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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Size comparisons

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
#31
( This post was last modified: 11-30-2015, 03:31 AM by brotherbear )

From Casey Anderson's Expedition Wild: 
* Bears in Yellowstone National Park can stand about 100 centimetres at the shoulder when on all fours and weigh about 275 kilograms. ( 606 pounds ).

* Coastal brown bears can stand 112 centimetres tall at the shoulder when on all fours and weigh 410 kilograms or more. ( 904 pounds ).
* A Kodiak bear can stand more than 140 centimetres tall at the shoulder when on all fours and weigh more than 630 kilos. ( 1,389 pounds ).

I would like to see a comparison with the ancient Panthera tigris soloensis and the brown bear ( subspecies ) nearest his size.
2 users Like brotherbear's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#32
( This post was last modified: 11-30-2015, 04:08 AM by tigerluver )

@brotherbear:
Being 20 cm longer than 220 cm accounts to a 1.3x (240/220^3 = 1.3) mass increase according to isometry. Do that math and it'll make more sense. As Smilodon is even more robust than the very robust tiger, the two don't scale isometrically, and the tigers mass will be lighter than 1.3 x 420 kg (Smilodon populator's mass) isometric estimate.

I can give the brown bear comparison a go. Know of any good bear representative you'd like me to use. I'll show both the largest Kodiak bear and brown bear on it.

@Pckts:
If you haven't read my most recent post in the the freak felids thread, please take a look at that for some of the complexities of Smilodon. Its bones are much, much more robust than any cats, and even more robust than brown bears. In raw terms, it blows modern cats out of water. It may be a bit less in flesh robusticity than a bear, for the reasons I described in that post.
3 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
#33
( This post was last modified: 12-01-2015, 06:24 AM by brotherbear )

Sounds great Tigerluver. I'm looking forward to your comparisons. Another interesting comparison would be a Kodiak bear with a giant cave bear.
1 user Likes brotherbear's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#34

@brotherbear


*This image is copyright of its original author


I didn't beautify it yet, as I'm still uncertain of the maximum mass and size of the bears. From reading, it looks like wild specimens can get even bigger. I was not able to find body lengths for the big specimens either, so I used the shoulder heights provided to extrapolate body length.

We can do a a prehistoric bear one too.
6 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
#35

Looking at the height and length difference between the Ngandong tiger and the Alaskan brown bear ( peninsula grizzly ), the size comparison appears similar to that of the Amur tiger and the Ussuri brown bear. Nice comparison Tigerluver.  
1 user Likes brotherbear's post
Reply

United Kingdom Sully Offline
Ecology & Rewilding
*****
#36

Ox and bison?
2 users Like Sully's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
#37

I agree with SVTIGRIS. Bovine comparisons would be interesting. 
2 users Like brotherbear's post
Reply

GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#38

Hi guys. Well, I have a full set of measurements of gaur, wild Asian buffalo and African bufallo (finally!). I also have a set of measurements of American bison, but I don't know if they were taken "between pegs" or "over curves".

For the moment, check this old one from the gaur, it still impress me:


*This image is copyright of its original author
7 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Canada GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#39

Palaeoloxodon Namadicus, credit to SameerPrehistorica from the DeviantArt.

http://sameerprehistorica.deviantart.com/art/Palaeoloxodon-Namadicus-546061083


*This image is copyright of its original author
5 users Like GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

Czech Republic Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******
#40

@GrizzlyClaws: I just come to learn that this elephant, Palaeoxodon Namadicus, weighing between 18 and 22 tons, is, in fact, the biggest mammal having ever existed on Earth... The hornless rhino Paraceratherium is beaten.
3 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Canada GrizzlyClaws Offline
Canine Expert
*****
Moderators
#41
( This post was last modified: 12-09-2015, 04:55 AM by GrizzlyClaws )

(12-09-2015, 02:48 AM)Spalea Wrote: @GrizzlyClaws: I just come to learn that this elephant, Palaeoxodon Namadicus, weighing between 18 and 22 tons, is, in fact, the biggest mammal having ever existed on Earth... The hornless rhino Paraceratherium is beaten.

They lasted until the early Holocene, and some of their subfossilized tusks are still available in China.


*This image is copyright of its original author
3 users Like GrizzlyClaws's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
#42

Any chance of comparing Palaeoloxodon namadicus to the biggest of the mammoths. As I recall, there was a huge mammoth discovered in recent years which also gave challenge to the giant rhino, Paraceratherium.
1 user Likes brotherbear's post
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#43

@brotherbear, I've got the paper and in a few days I'll post it in a new thread. The authors drew size comparisons.
3 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Australia Richardrli Offline
Wildanimal Enthusiast
***
#44

Which species of mammoth would that be? I don't recall any particularly huge proboscidean discovered in recent years apart from that reputed 13 feet tall (certainly no mammoth) creature found back in 2009 in Indonesia and the huge 17 feet long tusks found on Crete around 2012/2013, which again wasn't from a mammoth species.
2 users Like Richardrli's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
#45

I had to search the web for it: http://amazingdata.com/the-largest-eleph...r-existed/
1 user Likes brotherbear's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB