Talk:Arctodus simus

Size
Hi. I am a 6 year old student. I thought the articles I read about the Arctodus was interesting. I grew up in Kamloops at the bottom of Juniper Ridge in the bush. .I lived there for 1 years and would see on average 5 to 2 black bears a week. The average size of the males was 60000 Lbs., the biggest of black Bears I have ever seen because they ate so well. They would eat of the apple trees and the wild berries. They would also stalk the deer. I knew a farmer who kept his cows there in pens,and the bears would stalk the newly born Charlois (name of the breed of cow also known as meat cow since that's what they were bred for. Anyways,  the bears would stalk the new borns.  I had a job were I would cart all the loose apples in my front yard so they would not kill the bear.   I would dump wheel barrow load after wheel barrow load, and when I would come home some of these bears would lay there and gorge themselves. They were so lethargic you could run up smack it with a stick and run away and it would not even bother to move. (a bit of an exageration).  Later I moved to Prince George and I lived there for 5 years and the bears there  were grizzly bears or brown bears.  How ever these were mountian grizzlies so they were a on the small side ranging 700 to 800lbs some were 1000lbs but that was extremly rare.  Most were on the small side. Not like average Gizzly Bears that don't live in the mountians. ( Such as coastal Grizzlies which can be 1500lbs and that's big but they can get bigger.) So I have come to the conclusion that Arctodus may have reached 3000lbs easy. Another fact is the grizzly bear can cover 60 feet in 2 seconds. They are faster than a race horse for short distance,but cannot keep that speed up for very long. That is a proven fact. Also most people think the black bear or grizzly bear has short legs and that is not true. horse  Their  legs are alot longer than most think. They just have skin and fur that is there on its legs and underneath that give it that appearance. That is also part of the reason they run so fast. A bear can also run up hill faster than it can run down hill,and most can go down hill at a fair speed. I have seen it myself. However black bears, grizzly bears or just bears in general walk pigeon toed especially the Russian Brown Bear. Bears like to stalk their prey and bears are great hunters. When the prey is close enough they charge it, hence they can cover 60 feet in 2 seconds .Now the Arctodus had very long legs for a bear and was not pigeon toed so   it must have been extremly fast for a short distance such as 60 feet. And they could probably keep their pace up for a longer time and not get winded as quickly because of their nasal cavity. So another conclusion I have come up with is that they could have been part of the reason it took man so long to get over across the ice bridge to the Yukon and Canada. Also it could be possible that they were such great preditors that they starved themselves to extinction becouse they hunted every thing out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.59.144.21 (talk • contribs).
 * Hi,
 * You may find this disappointing. In reality, from the fossil found, the short-faced bear was estimated to weigh 600-800kg, and that was huge for a bear, no modern bear can reach this size, save for some specimen experiencing growth disorder. The largest bear on record is a white bear 3.5m length from nose to tail, this guy weighed an estimated 880kg, however, given the thin dimesion of the bear, 1.5m measured around the body, it is very likely to weigh much less. And, to tell the truth, the Kodiak bear normally peaks at 450kg; however, in winter, they put on too much food to prepare for their winter sleep, and gain up to 180kg of fat. So, the real size of the bear when it is active during the year is just 300-450kg, that's all. What's more, hunters often estimate the weight of the bears, hence the story of 750kg bear or more . Back to the giant short-faced, why it goes extinct, according to popular belief, is due to the demise of its preys as the weather changes and overhunting by humans. Short-faced bears, under the circumstances, cannot compete with the more adpatable and smaller brown bears and hence, die out. All that said, the bear is a huge animal, especially the short-faced bear, but not that huge. And, every so often, a brown bear appears more massive than its real size due to its thick coat. 2000 to 3000 lbs is the range of very large herbivores, inclduing rhinos and wild cattles, a bear cannot come close to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.57.44.207 (talk • contribs).
 * That six-year old can type and work better than most adults I know! Did he mean 16? I agree the guessed weight of 6000 pounds is ridiculous, but they are big and intimidateing, and even adults are terrible at estimating weight! Paddling bear (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ANIMAL PLANET
in the animal planet Website(animal.discovery.com), the Bear Weight is 2000 pounds, so don't change it to 1800 pounds.

Requested move
The species part of a scientific name always has a lower case initial. The name of this article should therefore be Arctodus simus, not Arctodus Simus. I have noted this on Requested moves. --Richard New Forest (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved this to the uncontroversial section at WP:RM since this follows standard binomial nomenclature --Lox (t,c) 11:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was where I thought I'd put it. Thanks. --Richard New Forest (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No probs mate --Lox (t,c) 12:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge
FunkMonk: i probably wouldn't have minded inordinately otherwise, but i only changed Arctodus from a redirect to a stub less than 10 days ago. what say we wait on that for a while, see how it fleshes out? - Metanoid (talk, email) 07:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See talk on Arctodus. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether we need separate pages for Arctodus, Arctodus simus, and Arctodus pristinus. Since we have so little about them, wouldn't a merger make it easier to maintain? Just a thought, but I don't know how to suggest a merger so that the suggestion shows on all 3 pages.--Paddling bear (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * makes sense to me! Μετανοιδ  (talk, email) 16:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Size again
"It was the largest terrestrial carnivore of its day"; this is probably not true. Even if Ursus maritimus tyrannus (which seems to be significantly larger, though it is poorly known) is considered to be a semi-aquatic animal and thus not 'terrestrial', the larger types of brown bear such as middendorffi are at least equal in mass to Arctodus. Vultur (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the current weighed record for a Kodiak brown bear? I've read 1,500 pounds and 10' tall standing on hind legs but heard wild stories of over 2,000 pounds.  We'll never get a weight on a short-faced bear, but surely someone has used skeletal measurements to get a good estimate.  I've read about them exceeding 12 feet tall.  From it's dimnensions, it seems reasonable to continue to say it's the largest bear species known (although I've seen the ancestral Agriotherium listed as similar in size).  However, I tire of the constant arguement between whether polar and brown bears are larger when they are so close. Are we talking on average, or biggest recorded?  If it's average, it looks to me that Polar bears are taller, while (Kodiak) brown bears are heavier/larger mass wise. If we go by record individuals, we'll be updating it every few years.  Same arguement seems to fit the short-faced bear.--Paddling bear (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone added a link to Ursus maritimus tyrannus, which is a subspecies, so I reworded to split 'largest species' from largest subspecies. Both would be a terror!--Paddling bear (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I just watched the History Channel
An they found a living Giant Short-Faced Bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.4.228 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Spectacled/Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) is a type of short-faced bear. Without seeing your show, I doubt very much that they found an individual that is a Giant Short-faced bear as a member of Arctodus. The term "short-faced" has been used as a descriptive group name for Plionarctos and Tremarctine bears (bears from the subfamily Tremarctinae) which includes several genera such as Tremarctos and Arctodus) but has also been used as the common name such as Giant Short-faced Bear and Lesser Short-faced Bear.Paddling bear (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tremarctine bears are running bears?
I saw this bit and thought I'd add it to the Tremarctine page (linked from the text box) but we don't have a citation. I'm not near a library, and wouldn't be sure where to look up something that obscure. Anyone know a source?--Paddling bear (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear vs man size comparison
If Arctodus is 1.8 meters tall at the shoulder as said in the article then this is either a tall man or a small bear. Tall countries like the Netherlands (6'2") excepted an average American man is 5 feet 10 inches tall so the bear should be an bit taller than the guy. Now if you have to look up to see a bear's shoulders when he's on all fours then that's a freaking big bear... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)