263-cave-bears-from-poland ABSTRACT The vast majority of fossil remains in Late Pleistocene deposits from Niedźwiedzia Cave in Kletno, Sudetes, Poland, belong to the cave bear. Phylogenetic analyses based on a fragment of the mitochondrial D-loop region extracted from two cave bear samples unambiguously showed their close relationship with the Ursus ingressus haplogroup. This taxonomic affiliation of the cave bear remains from Niedźwiedzia Cave was further confirmed by biometrical analyses of molar teeth and skulls. Our results represent the first record of U. ingressus north of the Carpathian Arch, while radiocarbon dating (> 49,000 yr BP) of the samples indicates that they represent some of the oldest specimens of this cave bear taxon known so far. Multi-method phylogenetic analyses including numerous publicly available cave bear sequences allowed analysing the relationships among these samples in details, including the significance of particular clades, and discussing some aspects of cave bear phylogeography. The sequences of U. ingressus from Poland are most closely related to specimens from the Ural Mountains and next to Slovenia, which may indicate migrations between Central and Eastern European populations. The internal placement of Ural samples among European specimens in phylogenetic trees and the older age of Polish samples than those from Urals suggest that the eastward expansion of U. ingressus may have started from Central Europe. palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-2-articles/127-301/269-cave-bears-from-poland-figures#f5
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Feb 19, 2021 8:40:34 GMT -5
Ursus ingressus was a large Cave bear with massive, bulky limbs. It was larger than Ursus spelaeus, which has been estimated to weigh an average of 350 to 600 kg (770 to 1,320 lb) (male specimen). Some studies have suggested the Gamssulzen Cave bear to have been herbivorous, living of vegetation with little contribution of grass. Other studies proposed Ursus ingressus to have been an omnivore, with participation of terrestrial and more likely aquatic animal protein, that exceeds the participation of animal protein in the diet of the modern Brown bear (Ursus arctos). However it has also been suggested, that the feeding habits of cave bears can vary heavily depending on the environment If it’s skeletal growth reaches its peak between 11 to 14 years old like the European cave bear, it’s true weights would exceed its weight listed down.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on May 13, 2021 4:21:22 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursus_ingressus Ursus ingressus was a large cave bear with massive, bulky limbs. It was larger than Ursus spelaeus, which has been estimated to weigh an average of 350 to 600 kg (770 to 1,320 lb) (male specimen). *We are looking at an average weight possibly exceeding 1,000 pounds - an Ursus bear that rivals the giant short-faced bears in weight.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 11, 2021 11:54:56 GMT -5
Really nice Nocap. 1048 kilograms is equal to 2,310.44 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 21, 2021 5:00:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 21, 2021 7:22:44 GMT -5
prehistoric-fauna.com/Ursus-ingressus Although cave bears were omnivores, the main direction of their adaptation was an increase in the consumption of a variety of plant foods, mainly herbaceous ones, which expanded the biological capabilities of the bear group. Inhabiting various landscapes - from northern forest and steppe to Mediterranean forest-steppe, in the mountains it rose to the alpine belt. The most favorable for the species were obviously mosaic forest and forest-steppe biotopes, especially in rough terrain, where animals found a variety of food and shelter. In the cold steppes, tundra and tundra in northern Europe, the cave bear was encountered sporadically. The structural features of the skull (strong cranial ridges, widely spaced zygomatic arches, etc.) and large molars indicate the development of a powerful chewing apparatus, which allowed the cave bear to grind the plant mass, which had abrasive properties. In the structure of the limbs, he has a shortening of the metacarpal and metatarsal bones in comparison with those of the brown fellow, which is evidence of his low speed performance. The development of the structure of the forepaws is characteristic, which can indicate a tendency to dig up underground parts of plants. In addition, the data on the vegetarianism of U. spelaeus are consistent with the nature of its distribution. The omnivorous cave bear undoubtedly consumed less animal feed than the brown bear. The listed features of U. spelaeus make it possible to reproduce it as a pasture animal feeding on herbaceous flora, including underground parts, as well as buds, young shoots of shrubs, berries, nuts, etc. It could get honey, ants, larvae, small vertebrates, consume a variety of carrion. A large and mobile nose indicates a well-developed sense of smell, which facilitated the search for food, including under the soil surface. The food spectrum, like that of modern bears, varied seasonally and regionally. The cave bear was distributed from England and Spain in the west to the Northern Urals and the North Caucasus in the east. By the end of the period of maximum cooling, its number, judging by the decrease in the abundance of bone remains in the caves, began to decline. The extinction of the species, most likely, was facilitated by the harsh conditions of the last glaciation, which intensified competition for winter shelters and food resources with the brown bear and primitive man. All this also applies to U, ingressus , the finds of which are concentrated in the south and east of Europe. It differed from an ordinary cave bear by an even more convex skull and slightly smaller size.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 21, 2021 7:33:45 GMT -5
