|
Bear and bigcats anatomy
|
As you can clearly see Parvez, the grizzly has no dietary problems in consuming and digesting meat; no more so than a lion or tiger.
Intelligence and cunning; anyone who has ever hunted these animals will tell you that the big cats have no advantage here over the grizzly. Stamina; you must surely be joking. Great Bear Almanac by Gary Brown. Running. Bears, with the exception of the giant panda, run quite well. They are fast and agile, though their speed is maintained only for short distances. Many run with power, and are fifty percent faster than humans. "The grizzly can barrel, tank-like, through thick brush that would bring a man to a complete halt," relates Laycock. The stride of one galloping bear was recorded at seventeen feet between tracks. Bears run to catch prey, inspect an unknown situation or movement, escape from a threat, to play, and for no apparent purpose. They run uphill and downhill with speed and agility. "The rumor ( bears cannot run downhill without stumbling ) is untrue," relates Stephen Herrero in 'Bear Attacks'. "I have watched grizzly bears chase one another, and... elk and bighorn sheep - downhill, uphill, sidehill - wherever the pursuit leads. I have never seen a bear stumble." "He was going so fast," relates W.P.Hubbard, describing an American black bear in 'Notorious Grizzly Bears', "his hind feet were up by his ears when his front feet were under and behind him. He was all action, a big black bottom, with four stems churning for all they were worth." Bears' endurance is exceptional. They have been known to run without a break for ten miles. A sow with two cubs is reported to have traveled more than twenty miles through mountainous terrain in one hour. 
Well, I will contact experts about this and reply back. Perhaps sloth bears are those which have weak digestive system. But regarding grizzlies i will contact experts whether they feed on flesh and muscle. But keeping aside about digestive system, I am sure their heart is relatively weaker than other parts of the body. I will study about grizzly and then reply.
@
(11-27-2016, 08:07 PM)parvez Wrote: Well, I will contact experts about this and reply back. Perhaps sloth bears are those which have weak digestive system. But regarding grizzlies i will contact experts whether they feed on flesh and muscle. But keeping aside about digestive system, I am sure their heart is relatively weaker than other parts of the body. I will study about grizzly and then reply. Sloth bears have adapted to a diet like many of the anteaters and armadillos' of South America, and the pangolin and aardvark. Neither their teeth and likely not their digestive system ( maybe ) is ready for red meat. With the polar bear, my thoughts are that blubber better fuels his high-energy needs to survive in his harsh environment. Grizzlies and black bears certainly have no trouble devouring red meat.
Parvez says: The bears must have got intimidated by the big cats. They understood that they cannot continue being carnivores (as cats have started to be dominant) or being scavengers of other's kills.
This is, to put it mildly, the most ridiculous theory I have yet to read, even in the most heated big cat vs bear debates that I took part in. I will first invite any lion or tiger enthusiast reading this to respond.   (11-27-2016, 08:43 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Sloth bears have adapted to a diet like many of the anteaters and armadillos' of South America, and the pangolin and aardvark. Neither their teeth and likely not their digestive system ( maybe ) is ready for red meat. With the polar bear, my thoughts are that blubber better fuels his high-energy needs to survive in his harsh environment. Grizzlies and black bears certainly have no trouble devouring red meat.  I think you saw yesterday i posted grizzly's diet chart in that maximum 9% of her diet may consist of read meat in that maximum 3% from its own hunt. IS 'stealing' cubs from momma is hunt!!Anyway,There are many documented evidences of SB kick-out srilankan leopards from their kill.(SB in Srilanka are smaller and Leopards are bigger than Indian cousins).Except Polar all bears eat Ants,Moths and Worms.
Yes Vinay, a grizzly will feast on ants, termites, bee hives ( including live bees ), wasp nests, bumble bee nests, moths and so on. However, insects make up a very tiny portion of his diet. Normally ( as their habits and personalities vary almost as much as humans' ) a grizzly is about 85% vegetarian and 15% carnivore. Some populations eat more meat than others, but this is an average. During the Pleistocene and into modern times before man-kind better armed himself, the grizzly has been estimated to have been just the opposite; roughly 85% carnivorous. The grizzly ( Ursus arctos ) has the strongest bite-force of any living bear - although pound-for-pound, he is beat by the giant panda, sun bear, and perhaps the Andes bear. The sloth bear has the weakest bite-force among bears.
http://shaggygod.proboards.com/
 *This image is copyright of its original author
(11-27-2016, 11:18 PM)brotherbear Wrote: http://shaggygod.proboards.com/ -- Edit-- A simple forum name?? Full address http://shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/53...zzly-bears  *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author Grizzlys are not big-cats,they mostly scavenge and eat ants and worms.Deal with it. Gunther also noted that "Yellowstone grizzlies preying on livestock outside the park" had a diet consisting of 15% plants, and 85% meat." 1914-18.... 85% Kitchen Scrap [img]http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab270/Grrraaahhh/Bears/GRZBDIETYNPII.jpg" class="lozad max-img-size" alt="" title=""> *This image is copyright of its original author
Vinay, your hostility towards mods and person whom you discuss is now becoming unacceptable. While talking with other please do not use words that provoke anger and irritation to other.
while addressing others use careful words.
Bears as predators....
The size of a carnivore strongly influences the size of the prey it is capable of killing, the maximum size of prey killed being slightly larger than that of the predator. For example, a 100 kilogram (220 pound) bear can handle prey weighing up to roughly 150 kilograms (330 pounds). Polar bears prey primarily on the smallish (60 kilogram/ 130 pound) ringed seal and the larger (up to 360 kilogram/790 pound) bearded seal. In some instances, polar bears can remove up to 44 percent of the ringed seal pups born in a particular area. They are also known to kill walruses (500 kilograms/1,100 pounds) and white whales weighing up to 600 kilograms (1,320 pounds). Brown bears, while primarily vegetarian, can also prey significantly on hoofed mammals. In some areas, adult males reportedly kill three or four adult moose (450 kilograms/990 pounds) per year, with females killing an average of one. Caribou (150 kilograms/330 pounds), musk ox (250 kilograms/550 pounds), elk (200 kilograms/ 440 pounds), and bison (500 kilograms/ 1,100 pounds) have all been taken. Brown bears also prey on ground squirrels, trout, and salmon, but usually only when they are sufficiently abundant to make hunting them energy-efficient. ANDREW E. DEROCHER AND IAN STIRLING, Bears: Majestic Creatures of the Wild (1993). http://shaggygod.proboards.com/
by Blaire Van Valkenburgh - First posted by grraahh - http://shaggygod.proboards.com/
SPEED AND STRENGTH The skeletons of a bear and a domestic dog illustrate the difference between plantigrade and digitigrade postures. The dog is digitigrade, standing on its toes with the soles of its feet (metapodials) off the ground. By contrast, the soles of the bear's hindfeet are flat to the ground, as in humans, giving it a plantigrade posture. If one imagines the additional energy required to walk or run with ankle weights or heavy shoes, then the drawbacks of heavy feet become clear. There are yet further benefits to runners in having long tendinous muscle attachments. Tendons are elastic and act as energy-saving springs when running. They are stretched as the limb is flexed under the weight of the animal and then rebound, propelling the body forward and upward. So, digitigrade posture, long metapodials, and compact muscles with stretchy tendons are typical of carnivores built for speed. Bears are clearly not built for speed. Although their forefeet are semi-digitigrade, their hind-feet are plantigrade. Moreover, their metapodials are short and their muscles thick throughout the length of the limb. In many ways, bears are built more like badgers than other similar-sized carnivores, such as tigers, and it shows in their speed. The top speed recorded for both black and brown bears is 50 kilometers (30 miles) per hour, whereas the range for the fully digitigrade lion and wolf is 55 to 65 kilometers (35 to 40 miles) per hour. If bears are not built for speed, then what does the combination of massive limbs, plantigrade hindfeet, cumbersome paws, and a short back provide? Strength and mobility of limb movement are the answers. The stout limbs of bears are capable of producing large forces over a much greater range of motion than those of dogs or even cats. Bears use these capabilities when digging for food or shelter, fishing for salmon, climbing to escape danger, and battling with members of their own species as well as other predators. Imagine a wolf trying to perform a bear hug or climb a tree. Dogs have forfeited these abilities in favor of speed. Cats are more like bears in their range of possible movements, but lack strength. Bears may not be able to outrun danger, but can successfully defend themselves through brute force.
