WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Carnivorous and Omnivores Animals, Excluding Felids
›
Bears
Bear Anatomy
Bear Anatomy
|
Bear Anatomy
|
 (12-09-2018, 02:14 PM)brotherbear Wrote: No, they did not post ages, but a male brown bear 4.5 years old is sexually mature and at this age listed among the adult bears. I'm just saying that to take a average weight for - full-grown - male brown bears - when ages are given - we can then find a much more accurate average. Well actually.. "The average age of reaching sexual maturity in male brown bears was estimated to be 5.5 years in continental North ..." Source: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source...kfP-UdT-w7 So, the 4.5 year old individual never considered as sexually mature. Also.. And.. "Males reached mean adult size in 7 of the 11 dimensions by 6 years (body length, girth, height at the shoulder, neck circumference, head length, front pad length, and rear pad width) and in all 11 by 9 years." Source: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source...6W2xXv4Dqv The bears in the second chart are said to be "6+" not 6, right? It means more than 6 like 7, 8, 9 or 10. But begins with more than 6 year old individual. Both charts are based on 10 individuals. I guess the first chart was based on larger individuals than the second one. As it gave the average of "700lbs". Although it'd be based on older & larger bears. So I guess it's accurate... 
Panther says: Yeah, but it based on just '5' specimens, not even 10.
This is definitely not accurate for the whole population. Neither chart can make that claim. (12-09-2018, 05:35 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Neither chart can make that claim. No, I'm not here to pick a fight with you. I posted two charts giving value 700 and 660lbs. Both were based on 10 specimens (more than the chart you posted, which is based on 5). The first one is based on "adult"(age not said) specimens. While the second one based on more than 6 year old individuals. So this means the first chart is based on larger individuals than the second one, probably older individuals than the second one. So I guess it's more accurate than both second chart stating 660lbs and the chart you posted... 
I am not sure what is the point in the latest discussion here. It is no secret, that brown bears from Kodiak Islands are commonly known to be a subspecies of brown bears producing the biggest individuals. That is quite common knowledge. Also it is common knowledge, that a brown bear is full grown in age 9-10 years. If trying to prove otherwise it is quite same as pissing or spitting to headwind :)
If the point is overall discussion about bear sizes in different areas etc. then of course different thing. But now I am not sure what is the point here. It would be nice, that if someone has some issue, that it would be clearly said, that what is the point. (12-09-2018, 05:54 PM)Shadow Wrote: I am not sure what is the point in the latest discussion here. It is no secret, that brown bears from Kodiak Islands are commonly known to be a subspecies of brown bears producing the biggest individuals. That is quite common knowledge. Also it is common knowledge, that a brown bear is full grown in age 9-10 years. If trying to prove otherwise it is quite same as pissing or spitting to headwind :) I can only say one thing for you... Read the post #76. Those are "studies", aren't they? I guess 9-10year is the prime of Brown bears. Also I remember there's a discussion on here about kodiak bear and Alaska peninsula brown bear sizes overlap... (12-09-2018, 06:22 PM)Panther Wrote:(12-09-2018, 05:54 PM)Shadow Wrote: I am not sure what is the point in the latest discussion here. It is no secret, that brown bears from Kodiak Islands are commonly known to be a subspecies of brown bears producing the biggest individuals. That is quite common knowledge. Also it is common knowledge, that a brown bear is full grown in age 9-10 years. If trying to prove otherwise it is quite same as pissing or spitting to headwind :) I was asking, that what is the point in this discussion. No answer yet. So I have nothing to add to what I already said. (12-09-2018, 06:31 PM)Shadow Wrote: I was asking, that what is the point in this discussion. No answer yet. So I have nothing to add to what I already said. I will answer your question, but don't get me wrong. I posted the same data on "king of bears Kodiak bear Vs polar Bear" thread. To show the average of kodiak bear. In this thread, I replied to epaiva's post of Kodiak bear average(which was just estimation). I hope it's clear now? Thank you! (12-09-2018, 11:56 PM)Panther Wrote:(12-09-2018, 06:31 PM)Shadow Wrote: I was asking, that what is the point in this discussion. No answer yet. So I have nothing to add to what I already said. If you try to claim, that Kodiaks aren´t the biggest subspecies of brown bears, then you have still long way to go. Some random charts from here and there aren´t doing that job. There are a lot of charts and the key point is to know which are comparable and which aren´t. Now these postings make no sense when charts from here and there and no reasoning and logical explanation what is the point to put here some statistics for instance about brown bears from Yellowstone if idea is to discuss about Kodiak bears. So if you try to change day to night and claim, that Kodiaks aren´t biggest, then you have to do better. Show some real information where some reliable researcher make that statement explaining reasoning behind such claim. Putting some old chart, which tells nothing and then something about Yellowstone bears etc. aren´t proving anything. Everyone knows, that bear sizes and weights variates among brown bear subspecies. So I am still waiting with interest, that what is now the point in latest postings here? If really case is about Kodiaks, then at least I wait some sense to postings and clear reasoning. Now I haven´t seen anything proving common knowledge to be wrong. (12-10-2018, 12:11 AM)Shadow Wrote: If you try to claim, that Kodiaks aren´t the biggest subspecies of brown bears, then you have still long way to go. Some random charts from here and there aren´t doing that job. Firstly, those aren't some "random charts", or etc.. they are studies. The full study of the first chart claiming 700lbs average is unavailable for me. I got it from a respectable poster called "vodmeister" on his latest post of Carnivora. I explained it on "King of bears..." Thread. I suggest you to just look up if you can. Regarding the second chart...  *This image is copyright of its original author Source: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source...6W2xXv4Dqv I no need to write an essay to claim a average with the studies. And I definitely, no need to prove kodiak bears aren't the largest Brown bears. Quote:So if you try to change day to night and claim, that Kodiaks aren´t biggest, then you have to do better. Show some real information where some reliable researcher make that statement explaining reasoning behind such claim. Putting some old chart, which tells nothing and then something about Yellowstone bears etc. aren´t proving anything. Everyone knows, that bear sizes and weights variates among brown bear subspecies.I no need to change anything. ImI just talking about averages, I know sizes varies among populations. I showed the study. As for the other study, please ask @Vodmeister. He's a quality poster here, and a well known guy for all the mods and admins here. I no need to cherry pick a random chart to prove my point or something else. Quote:So I am still waiting with interest, that what is now the point in latest postings here? If really case is about Kodiaks, then at least I wait some sense to postings and clear reasoning. Now I haven´t seen anything proving common knowledge to be wrong. I answered you. We've already met. I'm not here to discuss with you, as it just taken more than week for us last time. You're definitely not a mod or admin here. You no need to criticize my data my calling them "old" and "unreliable". I mean where did you get these words from? (12-10-2018, 12:43 AM)Panther Wrote:So you put here charts, but you don´t give any clear explanation what you are trying to tell with those. Ok. I called that first chart unreliable what comes to making comparisons because under chart was told so in same document.(12-10-2018, 12:11 AM)Shadow Wrote: If you try to claim, that Kodiaks aren´t the biggest subspecies of brown bears, then you have still long way to go. Some random charts from here and there aren´t doing that job. (12-10-2018, 12:49 AM)Shadow Wrote: So you put here charts, but you don´t give any clear explanation what you are trying to tell with those. Ok. I called that first chart unreliable what comes to making comparisons because under chart was told so in same document. No! Read the following quote of me.. https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-the-kin...9#pid63479 You can't call something unreliable without proving it. And it clearly not something I cherry picked to rise a random argument. It comes from a quality poster called "vodmeister". I believe most of the people here agrees with him. Also it's weird to see that I pinged him almost more than twice. But he still hasn't reacted. (12-10-2018, 01:13 AM)Panther Wrote:I still don´t get your point here. Yes, polar bears are biggest bears what comes to size in average. But what are you now trying to say with these charts?(12-10-2018, 12:49 AM)Shadow Wrote: So you put here charts, but you don´t give any clear explanation what you are trying to tell with those. Ok. I called that first chart unreliable what comes to making comparisons because under chart was told so in same document. Kodiak bears are commonly agreed to be the biggest subspecies of brown bears and biggest known individuals of brown bears are Kodiaks. Are you trying to prove that to be not true or what is your point? Or do you have any point here what you are trying to say? I am curious about your agenda here, that´s all. Because if you try to say, that Kodiaks aren´t the biggest brown bears, then I wait some real reasoning and good information backing you up. That one chart isn´t good enough for such claim. I would ask this same from anyone making such claim. So is that your case or not? (12-10-2018, 01:20 AM)Shadow Wrote: I still don´t get your point here. Yes, polar bears are biggest bears what comes to size in average. But what are you now trying to say with these charts?Why are so curious about my agenda? I'm just showing the average of Kodiak bear is no way near to polar bear in that thread. I have no agenda or nothing. I'll always go through facts. And I never denied Kodiak bears are largest species of Brown bears, but I'm just not sure about that. I also remembered brotherbear or Grizzly claws discussing about Kodiak bear and Alaska peninsula brown bear sizes overlap on averages. Quote:Because if you try to say, that Kodiaks aren´t the biggest brown bears, then I wait some real reasoning and good information backing you up. That one chart isn´t good enough for such claim. I would ask this same from anyone making such claim. So is that your case or not? That's really not one chart I posted. Also I'm (as I said before) not here to prove Kodiak bears aren't the largest species of Brown bears. I just showed the research to epaiva's estimated average. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |