|
Post by nocapakabl on Nov 21, 2021 8:52:14 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 12:57:57 GMT -5
I have been looking at these polar bear pictures time to time and I think, that polar bears too are in reality 140-150 cm what comes to shoulder height in their natural walking position. For instance this latest picture gives 3 meters nose to rump length if using 160 cm shoulder height. And it feels a bit much. If using assumption, that it would be 150 cm shoulder height, nose to rump length in the photo would be still 285 cm, which is a lot too. If that bear would have 140 cm shoulder height, nose to rump length would be 265 cm. When considering it, that this record bear was told to have been approximately 338 cm tall when standing on hind legs, I wonder what nose to rump length has been. If it would be really 3 meters alone, bear should be almost 4 meters tall when standing on hind legs and as all know, they aren´t that big. It has been almost painful thing to search good idea how big part hind legs have in overall length of polar bear when it stands up to hindlegs, but this pretty nice photo indicates, that 90-100 cm is their part in overall tallness in that position. Something to think about, when making these comparison photos and keeping them as realistic as possible. If I remember right, 260 cm nose to rump length is on upper limit for polar bears. If adding to it for instance 90 cm for hind legs, it would be 350 cm when standing on hind legs and snout upwards looking up. And then again it would be most likely something like 335-340 cm, when bear is standing and looking forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 13:58:54 GMT -5
Here neanderthal and polar bear scaled to 260 cm nose to rump length. Shoulder height drops to 135,5 cm. And here comes that interesting part. If assuming, that 160 cm shoulder height is measured when animal sedated or dead and leg extended to as long as possible and also measuring to the tip of the toe, this would be actually in line with it, that in natural standing position shoulder height would be 135 cm, not 160 cm. This is something what, in my opinion, should be thought, when making comparison pictures and if using only shoulder height leads to body lengths, which have been never recorded.
|
|
|
Post by nocapakabl on Nov 21, 2021 15:10:02 GMT -5
@shadow
Back on discord, we were able to create a digital 3D model of a polar bear standing 160cms at the shoulders and the model stood at roughly the same height as the record male you're talking about, a value of around ~155 ~160cm should be roughly accurate when standing straight imo. Especially considering Scott stones' statement about some exceptionally huge brown bears he's seen scratching 5ft tall, which would also coincide with walkers' observations where the largest bears allegedly got close to or around 5ft tall, I don't think anything lower than 150cms would be an accurate value for a lankier polar bear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 15:46:45 GMT -5
@shadow Back on discord, we were able to create a digital 3D model of a polar bear standing 160cms at the shoulders and the model stood at roughly the same height as the record male you're talking about, a value of around ~155 ~160cm should be roughly accurate when standing straight imo. Especially considering Scott stones' statement about some exceptionally huge brown bears he's seen scratching 5ft tall, which would also coincide with walkers' observations where the largest bears allegedly got close to or around 5ft tall, I don't think anything lower than 150cms would be an accurate value for a lankier polar bear. Thing is if such model is based on something what can be found among real animals or not. I am not as sure as you are, that 160 cm or even 150 cm shoulder height is reality when talking about real animals standing naturally. I have tried to scale many polar bears to 160 cm shoulder height and they seem to become always bigger than real animals are. This is interesting issue for me because I haven´t been paying too much attention to this before but after looking closer many photos and comparison pictures I have started to get this feeling that body length is more important to check than shoulder height. Like in that neandertal picture, it seems to exaggerate polar bear size quite much. 3 meters from tip of the nose to rump even when bear is not extended to measuring like sedated or dead bears are would mean, that it would be even longer in such situation. And I don´t believe that any polar bear has such body length.
|
|
|
Post by nocapakabl on Nov 21, 2021 23:02:25 GMT -5
@shadow
I don't exactly know what you're referring to when you say "what can be found among real animals or not" but if you're referring to its stance/posture and anatomy, then yes.
The largest polar bears have scratched ~285cm or more in terms of length (measured in a straight line); when you apply a fairly reliable equation to ~280cm you end up with ~162.2cm. You are indeed right to question such tremendous sizes but i really don't doubt that an animal that stood as tall as a short faced bear on hind legs couldn't scratch 5ft or more whilst standing on 4s, considering all the supporting information to this assesment. If you get 300cm or more from the 160cm figure it's because of the models crouched posture not being accounted for by myself leading to a bear that would actually stand ~165cm or a little more when standing straight, while in reality it should be ~160cm.
Thing is, you can go ahead and try comparing a ~135cm tall polar bear meant to represent a bear weighing in at 1000kg and you'll see how the animal does not look like a 1000kg giant at all, rather a mediocre 400-450kg specimen, or 500kg at best. Sometimes instead of looking at the pure numbers we need to get visual ideas of how they look at these sizes next to other objects and animals and then, some stuff becomes very clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 2:56:49 GMT -5
@shadow I don't exactly know what you're referring to when you say "what can be found among real animals or not" but if you're referring to its stance/posture and anatomy, then yes. The largest polar bears have scratched ~285cm or more in terms of length (measured in a straight line); when you apply a fairly reliable equation to ~280cm you end up with ~162.2cm. You are indeed right to question such tremendous sizes but i really don't doubt that an animal that stood as tall as a short faced bear on hind legs couldn't scratch 5ft or more whilst standing on 4s, considering all the supporting information to this assesment. If you get 300cm or more from the 160cm figure it's because of the models crouched posture not being accounted for by myself leading to a bear that would actually stand ~165cm or a little more when standing straight, while in reality it should be ~160cm. Thing is, you can go ahead and try comparing a ~135cm tall polar bear meant to represent a bear weighing in at 1000kg and you'll see how the animal does not look like a 1000kg giant at all, rather a mediocre 400-450kg specimen, or 500kg at best. Sometimes instead of looking at the pure numbers we need to get visual ideas of how they look at these sizes next to other objects and animals and then, some stuff becomes very clear. I refer to real living animals and to their real measurements. For instance 285 cm over the curves is something else than between the pegs. I have seen some photos from measuring of polar bears and those seemed to be over the curves which gives bigger results. This problem, which I point out can be seen in that comparison photo with neandertal. When that polar bear was scaled to 1,6 meters shoulder height, body length was 3 meters, which is exaggerating that polar bear size. There are some polar bear photos showing them standing from behind. It looks like that hind legs are 20% from overall length of a polar bear standing and then from tail to head is rest. This means, that for instance that record polar bear, which was measured to have been 339 cm tall, would have had approximately 270 cm body length. If turning head upwards, snout might add 5-10 cm. That would mean body length of 270-280 cm for the biggest bear ever, between the pegs. And what comes to these animals and what they look like, I disagree with what you write. When I scaled that polar bear to 135 cm, it looks very big one. After all it´s still 260 cm long in that natural position between pegs and not even having neck straightened all the way, it looks still slightly downwards. It´s difficult to say how big a 1000 kg or 700 kg polar bear should be in comparison with human, because there are no good comparison pictures based on real measurements. At least I haven´t been able to find such yet. Those photos with stuffed record polar bear aren´t taken in best possible way to see certain details. Anyway all in all, I don´t believe that any comparison picture with 3 meters body length for polar when it walks in natural position on all fours is accurate, when record bear was "only" 339 cm when standing on hind legs. If someone can prove me wrong, by all means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 3:06:39 GMT -5
To add a bit. What I´m interested in now mostly, is to find out how biologists in reality measure shoulder heights of bears, polar bears and others. I don´t believe to some vague statements that they would do it while bears standing because with wild bears it´s impossible. Is there information from captivity maybe and how accurate it might be is another thing. I have never seen any photos showing that kind of measuring. I have tried to look some captive Kodiak bears in photos and videos walking or standing right next to people and not looking to be 1,5 meters as often is told. More like 1,2-1,3 meters.
I find this interesting thing, because if scaling some animal for instance 18% higher than it is and then 15% longer, it´s actually quite much.
