|
Size
Mar 26, 2017 5:16:07 GMT -5
Post by brobear on Mar 26, 2017 5:16:07 GMT -5
I.5 meters = 4 feet 11 inches high at the shoulders. 1000 kg = 2205 pounds.
|
|
|
Size
Mar 27, 2017 12:34:24 GMT -5
Post by brobear on Mar 27, 2017 12:34:24 GMT -5
The giant cave bear Ursus spelaeus compared to the Kodiak grizzly ... or the Pleistocene grizzly of Europe ( same size ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Size
Sept 11, 2018 18:20:55 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2018 18:20:55 GMT -5
I read somewhere on a site that the cave bear were around the size of the largest kodiak bears we have today. How big were the cave lions though?
|
|
|
Size
Sept 12, 2018 1:03:22 GMT -5
Post by brobear on Sept 12, 2018 1:03:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Size
Sept 12, 2018 17:45:46 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2018 17:45:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Size
Sept 14, 2018 3:41:39 GMT -5
Post by brobear on Sept 14, 2018 3:41:39 GMT -5
Neither can I post pictures on this site. Cave lions were pretty-much in the same size range as American lions - huge! Fyi, cave lions hunted bear cubs but sometimes ended up in a fight with "Mama Bear". There is no evidence of cave lions fighting with adult cave bear boars.
|
|
|
Size
Sept 14, 2018 3:51:16 GMT -5
Post by brobear on Sept 14, 2018 3:51:16 GMT -5
www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/p/panthera-leo-spelaea.html Name: Panthera leo spelaea. Phonetic: Pan-fee-rah lee-oh spe-lay-ah. Named By: Georg August Goldfuss - 1810. Classification: Chordata, Mammalia, Carnivora, Felidae, Panthera. Species: Panthera leo spelaea. Diet: Carnivore. Size: 1.2 meters high at the shoulder, 2.1 meters long, but some remains indicate a slightly larger size. Known locations: Across Eurasia. Time period: Late Ionian to Tarantian of Pleistocene. Sometimes noted to have survived into the Holocene till about 1 CE. Fossil representation: Multiple specimens. Like its close cousin the American lion (Panthera leo atrox) the Eurasian cave lion currently has a disputed position amongst other members of the Panthera genus. Once considered a specific species in its own right the Eurasian cave lion is today more widely treated as a sub species of the African lion (Panthera leo). The Eurasian cave lion has also been considered as a sub species of tiger (Panthera tigris), although this thinking is not commonly accepted today. Despite the disputed placement of the Eurasian cave lion, palaeontologists do tend to agree that it evolved from the older Panthera leo fossilis. Interestingly Panthera leo fossilis was actually larger than the European cave lion (although a touch smaller than the American lion). Usually animals get larger with successive generations unless ecological factors come into play such as reduction of available food or prey for a species. The Eurasian cave lion got its more common name from the large number of its remains that have been found in caves. However the result is actually a bit of a misnomer as the Eurasian cave lion is also known from other locations and seems to have been very tolerant of the cold as long as there was sufficient prey to hunt. However they would also enter caves and its thought that they may have done so to steal away cave bear cubs (Ursus spelaeus) as well as feed on weak hibernating individuals. Isotope analysis of collagen of the Eurasian cave lion does support the idea that at least some populations regularly ate young cave bears, as well as large amounts of reindeer. Isotope analysis works upon the principal that herbivorous animals (the cave bear is thought to be primarily herbivorous, occasionally omnivorous) absorb certain isotopes that vary according to what plants they eat, and in turn this isotopes are passed on to the predators that eat them. Higher amounts of certain isotopes can be corroborated to certain animals indicating a potential prey preference. This predation may be why so many remains of lions have been found inside caves as inevitably some of the cave bears would fight back, including those woken from their slumber as well as mother bears protecting their cubs. The Eurasian cave lion was not the only large predator across northern Eurasia with the scimitar-toothed cat Homotherium and the cave hyeana also actively hunting prey. However both Homotherium and Cave hyena were hunters of the open plains that seem to have had a preference for targeting large prey like woolly mammoths and woolly rhinos (such as Coelodonta). The Eurasian cave lion however seems to have hunted in more densely covered areas like forests which were populated by deer and had increased amounts of cover to allow them to use ambush tactics. As such while all of these predators were active in these continents at the same time, they operated in different ecosystems which would have reduced competition between them. While most of the large mammalian predators seem to have disappeared with the sudden absence of large prey at the end of the Pleistocene, it’s harder to be certain about the cave lion. Some evidence suggests that they continued to live in small populations in South-eastern Europe for almost a further ten thousand years, although most of the known remains do not extend past the Pleistocene. Another argument to suggest late survival