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5059403/ Introduction: The extinction of large-bodied mammals (called megafauna) is one of the most characteristic and inherent features of the Late Pleistocene. The disappearance began 50,000 years ago and affected a substantial number of mammalian genera, e.g. 36 % of them in Eurasia, 72 % in North America and 83 % in South America (Barnosky et al. 2004). Both the climate and environment changes, as well as human influence, are believed to be the main causes of this extinction (Barnosky et al. 2004; Cooper et al. 2015; Koch and Barnosky 2006; Lorenzen et al. 2011; Stuart 2015). The climate shift was sufficient to explain the fauna transformation in some cases, but in others, a combination of climatic and anthropogenic effects was most probably responsible for this phenomenon (Cooper et al. 2015; Lorenzen et al. 2011). A typical representative of megafauna is the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus sensu lato), which was one of the most widespread mammals in Eurasia in the Late Pleistocene. It evolved from Middle Pleistocene Ursus deningeri and developed into several forms which can be distinguished at morphological and genetic levels. Two main European forms in the species rank, which diverged probably between 414,000 and 173,000 years ago, were identified as Ursus ingressus, which inhabited south-eastern and central Europe as well as the Ural (Baca et al. 2014; Rabeder et al. 2004b), and U. spelaeus, which lived mainly in western Europe, although its remains were found also in the Altai (Knapp et al. 2009; Rabeder et al. 2004b). According to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, U. ingressus should, however, be called Ursus kanivetz, because under the latter name a bear from Medvezhiya Cave in the Ural was first described by Vereshchagin (1973) (see also Baryshnikov and Puzachenko (2011)). Further studies of ancient DNA showed that the haplotype from Medvezhiya Cave is clustered with others from Europe, described as U. ingressus (Baca et al. 2012; Knapp et al. 2009). Additionally, two small cave bear forms that had preserved some primitive traits were distinguished as subspecies of U. spelaeus: U. spelaeus eremus and U. spelaeus ladinicus (Rabeder and Hofreiter 2004; Rabeder et al. 2004a). Their distribution was confined to the high alpine caves in Austria and Italy. Recently, another major group of large cave bears from the Caucasus and the Yana River region in eastern Siberia was discovered (Baryshnikov 1998; Knapp et al. 2009). Initially, they were named Ursus deningeri kudarensis, but recent genetic studies suggest that they should be considered a third species, U rsus kudarensis (Stiller et al. 2014). By the end of the Pleistocene, all these cave bear forms were extinct and the causes and timing of this process have been debated over the recent years. Direct radiocarbon dating indicates that the last cave bears became extinct prior to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and disappeared from fossil record quite simultaneously in different parts of Europe about 24,000 14C years before present (BP) (about 28,000 cal. years BP) (Bocherens et al. 2014; Hofreiter et al. 2002; Martini et al. 2014; Pacher and Stuart 2009; Sabol et al. 2014; Wojtal et al. 2015). Paleogenetic analyses showed, nonetheless, that the demise of cave bears started ca. 50,000 radiocarbon years BP (Stiller et al. 2010), thus about 25,000 years before their final extinction. It has been argued that apart from the changing climate (Pacher and Stuart 2009; Stuart and Lister 2007), several other factors contributed to the decline of cave bears. There is compelling evidence for human hunting of cave bears (Münzel et al. 2011; Wojtal et al. 2015), as well as their competition for caves as a shelter (Grayson and Delpech 2003). Possibly, also large carnivores like cave lion (Panthera spelaea) and cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) hunted cave bears while these were hibernating (Bocherens et al. 2011a; Diedrich 2014). The paper reports on, so far, the youngest remains of the cave bear from the Stajnia Cave located in the Częstochowa Upland, Poland. In this region were also found other quite young fossils of this bear in two caves, Komarowa and Deszczowa (Nadachowski et al. 2009; Wojtal 2007; Wojtal et al. 2015). Genetic analyses confirmed beyond doubt the affiliation of this specimen to the cave bear, whereas the direct radiocarbon dating provided the evidence for the survival of this species into the Greenland stadial GS-3. Using this new dating and more than 200 published dates, we estimated the time of cave bear extinction and discussed potential factors of its disappearance and survival in karst regions.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Mar 4, 2023 9:29:05 GMT -5
Is this cave bear more carnivorous than the European cave bear?
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 4, 2023 9:46:11 GMT -5
Is this cave bear more carnivorous than the European cave bear? Yes. The classic cave bear - Ursus spelaeus - is thought to have been almost 100% vegetarian. Ursus-ingressus (also a European cave bear) is believed to have been more omnivorous like a modern brown bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 4, 2023 9:52:50 GMT -5
A New Mass Burial of Cave Bears (Carnivora, Ursidae, Ursus kanivetz, Vereshchagin, 1973) from the Middle Urals link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0012496621030017 Abstract: Remains of a cave bear were studied from a new locality in the Prokoshev Cave in the Middle Urals (58°13´ N, 58°12´ E). Bones from all regions of the skeleton are present, bones are intact and without traces of human or animal activity. They all belong to the cave bear (Ursus kanivetz Vereshchagin, 1973). An AMS radiocarbon date of 53 375 ± 765 BP, IGANAMS–8632, was obtained from an adult mandible. The bones belonged to at least 18 individuals, including 4 individuals aged about one year, 1 aged about two years, 1 aged about three years, and 12 individuals over four years of age. Three skulls belonged to males and seven skulls belonged to females. The analysis has shown that the taphonomic type of this locality is a “mass burial.” This is the first “mass burial” of the cave bear in the Urals, found in situ, untouched by humans. Mass assemblages of carnivores not associated with human activity (the “mass burial” taphonomic type) are rare in the Late Pleistocene. Known examples include such assemblages of cave lions (Panthera leo spelaea Goldfuss, 1810), wolves, the small cave bear (U. savini Andrews, 1922) and the brown bear (U. arctos L., 1758). The most common localities of this type are cave assemblages of the greater cave bear (Ursus spelaeus sensu lato) formed as a result of death during hibernation. Studies of such localities yield unique information on the ecology and biology of these species. Several caves with large numbers of cave bear bones are known from the Urals. None of the taphocenoses in all of these caves remained intact; all of them had been altered by human activity prior to the study. The Prokoshev Cave, dealt with in this article, is a new cave bear “mass burial.” It is unique in preserving the assemblage in situ, because it had not been visited by humans prior to its discovery. The site thus offers an opportunity to study an undisturbed cave bear “mass burial.” The cave was named after N.A. Prokoshev, an archaeologist who studied caves along the Chusovaya River in the 1930s and died during the Second World War. Prokoshev Cave is located in the Chusovaya River basin, Middle Urals (58°13´ N, 58°12´ E). It is karstic in origin and has a mixed structure: a 100-m corridor ends in a cliff 8 m in depth and then passes into a large chamber with branches. The floor of the chamber is covered with limestone blocks and boulders with spaces between them filled with viscous brown loam. The “mass burial” is located in the large chamber. Bear bones lie on the surface of the floor and are partly or completely submerged in the loam. The bones are rather evenly distributed on the surface of the floor. No bones are anatomically connected. Chamber floor contains no traces of human stay. The bones were collected from the cave floor, without extracting them from the loam. Sixty-four cave bear bones were collected (IPAE UD RAS, no. 2726): 13 skulls, 3 mandibles, 9 isolated teeth, 2 vertebrae, 5 ribs, 1 scapula, 4 pelvic bones, 3 humeri, 2 radii, 6 ulnae, 3 femora, 5 tibiae, 3 tarsals, 3 metapodials, and 2 phalanges. All the bones were intact, although several of the skulls and postcranial bones had some damage from water condensation. Bones had no bite or cut marks. ________________________ Details given on site provided:
|
|