|
|
|
Post by nocapakabl on Nov 22, 2021 3:18:59 GMT -5
@shadow I don't exactly know what you're referring to when you say "what can be found among real animals or not" but if you're referring to its stance/posture and anatomy, then yes. The largest polar bears have scratched ~285cm or more in terms of length (measured in a straight line); when you apply a fairly reliable equation to ~280cm you end up with ~162.2cm. You are indeed right to question such tremendous sizes but i really don't doubt that an animal that stood as tall as a short faced bear on hind legs couldn't scratch 5ft or more whilst standing on 4s, considering all the supporting information to this assesment. If you get 300cm or more from the 160cm figure it's because of the models crouched posture not being accounted for by myself leading to a bear that would actually stand ~165cm or a little more when standing straight, while in reality it should be ~160cm. Thing is, you can go ahead and try comparing a ~135cm tall polar bear meant to represent a bear weighing in at 1000kg and you'll see how the animal does not look like a 1000kg giant at all, rather a mediocre 400-450kg specimen, or 500kg at best. Sometimes instead of looking at the pure numbers we need to get visual ideas of how they look at these sizes next to other objects and animals and then, some stuff becomes very clear. I refer to real living animals and to their real measurements. For instance 285 cm over the curves is something else than between the pegs. I have seen some photos from measuring of polar bears and those seemed to be over the curves which gives bigger results. This problem, which I point out can be seen in that comparison photo with neandertal. When that polar bear was scaled to 1,6 meters shoulder height, body length was 3 meters, which is exaggerating that polar bear size. There are some polar bear photos showing them standing from behind. It looks like that hind legs are 20% from overall length of a polar bear standing and then from tail to head is rest. This means, that for instance that record polar bear, which was measured to have been 339 cm tall, would have had approximately 270 cm body length. If turning head upwards, snout might add 5-10 cm. That would mean body length of 270-280 cm for the biggest bear ever, between the pegs. And what comes to these animals and what they look like, I disagree with what you write. When I scaled that polar bear to 135 cm, it looks very big one. After all it´s still 260 cm long in that natural position between pegs and not even having neck straightened all the way, it looks still slightly downwards. It´s difficult to say how big a 1000 kg or 700 kg polar bear should be in comparison with human, because there are no good comparison pictures based on real measurements. At least I haven´t been able to find such yet. Those photos with stuffed record polar bear aren´t taken in best possible way to see certain details. Anyway all in all, I don´t believe that any comparison picture with 3 meters body length for polar when it walks in natural position on all fours is accurate, when record bear was "only" 339 cm when standing on hind legs. If someone can prove me wrong, by all means. As far as I'm aware, 285cm is a correctly measured body length in a straight line. A volumetric scan, for a bear measuring 135cms at the shoulders at even the most obese state will not yield 1000kg, that's impossible in the wild. This is how a 135cm tall polar bear looks next to a 130cm, 400kg panthera fossilis male; if you think the bear weighs nearly 3x more there then I can't help you.
|
|
|
Post by nocapakabl on Nov 22, 2021 3:27:52 GMT -5
To add a bit. What I´m interested in now mostly, is to find out how biologists in reality measure shoulder heights of bears, polar bears and others. I don´t believe to some vague statements that they would do it while bears standing because with wild bears it´s impossible. Is there information from captivity maybe and how accurate it might be is another thing. I have never seen any photos showing that kind of measuring. I have tried to look some captive Kodiak bears in photos and videos walking or standing right next to people and not looking to be 1,5 meters as often is told. More like 1,2-1,3 meters. I find this interesting thing, because if scaling some animal for instance 18% higher than it is and then 15% longer, it´s actually quite much. As I've said previously, experts and rangers who've seen these bears irl have made observations about them being capable of scratching 5ft tall (150cm), there's plenty of bears, the original jimbo male for one that I think could scratch that mark aswell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 4:19:04 GMT -5
I´m not convinced with your volumetric scan claims, unless you are able to show some scientific study with results confirming what you state. Bears can be surprisingly heavy even though shoulder height isn´t as big as some bigger animals have.
I´m way too sceptical to take for granted some claims if there isn´t solid source. Discord discussion group with animal enthusiastics, but not professional biologists isn´t for me reliable source even though discussion can be interesting otherwise. But maybe you have some study to show me and prove your claims?
