Giant Short Faced Bear (Arctodus simus)

[Verdugo]

(11-05-2019, 01:41 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote: Just correct a typo, the 506 mm figure is the condylobasal length of the Yukon skull, and its greatest length is 521 mm.

BTW, a 50 mm difference is still quite a lot, but also keep in mind that we have only very few samples for the Yukon subspecies so far. And we don't know if the 521 mm skull really represents the absolute max for the entire population.

If that 57 cm skull is legit, then it is just a freak specimen from the absolute max spectrum, and the average weight for the Ursus ingressus was still than the SF from both North and South America.

It's not a typo actually, i know there will be some confusion with the way the author described the skull measurements...

Anyway, you can see what different skull measurements actually mean here

*This image is copyright of its original author

Condylobasal length is premaxilla - occipital condyle, which is stated in the source to be 463 mm. So both the the 506 mm and 521 mm are not condylobasal length.

Both 506 and 521 mm figures could be called 'Greatest skull length' because they're both Premaxilla - Inion. However, the exact way they are obtained seems to be a bit different. The 521 mm (judging by the way it was described) appears to be a straight line from Premax to Inion. On the other hand, the 506 mm (judging by how it was described in the source) is the distance between Premax and Inion measured from a line paralleled to the transverse plane. Anyway, to illustrate my point:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The 521 mm would be the Red line number 1 and the 506 mm would be the Red line number 2 (just ignore all the of the little numbers around it, i'm unable to find better illustration).

According to the Skull measurement link i posted above and according to what i have seen in literatures (Figueirido, 2010, Fig. 2), the Second measurement would be the more appropriate measurement of Greatest or Maximum skull length. I rarely see the First measurement being used in more recent literatures (post-2000).

Obviously, i don't know how the Cave bear's skull length was measured. Assuming it was measured using the First method, then the 521 mm figure for SFB would be the more appropriate figures for an apple-apple comparison. Even so, the 50 mm difference is not a small difference like you said.

The thing is i have seen Cave bear skulls as long or longer than those of SFB but none are as wide or as deep. So it's not as much as a surprise for me to see Cave bear's skull being longer than those of SFB. The Cave bear skull that you posted, on the other hand, appears to be not only longer than those of SFB, but also wider as well (due to having larger Mastoid width). This means that Cave bear skull is probably larger than those of the largest SFB in its overall dimensions. Yeah, probably a freak like you said. Regardless, a skull of that size (assuming the figures are legit) would make Cave bear one of the largest Bear in existence.

BTW, why didn't you answer my question? How did you get that pic? Did you take it on your trip to the museum or somewhere else? If you took it from a certain website then a link to that website would be great. Reply