|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 5, 2015 3:08:44 GMT 5
There was just as much competition during the pleistocene as there were kills, so basically what all this presupposes is that grizzlies were more more successful at securing calories despite that, which there simply is no evidence for.
Maybe grizzlies had greater net nutrition available during the pleistocene, and maybe less. It’s impossible to tell without direct evidence. Maybe they were successful enough in comparison to their competition to get it, maybe they weren’t. There is no point in speculating about something this uncertain as a basis for extraordinary claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0ldgrizz on Jan 5, 2015 4:53:58 GMT 5
In Siberia, the Asiatic black bear routinely scavenges on tiger kills, regardless of the danger of both the tiger and the grizzly. With "routinely", you mean "very rarely", right? And with "tiger", you mean small females and juvenile tigers, right? Because both sloth bears and moon bears are absolutely dominated by Bengal tigers in their natural habitat. Bengal tigers control and suppress smaller bear populations in their area. Not rarely at all. Scavenging tiger kills is a basic strategy of Asiatic black bears in Siberia. A big male Siberian black bear can weigh as much or more than the tiger. Of course, this is not saying that he will not climb a tree if available. Surprisingly, even young black bears and females scavenge tiger kills. You might find this information here ( if I'm not mistaken )... wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-edge-of-extinction-a-tigers-panthera-tigris?page=7
|
|
|
|
Post by 0ldgrizz on Jan 5, 2015 5:02:40 GMT 5
There was just as much competition during the pleistocene as there were kills, so basically what all this presupposes is that grizzlies were more more successful at securing calories despite that, which there simply is no evidence for. Maybe grizzlies had greater net nutrition available during the pleistocene, and maybe less. It’s impossible to tell without direct evidence. Maybe they were successful enough in comparison to their competition to get it, maybe they weren’t. There is no point in speculating about something this uncertain as a basis for extraordinary claims. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 5, 2015 6:03:30 GMT 5
That's besides the point, the question is whether its success at doing so, and consequently its body size in a pleistocene ecosystem was greater than today or not. With that question unanswerable outside of one's imagination, one can't make the extraordinary claim that it was twice its extant size.
It must have found more carcasses than today, but also lost more, unlike today. Saying it was more successful because it was larger, and larger because it was more successful is circular reasoning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jan 5, 2015 9:33:59 GMT 5
With "routinely", you mean "very rarely", right? And with "tiger", you mean small females and juvenile tigers, right? Because both sloth bears and moon bears are absolutely dominated by Bengal tigers in their natural habitat. Bengal tigers control and suppress smaller bear populations in their area. Not rarely at all. Scavenging tiger kills is a basic strategy of Asiatic black bears in Siberia. A big male Siberian black bear can weigh as much or more than the tiger. Of course, this is not saying that he will not climb a tree if available. Surprisingly, even young black bears and females scavenge tiger kills. You might find this information here ( if I'm not mistaken )... wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-edge-of-extinction-a-tigers-panthera-tigris?page=7
On the link you posted, the only thing regarding black bears I could find is this chart:  The average male Asiatic black bear is about 124.7 kg and the average female is 71.3 kg That's 157 lbs for females and 275 lbs for males. By contrast Bengal tigers commonly weigh 400 to 500 lbs. So yes, black bears would likely scavenge on tiger kills, but I doubt any black bear would actually usurp (or attempt to confront) a tiger. Black bears are quite the scavengers though. Some say that playing dead works against grizzlies better than it does against black bears, because black bears would simply begin to chew on you and devour you if you made yourself look like a carcass. |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jan 5, 2015 9:47:26 GMT 5
I myself have also read that black bears have stolen kills from tigers. Not usurp them though. Though I can see a large male black bear running off a tigress. Jim Corbett saw a black bear take a tiger's kill while it was away.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0ldgrizz on Jan 6, 2015 14:02:41 GMT 5
Vodmeister says: So yes, black bears would likely scavenge on tiger kills, but I doubt any black bear would actually usurp (or attempt to confront) a tiger.
I agree, although an Asian black bear from 450 to 550 pounds might displace a tigress. But, that is neither here nor there. The Pleistocene grizzly would be out there scavenging carcasses. A big mature male would often be displacing other predators. Those brown bears would seldom go a day without meat. I have to wonder if they even had to hibernate with such a prey population. /b]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 7:29:14 GMT 5
Smilodon wins this, but I am not sure at parity.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 11, 2019 3:08:13 GMT 5
I'd say this could go either way. They're both of similar size and strength.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Apr 29, 2019 16:43:17 GMT 5
i favor smilodon . but can you change this to hypothetical?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Apr 29, 2019 21:01:37 GMT 5
This was sympatric in the Pleistocene
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Apr 29, 2019 21:03:31 GMT 5
This was sympatric in the Pleistocene ok i see |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on May 4, 2019 22:46:44 GMT 5
I think Smilodon is overrated here.
If the fight between these two escalated it was basically a wrestling match, strength contest. Because unlike modern big cats who clinch onto their prey and opponents with a bite and front legs, sabertooth cats needed to grapple their prey down before applying the bites..at least that's how I see it.
And strength wise, the bear should still have the edge there.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on May 4, 2019 23:11:03 GMT 5
I think Smilodon is overrated here. If the fight between these two escalated it was basically a wrestling match, strength contest. Because unlike modern big cats who clinch onto their prey and opponents with a bite and front legs, sabertooth cats needed to grapple their prey down before applying the bites..at least that's how I see it. And strength wise, the bear should still have the edge there. i think on second though you would need smilodon populator to take on a north american grizzly |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on May 5, 2019 5:21:06 GMT 5
I think Smilodon is overrated here. If the fight between these two escalated it was basically a wrestling match, strength contest. Because unlike modern big cats who clinch onto their prey and opponents with a bite and front legs, sabertooth cats needed to grapple their prey down before applying the bites..at least that's how I see it. And strength wise, the bear should still have the edge there. You may have a point sam1. I think I may give an edge to the grizzly. |
|
