|
Post by brobear on Mar 26, 2017 3:48:46 GMT -5
Here is the skull of a cave bear ( the darker colored picture ) and a modern grizzly bear - Ursus arctos horribilis.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 26, 2017 3:57:24 GMT -5
Ursus deningeri was a more omnivorous giant cave bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 26, 2017 4:20:43 GMT -5
wildfact.com/forum/ Posted by GrizzlyClaws ( a poster I highly respect )... Based on a holotype skull of the Ussuri Brown bear, its canines are 4 inches from a 16 inches skull. Since the Cave bear got the similar proportional canine teeth with the Brown bear, then I assume the largest Cave bear skull (24 inches as a record) should have 6 inches canine teeth.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 26, 2017 4:32:35 GMT -5
A comparison: Arctodus simus ... shoulder height - 185 cm ( 6 feet 1 inch ) ... body length - ? ... weight - 1100 kg ( 2,425 pounds ). Ursus spelaeus ... shoulder height - 1.7 m ( 5 feet 7 inches ) ... body length - 3.5 m ( 11 feet 5 inches ) ... weight 500 kg ( 1,100 pounds ).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 26, 2017 4:50:16 GMT -5
Ursus spelaeus spelaeus - the famous European giant cave bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 26, 2017 5:01:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 26, 2017 6:05:25 GMT -5
Cave Bear
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 28, 2017 9:30:12 GMT -5
sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/cave-bear/ TRANSCRIPT Decoding an ancient cave bear. I’m Bob Hirshon and this is Science Update. A two-ton, thirteen-foot cave bear, extinct for ten thousand years, has just experienced a rebirth of sorts. From a tooth and a bone, scientists have recovered its entire genetic code. Eddy Rubin, director of the Department of Energy’s Joint Genome Institute, says finding genuine cave bear DNA was like looking for a needle in a haystack. Rubin: And the haystack were all the other organisms that were living in the bones and in the tooth of this ancient creature. And the needle was the little bit of the ancient creature’s genome DNA, or genes. They used state-of-the-art computer technology to separate the bear genes from the clutter. Jurassic Park fans should note that they can’t clone a new cave bear, nor can they recover DNA from creatures as old as the dinosaurs. But they do hope to reconstruct the genetic code of Neanderthals, our closest non-human relatives, to better understand how our own species evolved. I’m Bob Hirshon for AAAS, the Science Society. MAKING SENSE OF THE RESEARCH Since the structure of DNA was first described over fifty years ago, scientists have scrambled to put together the complete genetic sequence of everything from viruses to humans. It's a huge undertaking for even a living creature – the Human Genome Project, for example, took 13 years to sequence the complete human genetic code, and that was ahead of schedule. Understanding an organism's complete genetic blueprint is as useful to a biologist as the architectural plans for a building are to an engineer, or the programming code for a piece of software is to a computer technician. But until now, scientists had been unable to sequence the DNA of an extinct organism. The challenge has been collecting it. Like the body itself, DNA begins to decompose at death, so finding intact DNA from a creature that's been extinct for thousands of years is hard enough. But even when small fragments of DNA can be recovered from a fossil, it's mixed up with DNA from all the microorganisms that contaminated the dead body from ancient times to the present. Even the fingerprints of the researchers themselves can leave an overwhelming amount of DNA compared to the tiny traces in a fossil. The researchers got around this problem through brute force. They decided not to bother trying to purify the cave bear DNA in the sample itself. Instead, they ran the cave bear bone samples, junk and all, through a powerful computer program. The computer scanned all of the genetic sequences for fragments of potential cave bear DNA, and separated the data from all the other genetic codes in the sample. How did the computer know what to look for? Well, it turns out that bears, including ancient cave bears, are closely related to dogs – they're about 92 percent similar on the genetic level. And it just so happened that scientists have sequenced the entire dog genome. So the researchers programmed the computer to pull out anything that looked like dog DNA. Since dog DNA looks very different from microbial DNA, the computer could spot the dog-like sequences in the cave bear sample. This technique has its limits. Creatures that are millions, rather than thousands, of years old (like the dinosaurs) are too old and decomposed for this kind of reconstruction. However, there are plenty of more recent specimens to study, including extinct relatives of humans. Candidates include Neanderthals and the Flores Man, an 18,000-year-old offshoot of the human ancestor Homo erectus. Although very human-like, these hominid species aren't direct ancestors of modern humans, but rather are branches of our family tree that hit dead ends and went extinct. By comparing these species to modern humans, scientists may figure out what made our genetic line succeed while others failed.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 22, 2017 6:57:42 GMT -5
The Most Bearish of Bears
|
|
|
Post by brobear on May 18, 2017 17:56:26 GMT -5
shaggygod.proboards.com/ First posted by Grraahh.... As I stated in the Cranial Bioengineering & Extant Bears thread, measuring a bear's bite force is a complex matter. IMO, this also applies to the Eurasian cave bear. Based on the Thomason (1991) dry skull method, quite a few people are familiar with the following bite force related paper on the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus Rosenmüller): Abstract In this paper, I have made a theoretical calculation of the Cave bear's bite force (BF) following the dry skull method and I present for the first time BF data that can be of interest to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the dietary choice of the Cave bears. In the skulls studied, males show higher BF than females in absolute terms, but more similar with regard to their body mass, which partly compensates for the smaller size of the females. The whole sample studied shows lower BF in the upper carnassial than those of large cats, similar to the one calculated for the Giant panda and higher than that of Polar bear. Aurora Grandal-d’Anglade (2010). Bite force of the extinct Pleistocene Cave bear Ursus spelaeus Rosenmüller from Europe. Comptes Rendus Palevol, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 31-37. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S163106830900133X However, another 2010 paper explains the following: Abstract: The diet of the cave bear group (Ursus spelaeus) has been debated extensively. Traditionally, U. spelaeus was thought to be herbivorous, but more recently studies have shown that it was potentially omnivorous. Presented here is a preliminary study using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics on mandibles of U. spelaeus and its congeners. Multivariate analyses of variance indicate the allometric nature of sexual dimorphism. Principal component analyses and analyses of variance reveal the relationship between morphology and diet in the mandible of extant bears, displaying a gradient from carnivory to herbivory; U. spelaeus is found at the herbivorous extreme, supporting the hypothesis that cave bears were highly herbivorous. The position of the masseteric fossa in U. spelaeus indicates large bite forces necessary for the mastication of tough plant materials. U. americanus has a mandible shape which may reflect previous selection pressures. The necessity of correcting for allometry is shown by comparing the results for corrected and uncorrected data. "The size and position of the masseteric fossa, which has not been used in geometric morphometric studies of cave bear mandibles until now, has proven to be an important aspect of mandibular functional morphology. The masseteric fossa in cave bears, as compared to modern members of the genus Ursus, is located relatively dorso-posteriorly. This position of the masseteric fossa gives the jaw muscles more power, which may be associated with the consumption of tough plant materials." Van Heteren, AH, MacLarnon, A, Rae, TC and Soligo, C. (2010) Cave bears and their closest living relatives: a 3D geometric morphometrical approach to the functional morphology of the cave bear Ursus spelaeus. Acta Carsologica Slovaca 47, 33-46. PDF LINK: www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cave%20bears%20and%20their%20closest%20living%20relatives%3A%20a%203d%20geometric%20morphometrical%20approach%20to%20the%20functional%20morphology%20of%20the%20cave%20bear%20ursus%20spelaeus.&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssj.sk%2Fpdf%2FACS_47_S1%2FACS_47_S104.pdf&ei=Qz-5Tv24MaLM2AXO_IDOBw&usg=AFQjCNHs--1EuMrv2KmeujnQRkkdHr0NHA&cad=rja
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 12, 2018 16:21:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 18, 2018 15:46:24 GMT -5
www.sci-news.com/paleontology/cave-bear-biology-05195.html Research Sheds New Light on Biology of Extinct Cave Bear Sep 5, 2017 by Enrico de Lazaro According to new research from the University of Zürich, the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) — one of the biggest bear species in history — had an unusually small brain relative to its body size. The cave bear was a massive omnivore that lived in Europe during the Pleistocene epoch and became extinct approximately 25,000 years ago. Despite their name, cave bears didn’t actually live in caves but only used them for hibernation. Nevertheless, the occasional death of animals in various caves in Europe over several tens of thousands of years eventually led to enormous accumulations of bones and teeth. The animal weighed between 500 and 1,100 pounds (225-500 kg), was 8.9-11.5 feet (2.7-3.5 m) long and up to 5.6 feet (1.7 m) at the shoulder. The massive grinding molars and nitrogen-isotope data from its bones indicate that the cave bear was primarily herbivorous, with foliage its main dietary staple. Cave bears and people likely encountered one another occasionally. Most paleontologists think that the cave bears fell victim to the profound environmental changes following the glaciers’ withdrawal from Europe rather than human hunting. Collecting data on relative brain size for present-day and extinct bears, University of Zürich paleontologist Kristof Veitschegger found that the cave bear had an unusually small brain relative to its body size. “Zoologists use a measure known as the encephalization quotient (EQ) to express this ratio,” Veitschegger explained. “I collected and investigated a dataset of 412 brain and body size estimates based on the skulls of 10 extant and extinct bear species,” he said. “EQ of cave bears is significantly lower than that of most other species. Cave bears exhibit an EQ of 0.60, which is considerably lower than the one of brown bears (0.83) or the one of Malayan sun bears (1.31).” Veitschegger interprets this as evidence that the increase in body size during the evolution of the cave bear did not correlate with change in brain size. However, the proportionately small brain may also reflect a less energy-rich diet — as other bears consume more animal protein — and a highly seasonal environment that probably required longer periods of hibernation. Cave bears gave birth to numerous cubs after long gestation periods, according to the researcher. “Based on relative brain size, I hypothesize that cave bears had a small birth and weaning weight but produced many cubs and had a prolonged gestation time,” he said. His examination of the microscopic structure of their leg bones indicates that cave bears grew more rapidly but attained sexual maturity later in life than other bear species. “Longevity estimates based on cementum analysis of 95 cave bear teeth from 21 localities provided a minimum age of 29 years for cave bears,” Veitschegger said. He reported his results August 25, 2017 at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Alberta, Canada.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 15:57:42 GMT -5
