Bear Anatomy

[Shadow]

(12-10-2018, 09:48 AM)Panther Wrote:

(12-10-2018, 07:03 AM)Shadow Wrote: 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 can only suggest you to read the previous replies. There you got the answer.
Calling my data "old", "unreliable" without proving otherwise just because you are not agreeing with that is called testing patience of me. 

Quote: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 don't know the issue with the years. But the average of Alaska peninsula Brown bears in this chart is based on just 5 specimens. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Given an average of 389kgs while the max is just being 442kgs (a mere 50kgs difference) is not accurate I say.

If more bears weighed, then the value would be much less than that. 

Also it's discussed here on this site that Alaska peninsula Brown bears are being larger on average than kodiaK bears.

Quote: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.

It is, but you're not in a condition to agree with that. It's ok.
 

Quote: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.

The average for 9+ year old bears is just based on 5 specimens, along with them being prime males compared to the average adult (6+ year) Kodiak bears. 

Also 6+ means more than 6. So don't count it from 6 but 7. Those 10 attained the maximum of 611kgs, I don't think they're all young adults. 

Also I strongly disagree with that chart, I guess the first chart of 700lbs sounds accurate.

Quote: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.

How could it be, when it stated the individuals in the chart are 6+ year old? 6+ means more than 6, so count from 7. 
Also the difference between average and maximum of those 5 Alaska peninsula Brown Bears is very minimal. It's clearly not accurate, and based on prime specimens. 
Sorry, your calculation is wrong.

Quote: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.

You're using very large words that surpassing the words of peter, Guategojira, and tigerluver,etc.. 

Please don't make it heated discussion. I answered each of your questions. I guess you can understand the logic behind those conclusions...

My calculations are ok and meant only to show why statistics can be questionable, but discussing with you is just waste of time :) Here are now postings from both of us for everyone to read if interested. I leave it there. You can freely believe whatever you want to. Have a nice day there!! Reply