There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
Sorry for the late reply, I got sick for weeks and forgot about the thread.
The Kurten method is simply reconstructing body size from bones then applying body size to body mass. Estimates are better reflective of wild specimens this way as bone to body size is consistent in captivity and wild, but no weight. Moreover, due to the sensitivety of mass, the Kurten method can be more powerful as the modern database for in the flesh size to mass in much larger than what we have on bone to mass (I've expanded the database on tiger bones to 7 specimens, courtesy of the Smithsonian. The problem, these aren't purebred specimens and are exceptionally light, not well reflective of the wild populations). Kurten used this method in one of the first estimations of the Short-faced bear. Today, his estimates seem to be underestimates, but the reason to this is easy to explain. Kurten (1967) used a proportionately light variety of bear, either the sun bear or the sloth bear, I can't remember which one off the top of my head.