www.sci-news.com/paleontology/cave-bear-biology-05195.html Research Sheds New Light on Biology of Extinct Cave Bear Sep 5, 2017 by Enrico de Lazaro According to new research from the University of Zürich, the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) — one of the biggest bear species in history — had an unusually small brain relative to its body size. The cave bear was a massive omnivore that lived in Europe during the Pleistocene epoch and became extinct approximately 25,000 years ago. Despite their name, cave bears didn’t actually live in caves but only used them for hibernation. Nevertheless, the occasional death of animals in various caves in Europe over several tens of thousands of years eventually led to enormous accumulations of bones and teeth. The animal weighed between 500 and 1,100 pounds (225-500 kg), was 8.9-11.5 feet (2.7-3.5 m) long and up to 5.6 feet (1.7 m) at the shoulder. The massive grinding molars and nitrogen-isotope data from its bones indicate that the cave bear was primarily herbivorous, with foliage its main dietary staple. Cave bears and people likely encountered one another occasionally. Most paleontologists think that the cave bears fell victim to the profound environmental changes following the glaciers’ withdrawal from Europe rather than human hunting. Collecting data on relative brain size for present-day and extinct bears, University of Zürich paleontologist Kristof Veitschegger found that the cave bear had an unusually small brain relative to its body size. “Zoologists use a measure known as the encephalization quotient (EQ) to express this ratio,” Veitschegger explained. “I collected and investigated a dataset of 412 brain and body size estimates based on the skulls of 10 extant and extinct bear species,” he said. “EQ of cave bears is significantly lower than that of most other species. Cave bears exhibit an EQ of 0.60, which is considerably lower than the one of brown bears (0.83) or the one of Malayan sun bears (1.31).” Veitschegger interprets this as evidence that the increase in body size during the evolution of the cave bear did not correlate with change in brain size. However, the proportionately small brain may also reflect a less energy-rich diet — as other bears consume more animal protein — and a highly seasonal environment that probably required longer periods of hibernation. Cave bears gave birth to numerous cubs after long gestation periods, according to the researcher. “Based on relative brain size, I hypothesize that cave bears had a small birth and weaning weight but produced many cubs and had a prolonged gestation time,” he said. His examination of the microscopic structure of their leg bones indicates that cave bears grew more rapidly but attained sexual maturity later in life than other bear species. “Longevity estimates based on cementum analysis of 95 cave bear teeth from 21 localities provided a minimum age of 29 years for cave bears,” Veitschegger said. He reported his results August 25, 2017 at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Alberta, Canada. It seems like the cave bears were around the size of the kodiak bears we have today.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 19, 2018 5:00:35 GMT -5
I believe that the cave bear was slightly bigger. 500 to 1100 pounds: I believe an average normal size range. Grizzly ( Ursus arctos ) normal size range would be much greater ( 250 to 1400 pounds ). But I believe that the max-size for the cave bear would be greater than that of the Kodiak. Very few Kodiak's weighed have topped 1400 pounds. A 1400+ pound Kodiak bear stands no more than 5 feet high at the shoulders ( 1.52 m ). A cave bear, which is more heavily-built with more massive bones, can stand as much as 5 feet 6 inches at shoulder height. This would probably put his weight near a full ton ( 2000 pounds ). 2000 pounds (avoirdupois) is equal to 907.18 kilograms *Only a very few captive Kodiak bears have ever reached a ton in weight.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Feb 15, 2019 6:28:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Jul 8, 2019 20:17:05 GMT -5
THIS IS ALL THE PHYSICALL PROBLEMS THAT CAVE BEARS SUFFERED. NOTICE AT THE END (KIDNEY STONES). POOR BEARS, I HAD LIKE 8 OF THOSE ALREADY, ITS THE WORST PAIN YOU CAN HAVE.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Jul 8, 2019 21:08:36 GMT -5
The Most Bearish of Bears Basically a bear's bear 😃.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 4, 2019 3:49:23 GMT -5
Reply #16 above: Top picture European Steppe Bear - Bottom picture Classic Cave Bear. Brown bear and its nearest relative the cave bear. Very similar, but the most bearish of bears is the bulkier cave bear.
|
|
|
Post by BruteStrength on Nov 16, 2019 23:12:16 GMT -5
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.[15] 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),[16] though some specimens weighed as much as 1000 kg (2,200 lb),[17] while females weighed 225 to 250 kg (495 to 550 lb).[18] 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.[19] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_bear
|
|
|
Post by BruteStrength on Nov 16, 2019 23:17:08 GMT -5
Is there a skull comparison anywhere on the internet between a kodiak bear and a cave bear?
|
|