Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Lion Coalition of 3 v Pleistocene Polar Bear
Topic Started: Jan 30 2012, 08:01 PM (8,559 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Lion Coalition of 3 - Panthera leo
The lion (Panthera leo) is one of the four big cats in the genus Panthera, and a member of the family Felidae. With some males exceeding 250 kg (550 lb) in weight, it is the second-largest living cat after the tiger. Wild lions currently exist in Sub-Saharan Africa and in Asia with an endangered remnant population in Gir Forest National Park in India, having disappeared from North Africa and Southwest Asia in historic times. Until the late Pleistocene, about 10,000 years ago, the lion was the most widespread large land mammal after humans. They were found in most of Africa, across Eurasia from western Europe to India, and in the Americas from the Yukon to Peru. The lion is a vulnerable species, having seen a possibly irreversible population decline of thirty to fifty percent over the past two decades in its African range. The African lion is a very large cat, with males weighing between 330 and 550 pounds and females weighing between 260 and 400 pounds. It is 8 to 10 feet long, not including the tail. Its most famous feature is its mane, which only male lions have. The mane is a yellow color when the lion is young and darkens with age. Eventually, the mane will be dark brown. The body of the African lion is well suited for hunting. It is very muscular, with back legs designed for pouncing and front legs made for grabbing and knocking down prey. It also has very strong jaws that enable it to eat the large prey that it hunts.

Posted Image

Pleistocene Polar Bear - Ursus maritimus tyrannus
Ursus maritimus tyrannus was a very large fossil subspecies of the polar bear that descended from an Arctic population of brown bears. Its name in Latin means Tyrant Sea Bear. Initially the isolated brown bears were no different than the variations of brown bears of that time period. Because litters of cubs can show significant species variations in hair color and hair thickness, this gave certain individuals a survival advantage passed on each generation. Eventually skull changes and even changes in dentition occurred leading to the smooth and rather quick evolution of U. maritimus tyrannus. U. maritimus tyrannus was considerably larger then its modern relative. If everything is scaled out correctly from its remains, it would had been 183 cm (6 ft) at the shoulders, 3,6 m (12 ft) long and would have weighted an average of 1.2 tons, making it the largest bear "and one of the largest mammalian carnivores to ever walk on land". Its tremendous size makes it even bigger than the other "largest" mammalian carnivores that ever lived, including Andrewsarchus, Agriotherium, and Arctodus simus. It's speculated that this gigantic bear would, due to its formidable size and strength, have preyed on mammoths which also lived during the time.

Posted Image

_______________________________________________________________________

Bright Nights
Jan 30 2012, 01:38 AM
Three Male Lions vs. Ursus maritimus tyrannus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Molosser
Member Avatar
Ursids, Canids, and amphycionids
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Catboy
Dec 6 2013, 06:31 PM
The Pleistocene Polar Bear was only 400 kg, as posted by blaze. Mismatch in favour of the lions.
Even the polar bear of today is 700 kg and weights of 800 kg are not uncommon, all sources state that the pleistocene polar bear was larger not smaller so I don't believe this and this isn't a mismatch it's a close call
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sci Fyena
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I made the mistake of voting for the lions before looking at the size comparison. Yikes! That is one impressive bear.  :o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vivyx
Member Avatar
Felines, sharks, birds, arthropods
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
crxgalaxy
Dec 7 2013, 03:32 AM
Catboy
Dec 6 2013, 06:31 PM
The Pleistocene Polar Bear was only 400 kg, as posted by blaze. Mismatch in favour of the lions.
Even the polar bear of today is 700 kg and weights of 800 kg are not uncommon, all sources state that the pleistocene polar bear was larger not smaller so I don't believe this and this isn't a mismatch it's a close call
Quote:
 
Carpenter (1984) is the source of the 5m long (actually "about 5.2m") and 1.5 tonnes estimates, the length seems to not be along the axial column as most dinosaur length estimates are, at least scaling the (scalebar less) skeletal based on the measurements given for the radius and humerus makes it ~5.3m long from tip to tip. Scaling the version by Greg Paul to that length will make it smaller than what it really is because of what is said in Paul (1997), Paul's more horizontal and wider, scaled to the same humerus and radius lengths makes it ~6.2m long from tip to tip and 1.5m tall. Greg Paul estimates its mass at 2 tonnes.

The bear has recently been identified as belonging to Ursus arctos (brown bear) rather than being a subspecies of polar bear (Ingólfsson & Wigg, 2008), the giant estimates are, apparently, not found in any scientific paper that mentions it, expected, since it's just an ulna, the context of the claim of it being bigger than the extant polar bear was probably based on how big it was for being a subadult (Kurten, 1988) rather than being bigger than any known polar bear in absolute terms, as you can see, using a brown bear skeletal and scaling its ulna to that of U. m. tyrannus makes for a bear "just" ~1.3m tall and probably 400kg. If a 485mm ulna really makes for a 1.8m tall bear then the big, 591mm Arctodus simus ulna belongs to a 2.2m tall bear. lol

Now that the size difference has been cleared up (the bear is actually ~1/5 the size of Sauropelta rather than being 80% its size), lets talk about the fight, I can't see how the bear can kill Sauropelta unless the dino just stands still which doesn't seem likely given how its facing an animal much smaller than itself but I also can't see how Sauropelta can kill it, I guess if it can trample the bear but the bear is faster. If say, the bear rears up to try to intimidate it and Sauropelta charges at it and the bear falls on Sauropelta's neck and shoulders that could gore the bear enough to kill it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vivyx
Member Avatar
Felines, sharks, birds, arthropods
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sci Fyena
Dec 7 2013, 07:51 AM
I made the mistake of voting for the lions before looking at the size comparison. Yikes! That is one impressive bear.  :o
Inaccurate size comparison.


Quote:
 
Carpenter (1984) is the source of the 5m long (actually "about 5.2m") and 1.5 tonnes estimates, the length seems to not be along the axial column as most dinosaur length estimates are, at least scaling the (scalebar less) skeletal based on the measurements given for the radius and humerus makes it ~5.3m long from tip to tip. Scaling the version by Greg Paul to that length will make it smaller than what it really is because of what is said in Paul (1997), Paul's more horizontal and wider, scaled to the same humerus and radius lengths makes it ~6.2m long from tip to tip and 1.5m tall. Greg Paul estimates its mass at 2 tonnes.

The bear has recently been identified as belonging to Ursus arctos (brown bear) rather than being a subspecies of polar bear (Ingólfsson & Wigg, 2008), the giant estimates are, apparently, not found in any scientific paper that mentions it, expected, since it's just an ulna, the context of the claim of it being bigger than the extant polar bear was probably based on how big it was for being a subadult (Kurten, 1988) rather than being bigger than any known polar bear in absolute terms, as you can see, using a brown bear skeletal and scaling its ulna to that of U. m. tyrannus makes for a bear "just" ~1.3m tall and probably 400kg. If a 485mm ulna really makes for a 1.8m tall bear then the big, 591mm Arctodus simus ulna belongs to a 2.2m tall bear. lol

Now that the size difference has been cleared up (the bear is actually ~1/5 the size of Sauropelta rather than being 80% its size), lets talk about the fight, I can't see how the bear can kill Sauropelta unless the dino just stands still which doesn't seem likely given how its facing an animal much smaller than itself but I also can't see how Sauropelta can kill it, I guess if it can trample the bear but the bear is faster. If say, the bear rears up to try to intimidate it and Sauropelta charges at it and the bear falls on Sauropelta's neck and shoulders that could gore the bear enough to kill it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sci Fyena
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Could someone please post an accurate size comparison for the polar bear?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bob5
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Catboy
Jan 4 2013, 09:18 PM
Mismatch in favour of the lions, the Pleistocene Polar Bear was only 400 kg.
Is this new information or something that was just recently discovered? So your saying that this bear was smaller than the average polar bear??!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bob5
Feb 13 2014, 06:50 AM
Catboy
Jan 4 2013, 09:18 PM
Mismatch in favour of the lions, the Pleistocene Polar Bear was only 400 kg.
Is this new information or something that was just recently discovered? So your saying that this bear was smaller than the average polar bear??!
It seems based on the analysis of the members here. I don't see a reason as to why they're wrong, as they bring up an intelligent, scientific argument.


