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.
05-23-2022, 08:53 PM( This post was last modified: 05-23-2022, 09:13 PM by LonePredator )
(05-23-2022, 08:42 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(05-22-2022, 02:39 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira Hello Guate, I was looking at your size data about Ussuri Brown Bears and Yellowstone Grizzlies and I noticed something interesting. I wanted to ask you which sample the length and height of the Grizzly been taken from? The 193kg sample or 245kg sample? And which one for the Ussuri Brown Bear?
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, the length and height of the Ussuri Brown Bear outsizes the inland Grizzly by a huge margin but the weights of both are still so similar. How could this be possible? Is it because of different samples for weights and measurements or is it due to food shortage for the Ussuri Bears because the Ussuri Bear measurement also shows a low chest girth in relation to its length and height.
With the length and height the Ussuri Bear has, it could most likely achieve very high weights such as 300-350kg given the right conditions and I think this is perhaps the same weight as the average Kodiak or Alaskan Peninsula Bear.
One more interesting thing to note is that ursids and felids do not burn muscle mass like humans do due to lower amounts of myostatin, dense and thick bones and a combination of other factors. Even after hibernation when Bears lose a lot of weight, the loss of muscle mass in Bears is still almost negligible.
My point here is that the Ussuri Bear should have a lot more strength than the inland Grizzly since the Ussuri Bears may not have as much fat but it would still retain most of its muscle which would give it that level of strength while a lot of the inland Grizzly’s weight is still made up of fat. The Ussuri Brown Bear could likely have the level of strength only slightly less than the giant Alaskan Peninsula and Kodiak Bears.
Even the pictures you have used in the comparison shows a giant Ussuri Bear with huge skull and overall body dimensions but it looks like it’s starving while the Grizzly is small in overall dimensions but looks quite fat which suggests that the overall absolute muscle mass in the Ussuri Brown Bear should be much much higher than the Grizzly.
These images are old and outdated, specially the one from the Russian bear, however the one of the American bear is still ok.
About the data of the Grizzly, the source is: Blanchard, 1987. Size and growth patterns of the Yellowstone Grizzly bear. Measurements used in the images are the ones taken in straight line.
About the Russian bear, the data came from an article of S. P. Kucherenko in the 70's, and the article was published in a webpage in 2003. Sadly the webpage is gone, as far I know, but I saved the table with the body measurements:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now, as you can see, the image of the Russian bear is incorrect, as I escalate it like if the bears were measured in straight line, when actually they were certainly taken along the curves. In this case, I made a new image in 2020, with other corrections like the body mass in modern records and I also re-escalated the Amur tiger size in the image. Check it:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Please, check the difference in the escalation, the size is closer to the size of the Grizzly now, which make more sense. About the body mass, I just found pieces of the modern records so I tried to reconstruct the information, however @peter made a good compilation of the especific modern records and the heaviest male was of 363 kg, here are his tables:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Taking the 8 males from this list and the other 2 males captured in 2011 and reported in the document of 2014, the average weight for the male Russian bears in the Sikhote Alina area, in modern records, is of 247.5 kg.
Certainly I need to update the images, and add the figures presente by peter.
Hope this helps.
Has it been explicitly stated that the length was taken ‘over curves’? Because even if the length was taken over curves, the shoulder height is still so different. Equal body length but such a huge difference in shoulder height does not seem very likely.
Another thing is that the 200cm+ length Bear with 360kg weight is similar to something I saw about an Alaskan Peninsula Bear which was also the same length and weight and it was probably taken in straight line as well. The reason I think it was taken in straigh line is because if a 165cm (straight line) Grizzly is 193kg then a Bear which is ~350kg should also be around 200cm in straight line only because a 350kg weight only makes sense with a straight line 200cm measurement unless the Bear was extremely fat.
Also, if a Brown Bear has 95cm height along with a length of 165cm in straight line then a Brown Bear with a height of 115cm height should also have a body length of 195-200cm length in straight line because both the Bears are Brown Bears with nearly identical body structure.
(05-23-2022, 08:53 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Has it been explicitly stated that the length was taken ‘over curves’? Because even if the length was taken over curves, the shoulder height is still so different. Equal body length but such a huge difference in shoulder height does not seem very likely.
Another thing is that the 200cm+ length Bear with 360kg weight is similar to something I saw about an Alaskan Peninsula Bear which was also the same length and weight and it was probably taken in straight line as well. The reason I think it was taken in straigh line is because if a 165cm (straight line) Grizzly is 193kg then a Bear which is ~350kg should also be 200cm in straight line only because a 350kg weight only makes sense in a straight line 200cm measurement.
Also when you scale the 95cm height Grizzly to a height of 115cm then as the length also increases in same proportion then it should reach 199cm so a straight line measurement of 198cm makes more sense with a shoulder height of 115cm because if a 95cm height Brown Bear has a length of 165cm in straight line then a 115cm height Brown Bear should also have a 195-200cm in straight line.
No Russian biologist measure in "straight line", only "over the curves". And also, there are no details if the height was taken like Blanchard stated, or to the tip of the claw like Leland Glenn do in the document "Morphometric characteristics of Brown bears on the Central Alaska Peninsula".
This is the problem when the methods are not clearly stated. But certainly, bears measured "straight" only those of Blanchard, for the moment.
(05-23-2022, 08:53 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Has it been explicitly stated that the length was taken ‘over curves’? Because even if the length was taken over curves, the shoulder height is still so different. Equal body length but such a huge difference in shoulder height does not seem very likely.
Another thing is that the 200cm+ length Bear with 360kg weight is similar to something I saw about an Alaskan Peninsula Bear which was also the same length and weight and it was probably taken in straight line as well. The reason I think it was taken in straigh line is because if a 165cm (straight line) Grizzly is 193kg then a Bear which is ~350kg should also be 200cm in straight line only because a 350kg weight only makes sense in a straight line 200cm measurement.
Also when you scale the 95cm height Grizzly to a height of 115cm then as the length also increases in same proportion then it should reach 199cm so a straight line measurement of 198cm makes more sense with a shoulder height of 115cm because if a 95cm height Brown Bear has a length of 165cm in straight line then a 115cm height Brown Bear should also have a 195-200cm in straight line.
No Russian biologist measure in "straight line", only "over the curves". And also, there are no details if the height was taken like Blanchard stated, or to the tip of the claw like Leland Glenn do in the document "Morphometric characteristics of Brown bears on the Central Alaska Peninsula".
This is the problem when the methods are not clearly stated. But certainly, bears measured "straight" only those of Blanchard, for the moment.
Yes! That could be the case. It makes more sense if the height was taken to the tip of the claw. That would add a few extra cms to the height so if the height is also taken properly then it may match the real length.
Both the height and length data of the Ussuri Brown Bear in this case seems to have been taken in an unusual way and it also seems that some measurements have been taken in a different way while others in another different way in the table you attached.
I suggest you to read the two documents that I quoted, so you can check the differences between the methods used and why the results are so conflictive.
05-23-2022, 10:06 PM( This post was last modified: 05-23-2022, 10:08 PM by LonePredator )
(05-23-2022, 09:59 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: I suggest you to read the two documents that I quoted, so you can check the differences between the methods used and why the results are so conflictive.
What a coincidence, I have read this just now as you replied. For the ‘shoulder height’, that study gave the distance from superior angle of the scapula to the tip of the longest claw. This is obviously not the real height as the real height will be much less than this and they also took the body length over the curves. The same could be the case for Ussuri Brown Bears except for the one 360kg Bear you mentioned which may have been measured differently.
05-23-2022, 10:42 PM( This post was last modified: 05-23-2022, 11:20 PM by GuateGojira )
@LonePredator, this is the original document of the modern records of the bears measured in Sikhote-Alin. You can try to translate it and check if there is any detail about the measurement methods.
(05-23-2022, 10:42 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: @LonePredator, this is the original document of the modern records of the bears measured in Sikhote-Alin. You can try to translate it and check if there is any detail about the measurement methods.
(05-23-2022, 10:42 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: @LonePredator, this is the original document of the modern records of the bears measured in Sikhote-Alin. You can try to translate it and check if there is any detail about the measurement methods.
I translated it with Google Translate and I did not find anything describing the method of taking measurements and these length and weight combinations also don’t make any sense either. It’s such a mess.
(05-24-2022, 08:45 PM)LonePredator Wrote: I translated it with Google Translate and I did not find anything describing the method of taking measurements and these length and weight combinations also don’t make any sense either. It’s such a mess.
That is sad. And that is a problem with many modern records. At least, in some of the old records, the hunters wanted to keep they figures accurate.
05-25-2022, 07:53 PM( This post was last modified: 05-25-2022, 07:56 PM by LonePredator )
(05-25-2022, 07:40 PM)AndresVida Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The bear looks huge but at the same time, the Tiger looks small.
That reminds me @GuateGojira, I remember you once mentioned that Vratislav Mazak gave a case of a Tiger killing a 320kg Ussuri Brown Bear. Is there a document where he stated this? Do you have that document and can you share it?
(05-25-2022, 08:02 PM)LonePredator Wrote: But that does not seem to be the case here which means either the Tiger is smaller than average or the Bear is bigger than usual or both.
There's nothing to scale that can give us an idea to estimate their size so we will never know about these two specimens, here the tiger is longer in TBL but the bear is taller and looks considerably heavier, that's all it matters