is that if reindeer did indeed form a large part of the diet of cave lions, then their prey source did not disappear. Conversely however, the decline in other creatures such as cave bears would suggest that cave lions could have only existed in smaller populations. Regardless of the actual date that Eurasian cave lions finally disappeared, their final demise probably came about through increased competition with new predators, specifically wolves and early humans. As the Pleistocene ended, most of the open plains were replaced with forests that the existing megafauna were not adapted to which led to their disappearance. Eurasian cave lions seem to have been at home in this environment so the change should have suited them to become more successful. However wolves were also suited to this habitat, but were previously restricted in their distribution because of the earlier expanse of plains. No longer facing these barriers they could more easily spread out and hunt the same prey that the cave lions were hunting. Unless prey is incredibly numerous, no two predators can co-exist by hunting the same prey in the same ecosystem, and eventually one would give. Whereas the Eurasian cave lion was a much larger and more powerful predator, wolves do not require as much food to feed their smaller bodies. Additionally wolves use completely different hunting tactics to hunt food. Lions hunt by ambush because they cannot outrun a fast animal like a deer in a straight race, they are just not built for it as while their proportionately shorter legs are better at acceleration, their top speed is capped at a lower velocity due to the limits of their leg stride. As such lion hunting behaviour is more about conserving energy, whereas wolves are all about the expenditure of energy. A pack of wolves will deliberately force a herd of deer to run so that they can pick out the slower and weaker individuals. They will then use their numbers and greater endurance to keep harassing their target until it becomes too weak to go on. With wolves counting on energetic tactics like this, they could afford to be reckless, and still get a greater gain when they were successful, both advantages that the cave lion did not have. The third element to this predatory equation is human hunters that also would have been hunting the same animals that both cave lions and wolves were going after. Human hunters had the best advantages of all which included tailor made weapons, the intelligence to use them, and most of all, adaptability to different problems. The inclusion of cave lions in cave art proves that early humans had contact with them, and just like in Africa today this contact may have at times been a life and death struggle between humans and lions. In terms of physical ability a lion can easily kill an unarmed person, but when there are several people armed with weapons and working together the lion has no chance. How much conflict occurred between the Eurasian cave lion and early humans remains a controversial subject as fossil material of both lions and humans together can be interpreted in more than one way. However early people do seem to have held cave lions in high regard from their inclusion in cave art and like the cave bear, they may have formed a part of early rituals. It is also thanks to the early humans that we know a little bit more about the life appearance of the Eurasian cave lion that would be impossible to ascertain from just the bones. These features include the presence of manes in what are presumably males, tufts on the end of the tails and round fluffy ears, the latter likely an adaptation to protect these extremities to the cold conditions. The art has also been interpreted as having faint stripes running down the body which actually would have been a good adaptation since cave lions would have likely been using trees and shrubs more for cover rather than skulking in long grass like their African relatives. Additionally cave art has shown several lions hunting together which suggests that the people who created the art observed cave lions hunting in prides.
|
|
|
Size
Sept 14, 2018 3:56:55 GMT -5
Post by brobear on Sept 14, 2018 3:56:55 GMT -5
Shoulder height comparison: Cave Lion 1.2 m ( 4 feet ) Cave Bear 1.69 m ( 5 feet 6 inches ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Size
Sept 14, 2018 11:31:52 GMT -5
Polar likes this
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 11:31:52 GMT -5
Neither can I post pictures on this site. Cave lions were pretty-much in the same size range as American lions - huge! Fyi, cave lions hunted bear cubs but sometimes ended up in a fight with "Mama Bear". There is no evidence of cave lions fighting with adult cave bear boars. Nice information. I think they found bones of cave lions found in caves where cave bears used to reside.
|
|
|
Size
Sept 14, 2018 13:11:05 GMT -5
Polar likes this
Post by brobear on Sept 14, 2018 13:11:05 GMT -5
There is strong evidence of bear/lion interaction. Against a grown bear, the lions did poorly. But adult she-bears were sometimes killed; Numbers! This was taking place during a time when easier prey was scarce. Same scenario as one particular pride of lions in Africa hunting elephants due to easier prey being too scarce. Cave lions were bigger than modern lions but cave bears were bigger than Kodiak bears.
