blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 3, 2015 22:53:57 GMT 5
That'll be 800kg when lean, at fall fat percentages the thing will confortably reach 1100kg (2425lbs), heaviest wild brown bear was only 750kg IIRC, average I think it was more similar to polar bears, about 500kg but this is just a guess right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0ldgrizz on Jan 4, 2015 2:01:23 GMT 5
That'll be 800kg when lean, at fall fat percentages the thing will confortably reach 1100kg (2425lbs), heaviest wild brown bear was only 750kg IIRC, average I think it was more similar to polar bears, about 500kg but this is just a guess right now. Mature adult males: European brown bear - average from 450 to 550 pounds - normal max 900 pounds. ( inland ) grizzly - average from 350 to 500 pounds - normal max 1,000+ pounds. Ussuri brown bear - average 595 pounds - normal max 900 pounds. Peninsula grizzly - average from 800 to 900 pounds - normal max 1,100 pounds. Kodiak bear - average from 1,049 to 1,173 pounds - normal max 1,600 pounds. polar bear - average from 850 to 900 pounds - normal max 2,000 pounds. Thank you blaze. Those bears were indeed huge! I have asked this many times on several forums: is there any known data on the size of Pleistocene grizzlies ( brown bears )?
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 4, 2015 6:06:32 GMT 5
No problem! I suppose there should be but I don't have any publication on them.
btw from where those averages come from? the only averages I could find for the kodiak are 660lbs and 690lbs, or are those averages that only include males over 9 years old? you are also forgetting the 1080lbs average for polar bears from the Hudson Bay and this is an average for males 5 and older, which makes it all the more impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0ldgrizz on Jan 4, 2015 6:13:00 GMT 5
From various sources, but mostly from here... wildfact.com/forum/ Yes, I've read of those huge polar bears. They are genetically very close to brown bears. Food availability is the key to their great size. Polar bears live on a diet of a high percentage of pure blubber; better even than the salmon diet of the coastal brownies. This is precisely why I believe the Pleistocene grizzlies were huge. But, every book I can find on Pleistocene life concentrates only on the extinct animals. |
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 2, 2015 10:36:37 GMT 5
I found something interesting, Soibelzon and Tarantini (2009) have measurements of Arctotherium skulls, condylobasal and "anterior margin of orbit to condyles" length, it is the former that I used to estimate the proportional size of the skull of Arctotherium angustidens when compared to Arctodus simus but checking some photographs in Figueridio and Soibelzon (2009) I think I'll have to change that.
Figueridio and Soibelzon (2009) has photos of 5 of the skulls used in Soibelzon and Tarantini (2009) Here's how the measurements compare to the photographs:
A. angustidens MMMP 018: The proportions just don't work out unless you assume both measurements are to the inion not the condyles and there's also a typo in S&T(2009) second measurement (typing 9 instead of 7), this is supported by the taped 7cm "ruler" in the photographed skull.
A. bonariense MARC 10232a: Again, the proportions don't fit unless you assume both measurements are to the inion and not the condyles
A. vetustum MMMP 1233M: (Mispelled vestustum in S&T(2009)) Here nothing fits, if you scale assuming the first measurement of S&T(2009) is correct the second ends up 2.5cm too long, if you assume the second is correct then the first one is 3.5cm too short, if you assume the first one is instead to the inion the second one is 2cm too long, if you assume the second one is to the inion then the first one is 5.5cm too short and if you assume both are to the inion then the second one is still 4cm too short.
A. tarijense MACN 971: Interestingly, the measurements work out either assuming both are to the condyles (as claimed) or to the inion but is probably the later as Ameghino 1904c(?) says it is 32cm from condyle to the incisors, assuming S&T(2009) measured to the condyles Ameghino's measurement becomes 33cm, assuming it is to the inion then it matches Ameghino's measurement.
A. wingei GP-2T4: They only give a single measurement (the second one) which if you assume is correct the condylobasal length would be about 5cm shorter than what is estimated in the publication describing this skull (Trajano and Ferrarezzi, 1994) which I think is pretty accurate considering in terms of length, the skull is only missing the premaxilla.
So what can I do, I think the correct thing to do would be to ask them even thought my previous (and recent) attempts to contact Soibelzon have been unsuccessful but for now I'll assume all condylobasal lengths in that publication are actually total lengths.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 2:41:56 GMT 5
Megatherium wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 1:17:17 GMT 5
Huge mismatch in favor of the sloth, this bear was only 590 kg.
|
|