Parvez says: They instead chose to be omnivores(which is smart, a very good move if you ask me) and retain their body strength through some means like hard work(as @brotherbear said) and feeding on soft tissues.
*No Parvaz; I said that the grizzly's shoulder hump evolved after hundred's of thousand's of years of hard work, mainly digging, as a species. Bears have no problem with retaining their muscle mass. http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/215/12/2081.full.pdf SUMMARY Hibernating bears retain most of their skeletal muscle strength despite drastically reduced weight-bearing activity. Regular neural activation of muscles is a potential mechanism by which muscle atrophy could be limited. However, both mechanical loading and neural activity are usually necessary to maintain muscle size. An alternative mechanism is that the signaling pathways related to the regulation of muscle size could be altered so that neither mechanical nor neural inputs are needed for retaining strength. More specifically, we hypothesized that muscles in hibernating bears are resistant to a severe reduction in neural activation. To test this hypothesis, we unilaterally transected the common peroneal nerve, which innervates ankle flexor muscles, in hibernating and summer-active brown bears (Ursus arctos). In hibernating bears, the long digital extensor (LDE) and cranial tibial (CT) musculotendon masses on the denervated side decreased after 11weeks post-surgery by 18±11 and 25±10%, respectively, compared with those in the intact side. In contrast, decreases in musculotendon masses of summer-active bears after denervation were 61±4 and 58±5% in the LDE and CT, respectively, and significantly different from those of hibernating bears. The decrease due to denervation in summer-active bears was comparable to that occurring in other mammals. Whole-muscle cross-sectional areas (CSAs) measured from ultrasound images and myofiber CSAs measured from biopsies decreased similarly to musculotendon mass. Thus, hibernating bears alter skeletal muscle catabolic pathways regulated by neural activity, and exploration of these pathways may offer potential solutions for disuse atrophy of muscles.
Parvez says: I think it is because of big cats bears chose to be omnivores from their previous carnivorous nature. Big cats being proportionally muscled all over the body and with potentially higher stamina to fight for longer periods must have started to dominate them with both agility and smartness (or cunning nature). The bears must have got intimidated by the big cats. They understood that they cannot continue being carnivores (as cats have started to be dominant) or being scavengers of other's kills. They instead chose to be omnivores.
*I say; this idea of big cats scaring bears into becoming omnivores is totally ridiculous. http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4728 The evolution of bears begins in the early Miocene era, approximately 20 mya (million years ago), when the first bear type animal named Ursavus elmensis evolved from a dog-like ancestor (Hitchcock, 2004). Fossil records from U. elmensis show carnassial teeth with larger molars for more chewing area, a trait common to present day bears. Another early bear in the lineage leading to grizzlies is Ursus minimus of the cave line bears, which lived in the Pliocene era, about 10 mya. The cave line bears persisted until the most recent ice age 10,000 years ago but then became extinct. However, roughly 1.5 mya a new lineage of bears diverged from the cave bear line. These bears, which were most similar to Ursus etruscus of the cave bear line, were the common ancestors of the brown bears, Ursus arctos, and the black bears, Ursus americanus. The closest relative of the brown bear is the polar bear, which diverged from U. arctos about 300,000 years ago. Brown bears have diverged into a large number of subspecies, one of which being the grizzly bear common to North America. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131112-big-cats-origin-tibet-animals-science/ Big cats may have originated in Asia as far back as six million years ago. *Therefore; bears were omnivores millions of years before the first big cat existed. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |