Bear Anatomy

[Shadow]

(12-10-2018, 03:27 AM)Panther Wrote:

(12-10-2018, 03:08 AM)Shadow Wrote: I gave some criticism and told already reason and reasoning. This is indeed public forum and all people looking this thread can check things I mentioned and reason why I am not convinced now. At this point really all relevant things have been said and also I don´t see any point to continue and go to some endless nonsense. If someone comes up with some new information, then of course interesting to discuss :)

You're actually testing my patience. Your reasoning is nothing but calling them "not good", "old" or "unreliable". You have yet to prove your own claims. And telling me disagreeing two different studies is ridiculous. 

We've gone through more than a weak. 

And now you claiming that you need new information to discuss is disgusting. I mean heck, the whole Carnivora (even Warsaw) has no counter for those weights when vodmeister posted. But why it's that hard to realise that average adult isn't prime specimen and 6+ isn't equal to 6 years. 

I agreed that the second chart of 300kgs average isn't that credible. 
That first one(312kgs) is definitely based on larger individuals and is accurate..

To make this clear. I don´t test or care about your patience. And I haven´t been here on this topic a week. I just wanted to know, that what is the point here in recent discussion what happened between you and brotherbear because I wasn´t quite sure what you wanted to point out. So I asked about it until I got some idea.

I know, that those charts are from different researches, but those charts are also somewhat problematic to make too big conclusions. They give a reason to ask questions, but then again not giving solid answers. For instance in one chart is given bigger average weight to bears at Alaskan peninsula area (specimens started from 3 years older bears than Kodiaks compared, detail which isn´t meaningless), but then again in biggest individuals Kodiak bear was 169 kg heavier, that´s about 372 lbs in favor of Kodiak bear. Quite interesting. Then again weights in that chart concerning Kodiaks seemed to be from year 1969 and what comes to Alaska peninsula from years 1976 and 1980. And it was same thing in females, biggest individual was Kodiak.

I´m sorry but even though information is there, it doesn´t look like information from which could be made too big conclusions to any direction.

So I don´t disagree about figures on charts. But I disagree that those figures would give clear comparison what comes to Kodiak bears and other brown bears.
 
Why I give criticism to for instance comparison made about 6+ years bears compared to 9+ years old bears... There is no information how many Kodiaks were 6-9 years old on that chart. That combined to information how male Kodiak bears grow (Males continue to grow, gaining approximately 100 lbs. (45.45 kg) per year until they are eight to ten years old and weigh 500 to 1000 lbs. (227.27 – 454.54 kg)) leaves there quite big possibility to have twisted information and comparison.

And what comes to males, there were only 5 from Alaskan peninsula and only 10 from Kodiak in chart giving to Kodiaks (6+) average weight of 300 kg and to bears from Alaskan peninsula (9+) average weight of 389 kg. So there is possibility, that for instance 6-7 Kodiaks were only 6 years old. If assuming, that 5 were 6 years old and 3 were 7 years old, we should add to mentioned total weight (3000 kg) 954,45 kg and suddenly comparable average weight of these Kodiak bears would be 395,5 kg... assuming, that growing normally. This is of course now speculation, but point is that those charts leave a lot of room for it. So little numbers of specimens there, that quite impossible to make big conclusion in any case.

Of course those charts open up a good reason to look closer and make questions, but too many problems there to talk about real average weights. At least I don´t buy it yet if nothing more to back up such claim. Nothing personal, just how I see it. Reply