|
|
|
Post by nocapakabl on Nov 22, 2021 4:33:01 GMT -5
I´m not convinced with your volumetric scan claims, unless you are able to show some scientific study with results confirming what you state. Bears can be surprisingly heavy even though shoulder height isn´t as big as some bigger animals have. I´m way too sceptical to take for granted some claims if there isn´t solid source. Discord discussion group with animal enthusiastics, but not professional biologists isn´t for me reliable source even though discussion can be interesting otherwise. But maybe you have some study to show me and prove your claims? There is no study on bear weight to shoulder height ratios regarding polar bears, you already know that. From grizzly bears we know that 135cm tall specimens do not produce animals weighing in at a ton, not at even the most obese state in the wild. So we'll have to get down to performing volumetric scans (GDIs) which are considered one of the if not the most reliable estimation methodology to estimate body masses, when using professionally designed references for the anatomy. You can make the same "there's no scientific study proving this and that" comeback, you can say that all you want but the fact is that no scientific community will take these claims with any serious credibility. I can't convince you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 4:34:40 GMT -5
And to what comes to it, that do I think, that 135 cm shoulder height is enough for 1000 kg bear, yes, I do think that it is enough is bear is very robust and a lot of fat. Then again am I too convinced what comes to record breaking animals from 1960´s is another thing. It´s still that time, when for instance Guinness Book of Records published information based on vague sources, which would be not accepted today as easily. There is that Smithsonian tiger, which was claimed to have been over 380 kg, which I don´t believe at all since all things around that tiger are vague. With bears it´s a bit different, because also some wild bears can be incredibly fat occasionally, something what big cats never are. It´s pity that there are no photos of that Kotzebue male before it was already stuffed. It´s also interesting that in some articles it was told to have been 11 ft 11 inches, but in Guinnes Book of Records it was told to be 11 ft and 1 1/4 inches when mounted. I wonder if pedestal is included to that height. These claimed heights are time to time interesting. Like this polar bear which is claimed to be worlds largest polar bear and 315 cm tall looks more something like 250-275 cm tall if assuming, that the woman there is 170-175 cm tall. Naturally angle of the photo is a bit tricky. I wonder if these measurements are with pedestals more often than not. I have more than hard time to believe that this bear in the photo would be really 315 cm tall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 4:45:00 GMT -5
I´m not convinced with your volumetric scan claims, unless you are able to show some scientific study with results confirming what you state. Bears can be surprisingly heavy even though shoulder height isn´t as big as some bigger animals have. I´m way too sceptical to take for granted some claims if there isn´t solid source. Discord discussion group with animal enthusiastics, but not professional biologists isn´t for me reliable source even though discussion can be interesting otherwise. But maybe you have some study to show me and prove your claims? There is no study on bear weight to shoulder height ratios regarding polar bears, you already know that. From grizzly bears we know that 135cm tall specimens do not produce animals weighing in at a ton, not at even the most obese state in the wild. So we'll have to get down to performing volumetric scans (GDIs) which are considered one of the if not the most reliable estimation methodology to estimate body masses, when using professionally designed references for the anatomy. You can make the same "there's no scientific study proving this and that" comeback, you can say that all you want but the fact is that no scientific community will take these claims with any serious credibility. I can't convince you. Yes, I do follow scientific sources and then I watch closely what is known and not. Grizzly bears obviously don´t weight a ton, unless in captivity and very obese. There are 2 plausible such bears. With polar bears it´s different thing, but obviously also with them it´s exceptional, while normally 700 kg is already quite heavy and big individual. But my original issue was and is, that 3 meters nose to rump length for polar bear is in my opinion too much. If scaling polar bears to such length, discussion is good to have, because it would be bigger bear than the biggest recorded so far. I try to make contact with someone who does research with polar bears and get more information how bears are measured etc. It will be interesting to learn more, because based on all pictures and information so far, I have started to have some serious doubts concerning certain measurements and how they are taken in reality.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 22, 2021 5:05:16 GMT -5
3 meters is equal to 9 feet 10 inches. That is right about the bipedal height of 'Bart the Bear'. This HB length for a large polar bear seems reasonable to me, but we could use some data to clear this up.
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Nov 22, 2021 6:22:32 GMT -5
@shadow 135cm of shoulder height for a 1000kg bear is virtually impossible; ursids are comparatively long-legged animals among mammalian carnivores. Felids, mustelids, procyonids and viverrids all have shorter limbs at equal body lengths, the only family exceeding ursids in terms of body length/forelimb ratio are the canids and the hyenas. What comes to body length/shoulder height ratio we can take a look at Yellowstone grizzlies who have been measured in an exemplary way in Blanchard's study; 95cm and 164cm straight line. Largest of them stood 117cm tall and weighed around 320kg. We previously covered the HB-length of polar bears measured in a straight line; for Svalbard males averaging 389kg it was 225cm and for the huge Foxe Basin males who probably are the biggest polar bears alive it was 237cm at an average weight of 579kg. Applying the ratios of brown bears to them, it will result in average shoulder heights of 130.3cm and 137.3cm respectively. The shoulder height for polar bears would probably be a bit lower than for brown bears at equal body length; they somewhat lack the massive "hump" above the scapula and are a bit more elongated but an average male from a large population should still be around 130-135cm. Taking this into account, I don't think that 160cm is far-fetched for a record-breaker male; there are a few on record estimated to be 800kg+, a reliably weighed behemoth of 810kg and ofc the Kotzebue giant who allegedly weighed 1000kg+ as well as mentionings of 900kg polar bears weighed piecemeal by Ognev. Assuming a SH of 130-135cm for an average Foxe Basin male I'd get a range of 156-162cm for the Kotzebue giant using isometric scaling; so I think they definitely can live up to that mark as it is also mentioned by field biologists working with polar bears. The 160cm figure would apply to a bear standing in a firm position without any element of locomotion. The moment a bear starts walking and basically shortens his legs, the shoulder height will decrease. In Nocap's comparison the polar bear is captured while walking and somewhat crouching with the head being low to the ground, so in this case it would need to be scaled shorter by quite a bit. This normally is the position where the shoulder height figures for animals become most accurate:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 6:51:21 GMT -5
theundertaker45 I have made it pretty clear that I´m not as sure as some are, that 135 cm shoulder height would make 1000 kg polar bear impossible. Naturally if shoulder height of 160 cm comes from extended legs while bear is dear or sedated, shoulder height might be anything in between 135-145 cm. That 135 cm came from that comparison model which was too long, imo. And 135 cm came when body length of that bear was scaled from 3 meters to 260 cm which I find more realistic, when bear is walking like that. It seems to be, that it´s quite difficult to find information how polar bears have been and are measured. I wanted to start some discussion about this, because when looking at proportions of polar bears and bears I have some doubts what comes to some biggest measurements. Polar bear has such body shape, that if measuring over curves results can be big and I´m interested about measurements "between pegs". In that neandertal comparison photo I find that polar bear way too big to represent realism. And since polar bears have pretty long bodies in comparison of their shoulder height this is interesting. Naturally it can be, that some bear has longer legs and shoulder height is higher while body isn´t so long etc. Animals come in many shapes. But if a polar bear would have real shoulder height of 160 cm and 3 meters body length between pegs while walking, that would be something. It would be bigger than Kotzebue record polar bear, when standing up to hind legs.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 22, 2021 7:30:24 GMT -5
shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/647/largest-polar-bears-world?page=1 By grrraaahhh - Jul 19, 2011 at 4:00am. "Adult males typically measure 200 – 250 cm in length from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail and weigh 400 – 600 kg, although some individuals may reach about 800 kg." Stirling, Ian. Polar Bear (Ursus Maritimus) in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 2002.
|
|
|
Post by nocapakabl on Nov 22, 2021 7:32:31 GMT -5
@shadow
It's been specified by me and UT45 that this male was scale to ~160cm under crouched posture, so it would be more like 165cms at the shoulders which would be a little larger than it should. I've personally measured it at ~155cm which would be an accurate value for a male this size under crouched stance, and it was roughly 2.8-2.9m which compeltely corresponds with the properly measured figures of ~285cms in a straight line. You'd be blowing a polar bear ridiculously out of proportion if you tried making a model bulky enough to weigh that much at ~135cms; if you take a look at the 2 other prehistoric bears I've done on this thread, both weighing in at a ton whilst standing 170cms at the shoulders for the cave bear and 200cms for the arctodus it become a pretty clear that those dimensions are needed for those sizes.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 22, 2021 7:33:10 GMT -5
shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/645/ursus-maritimus-north-american-profile By grrraaahhh - opening post. Size & Weight. Male polar bears weigh about 375-600 kilograms (825-1320 pounds) while occasional individuals may reach 800 kilograms (1760 lb). They sometimes exceed 250 centimeters (10 feet) in length, measured in a straight line from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail, although most male polar bears are a bit shorter. They are roughly twice the size and weight of adult females, which weigh 200 to 350 kilograms (440-750 lb) and achieve an adult body length of about 190-220 centimeters (up to about 7 ft). Females first breed at four to six years of age and most often give birth to two cubs in snow dens on land (some cubs are born in dens on the sea ice). Cubs stay with their mothers for two and a half years before weaning which means that unless cubs die prematurely, females do not breed more frequently than every three years. Both sexes live twenty to twenty-five years and sometimes to over 30 years. Their primary prey is ringed seals and, to a lesser degree, bearded seals.
|
|