|
|
|
Size
Mar 16, 2020 5:03:50 GMT -5
Post by King Kodiak on Mar 16, 2020 5:03:50 GMT -5
Body size variability in cave bears from the Southern Alps During the Last Glacial, the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus Rosenmüller, 1794) was widely spread in Europe from the Atlantic coast to the Ural Mountains. Th e vast numbers of its remains found in caves have enabled scholars to obtain a fairly complete picture of its geographical distribution, anatomy, evolution and pathology. In spite of this wealth of cave bear remains, however, many important aspects of its palaeobiology remain poorly understood. One such aspect regards the reason behind the diachronic variations in body size, which are usually linked to sexual dimorphism, polytypism, continual or clinal geographic variation and continual intraspecifi c variability. Th is paper is aimed at further clarifying the diachronic variations in cave bear body size by studying the material originating from the Southern Alps. Th e results of the study showed that oscillations in temperature and humidity might have been one of the main factors infl uencing the size variability of cave bears of each sex excavated at the studied sites, with individuals originating from colder (and possibly also damper) periods having been larger. Such a conclusion is in line with the biology of extant brown and black bears and is linked by the authors to the supposed prolongation of the energy-saving dormancy period in harsher climates. .. These data correspond to results of the study of strontium isotope ratios ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) in U. spelaeus dentin and enamel (Ábelová 2006) that suggests limited movement of bears during their lifetime. This feature of behavior, which can lead to constrains of gene flow, and other environmental factors (height above sea level of habitat, orography, climate evolution), as well as evolutionary trends may act as a factors of high individual and group morphological variability of cave bears in different sites , Carlis et al. 2005, Toškan 2006, Toškan and Bona 2012, Krajcarz et al. 2016, Robu 2016, and others). ... ... Hind limbs proportions are largely uniform across mammals in comparison with the high degree of variability in forelimb proportions, which is dependent on adaptations ( Schmidt and Fischer 2009). Therefore, from an evolutionary perspective, morphology of hind paws in bears is probably more conservative, while forepaw anatomy varies greatly, depending on specific adaptations to local environmental conditions , Toškan and Bona 2012. ... .. It has been also found that sites of the same age are geographically grouped with regards to cave bear dental measurements. This phenomenon may be explained by regional peculiarities in the bear diet ( Taboda et al. 2001;Baryshnikov et al. 2003Baryshnikov et al. , 2004Bocherens et al. 2014;Robu et al. 2018), as well as by other environmental factors (elevation of habitat above sea level, physiography, and climate evolution; Jambre si c & Paunovi c 2002; Athen et al. 2005;de Carlis et al. 2005;To skan 2006;Rabeder et al. 2008Rabeder et al. , 2010Rabeder et al. , 2011To skan & Bona 2012;Krajcarz et al. 2016; Robu 2016), and/or by philopatria that suggests limited movement of bears during their lifetime that imposes constraints on the gene flow ( Abelov a 2006; Fortes et al. 2016). Most studies of cave bear tooth morphology and morphometry, as well as those of their skull and postcranial elements, are based on geographically restricted material. ... www.researchgate.net/publication/273699464_Body_size_variability_in_cave_bears_from_the_Southern_Alps
|
|
|
Size
Oct 30, 2020 21:53:04 GMT -5
Post by brobear on Oct 30, 2020 21:53:04 GMT -5
shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/958/body-estimates-short-faced-bears - grrraaahhh - Administrator Christiansen (1999b) used several measurements taken in the proximal limb bones to estimate the mean mass of three specimens of A. simus as ca. 770 kg. Christiansen, P. What size were Arctodus simus and Ursus spelaeus (Carnivora: Ursidae)? Annales Zoologici Fennici [Ann. Zool. Fenn.]. Vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 93-102. 1999. (1999). Personally speaking, I am always interested in sample size specimen details. If we are examining body mass estimates for adult bears, I want to know if we are looking at a young adult or mature adult bear because there's a notable difference in body mass between a bear that is seven years old (a young adult bear) and a bear that is thirteen years old or older (a mature bear) e.g., the Utah Lake Bonville GSFB. Taking a closer look at the GSFB Christiansen (1999b) material, we are told the following specimen details: The calculated equations were used to predict the body masses of Arctodus simus and Ursus spelaeus. The material used of Arctodus simus consists of 4 humeri and 3 femora (Fig. 1) (at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and the Los Angeles County Museum). None had been sexed, but their general large size would indicate that they were males. "Cox (1991) and Scott and Cox (1993) showed that some large specimens were present at Rancho La Brea, but that the measurable sample is skewed towards females (the majority of adult specimens) and adolescent males, where long-bone epiphyses were not fused (S. Cox, pers. comm. to Richards, 26 July 1989; Agenbroad and Mead, 1986; Cox, 1991; Scott and Cox, 1993)." Richards et al. (1996). Sex biased sampling is a concern in GSFB examination. Anyhow, my examination is preliminary, I plan to follow up if possible on relating data for the FHM GSFB specimens and similarly on the LACM specimens but I am in agreement with Figueirido et al. (2010) in that the Christiansen (1999b) sample size was too small.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 30, 2020 21:54:56 GMT -5
Christiansen (continued)
Ursus spelaeus
The cave bear appears to have been rather similar in size to the polar bear and the large species of the brown bear, and it, thus, appears likely that the mass of exceptionally large males may have well exceeded 700 kg.
From Ursus spelaeus, 3 humeri and 3 femora were used from females, and 3 humeri and 4 femora from males (at the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen, and the Museum National d' Histoire Naturelle in Paris).
Again, similar limited sample concern. Moreover, greater specimen detail is desired (are these young adult or mature bears etc). Sexual dimorphism is strong in cave bears and depending on location and time period, some cave bear populations produced larger bears than others. FWIW, Ursus spelaeus data for humeral bone: 324-472.5, femoral - 374-500 mm (Prat, Thibault, 1976). My guess is Christiansen's examination overlaps with these data (as the specimen samples are likely the same housed in Paris). Regrettably, greater humeral & femoral follow up will not occur until possibly post New Year.
BTW, Christiansen (1999b) says the following about Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov:
Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov (1984), on the other hand, suggested that large cave bear males may have reached, or even exceeded, body masses of no less than 1 000 kg.
Here is the actual Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov text:
"The morphological features of U. spelaeus were enormous size and weight (up to 1,000 kg); flat, bunodont molars; a bulging frontal; a powerful sagittal crest; a narrow nasal foramen; and a shortened tibia. These features suggest that the cave bear was less mobile and more vegetarian than the contemporary Ursus arctos L. Ecologically the cave bear was closely tied to caves, in which it lived and bore its young. This behavior turned out to be fatal for the species at the end of the Wurm (Wisconsin). Practically all of its remains have been found in caves; remains are virtually unknown from alluvium, loess, or covering loams."
Vereshchagin. NK & Baryshnikov. GF (1984). Quaternary mammalian extinctions in northern Eurasia. In (PS Martin & RG Klein. Eds) Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 483-516.
I am not sure why Christiansen incorrectly references Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov. Moreover, anyone who is dismissive of G.F. Baryshnikov as it relates to cave bears is not informed. I am not talking about P. Christiansen, rather, I am talking about some of the online/blogger comments I have read over the years. The volume of work Baryshnikov has produced on cave bears especially as it relates to sexual dimorphism is impressive by any measure .
NEXT: SUVI VIRNTA FOLLOW UP.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 30, 2020 21:55:49 GMT -5
*Reply #12: Quote, "Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov (1984), on the other hand, suggested that large cave bear males may have reached, or even exceeded, body masses of no less than 1 000 kg." 1,000 kg = 2,205 pounds. So, both the cave bear and the steppe brown bear may have reached weights within the range of Arctodus simus ( according to some paleontologist ).
|
|
|
Size
Dec 30, 2020 6:38:58 GMT -5
Post by brobear on Dec 30, 2020 6:38:58 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_bear#Description Standing close to 3.5 meters (11.50 ft) tall while rearing up, the cave bear had a very broad, domed skull with a steep forehead. Its stout body had long thighs, massive shins and in-turning feet, making it similar in skeletal structure to the brown bear. Cave bears were comparable in size to the largest modern-day bears. The average weight for males was 350 to 600 kg (770 to 1,320 lb), though some specimens weighed as much as 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), while females weighed 225 to 250 kg (495 to 550 lb). Of cave bear skeletons in museums, 90% are male due to a misconception that the female skeletons were merely "dwarfs". Cave bears grew larger during glaciations and smaller during interglacials, probably to adjust heat loss rate. Cave bears of the last Ice Age lacked the usual two or three premolars present in other bears; to compensate, the last molar is very elongated, with supplementary cusps. The humerus of the cave bear was similar in size to that of the polar bear, as were the femora of females. The femora of male cave bears, however, bore more similarities in size to those of Kodiak
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Jan 1, 2021 11:55:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jan 1, 2021 12:02:13 GMT -5
theundertaker45 That's awesome Taker, great info mate. Remember a short time ago you were arguing that Spelaeus was larger? I know, we didn't have this new info. (Well the info is old actually, we just never paid attention to it). By the way, that source you used up top is the same as this one correct? Well here you can see the bones next to each other:
domainofthebears.proboards.com/post/46708/thread
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Jan 1, 2021 12:07:30 GMT -5
King KodiakThank you for the notification; I really have to look through the older pages of those threads, I am mostly searching scientific portals for information and then don't realize that it has already been posted before. Anyways, this 500mm humerus is absolutely massive and it may indicate that large males of Ursus Ingressus reached and even surpassed the 1000kg mark.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jan 1, 2021 12:15:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Jan 1, 2021 12:22:04 GMT -5
King KodiakYes, they are much longer but remember that those belong to short-faced bears with extremely long forelimbs. If you'd compare a cave bear and a short-faced bear of similar weight, the short-faced bear will definitely have the longer limbs. The largest cave bear humerus that Christiansen and Harris included in their sample measured ~459mm and procuded weight estimations of up to 774kg. If I apply isometric scaling to the Ingressus bone based on the Spelaeus weight estimation, it may have ranged up to 1043kg which would put it in the league of 1000kg+ bears.
|
|