3 lions combined are 87.5% heavier than the bear (250*3=750. 750/400=1.875-1=0.875*100=87.5), they should win easily based on these numbers. Hell, even 2 would be enough to surpass the bear's weight by 25%.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bob5
Feb 13 2014, 06:50 AM
Catboy
Jan 4 2013, 09:18 PM
Mismatch in favour of the lions, the Pleistocene Polar Bear was only 400 kg.
Is this new information or something that was just recently discovered? So your saying that this bear was smaller than the average polar bear??!
It's not new information, 1.2 tonnes, 1.8m+ tall are baseless exaggerations, the ulna is long but rather gracile for its length and its not gigantic either, 48.5cm is the estimated length, and it falls short of the ulnae of big Arctodus and Arctotherium specimens, the publication that described the bone (Kurten 1964 not 1988 like a said before) said it was big for a subadult polar bear and it was only compared to subadult polar bears.

Posted Image

The 400kg that I mentioned was a guesstimate based on how tall it ended up with comparisons like the above.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That looks like a really slender neck for bear standards (at least from what I know). Makes me believe that getting to and biting the throat seems like a relatively easy task.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It does look that way but it's my fault, I made it too skinny I think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Asadas
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
The polar was was big, and Kurten was quoted.

From an analysis of the bone, Kurten determined from the Pleistocene polar bear, like other mammals of the time, was much larger than the present-day form...

Polar bear cheek teeth became smaller and more jagged as an adaptation to life as a carnivore..In comparison, the cheek teeth of the grizzly are larger but flatter and smoother for grinding the vegetation that forms the bulk of its diet.....the canines of the polar bear have become larger and sharper for tearing seals apart...The stockier claw of the polar bear is probably less likely to bend or break under strain when its possessor is running on ice or climbing steep banks.

Although the modern polar bears are smaller than Pleistocene ancestors,...Pleistocene polar bears were larger than today's.Adult males may weight from about 350 to 650 kg..Bears are said to be smaller in the area or Svalbard and become larger as one progesses west to the Bering sea.

..Their larger size and strength came about more for protection than for predation.
..their limbering gait is not suited for chasing prey.

Posted Image
http://books.google.com/books?id=ViOiGWPQRjIC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=cave+bears+vs+polar+bears&source=bl&ots=3KiF7Z3BEJ&sig=zW8phYKKny8sdwXhZ7J0L0Enxao&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lAj9UrHyIO7KsQTLp4GYCw&ved=0CHwQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=cave%20bears%20vs%20polar%20bears&f=false

http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_10/MattsonB_Vol_10.pdf

Assuming they were big, this is a fair match.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bob5
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
blaze
Feb 13 2014, 07:30 AM
Bob5
Feb 13 2014, 06:50 AM
Catboy
Jan 4 2013, 09:18 PM
Mismatch in favour of the lions, the Pleistocene Polar Bear was only 400 kg.
Is this new information or something that was just recently discovered? So your saying that this bear was smaller than the average polar bear??!
It's not new information, 1.2 tonnes, 1.8m+ tall are baseless exaggerations, the ulna is long but rather gracile for its length and its not gigantic either, 48.5cm is the estimated length, and it falls short of the ulnae of big Arctodus and Arctotherium specimens, the publication that described the bone (Kurten 1964 not 1988 like a said before) said it was big for a subadult polar bear and it was only compared to subadult polar bears.

Posted Image

The 400kg that I mentioned was a guesstimate based on how tall it ended up with comparisons like the above.
But just a little while ago, the Pleistocene polar bear was said to weigh 2,600 lbs on this forum
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not everyone sees my posts and the OP has never been updated to show a more reasonable mass.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Lions win IMO
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply