Granoloh wrote:↑ 5:30 p.m. – 8 days ago
Granoloh,
I think you are taking the source out of context as Martin-Serra actually gave the felids the overall advantage in grappling (I linked the paper earlier in this thread).
He explained that no animal of his size can match his front legs and dexterous paws.
This study did not give felids the grappling advantage. You may have misinterpreted it.
“These shape differences would indicate different motor skills. Accordingly, ursids display a short and caudally oriented olecranon (Figure 7G,H) and therefore have a more erect posture and less mechanical advantage of the triceps brachii.Canids and hyenas have a moderately long and caudally oriented olecranon process (Figure 7G,H), a feature that, along with their slender ulna, is characteristic of fully terrestrial carnivores [12]. Cats and "cat-like" species (i.e. Barbourofelids and Nimravids) have a longer and more cranially directed olecranon, which is related to their hunting strategy: Modern big cats use their forearms to manipulate and subdue their prey before the fatal bite [12,14,22,26] and therefore need strong triceps to exert enough force.
Now do you think hyenas and canidae are better grapplers than bears?
These locomotive movements ≠ grappling technique.
EDIT: You said this a while ago:
Not a bad site, but it doesn't seem as scientific as this study I posted.
That was the secondary source. This is the primary sourcehttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0085574
This is the exact same source you posted to me about triceps. So the study you posted directly states that the bear has superior forearm and forelimb structure.
Front paw dexterity might sound good on paper, but bears don't have opposable thumbs, and I've never seen them use that to their advantage in intraspecific conflict (assuming it's an advantage at all).
"No carnivore of comparable size has anything like it eitheroversized claws... claws clearly "designed" to be powered by the
muscular arms and shoulders to either climb trees, extract (i.e., dig) food from a persistent matrix, or engage and subdue large prey such as seals, elk, and elk. "
They use their claws all the time. The toes on each of a bear's paws have the same type of joint, a hinge joint. This allows the toes to curl towards the palm or curve outward from the palm. This allows the bear some gripping ability. Another advantage
"Polar bears and brown bears have been observed to attack their prey with both bites and crushing forepaw strikes, apparently into every region of the prey's body that is accessible."http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=71fe21 ... ds+and+fel
Check this outhttps://books.google.com/books?id=dTYZC ... AF6BAgIEAM
By the way, a tiger or a bear would not have an "opposable thumb". So this is not a valid point
Meanwhile, studies published earlier in this thread show that felids have more flexible wrists and elbow joints, which would correlate with better gripping ability.
"No other terrestrial vertebrate of this size - certainly no other large carnivore - has forelimbs so flexible, powerfully built, and equipped with such dexterous paws."
And claws and flexibility of the front limbs go to the Ursid. And bears have better humerus extension.
You forget that forearms, grappling hooks, and general structure and control are the key factors in grappling.
We also know that big cats are more likely to target larger prey (due to their ability to grab better), but I'll get into more of that later in this post.
They target large prey more often. But alone, bears can actually attack larger and stockier/dangerous prey than most cats.
The same published studies also confirm that at parity, felids have more muscular and robust forelimbs that also aid in grasping and punching.
I've already shown a study by Blaire proving that bears are better strikers. Plantigrades hit harder. Larger bears hit and bite harder.
I've also shown evidence of a better forearm skill/claw.
Forearm muscles aren't the most important thing when hitting either. It's the deltoids and pectorals. I'm pretty sure I showed a book that said bears have larger and more developed delts and pecs. Smaller bear species also have a more robust shoulder blade.
I've seen lions sit on their butts when outnumbered by hyenas or AWDs to protect their butts and flanks, and they essentially throw paw slaps while going "plantigrade".
I've never seen that in a lion. can you show us the video?
I think you may have a misunderstanding of what Plantigrade is.
It is noticeable when standing on the wrong foot (whole foot on the ground). Not busy anymore.
Or are you referring to lions "twisting their bodies"? (Kinetic Linking) this is not plantigrade
I'm pretty sure animals can't "change" their digitgrade/plantigrade stance. Since it is determined by their footprints, they would have to change their way of walking and their anatomy. Don't think that's possible.https://books.google.com/books?id=gz9xD ... is&f=false
And even if that were true, the bear already has the morphological advantage and hits that much harder either way.
There is nothing wrong with the PC2 value studies in fact, it just depends on how you interpret them. Pandas had some of the lowest (if not the lowest) PC2, and we know they can't punch or grab any better than Ursids or Felids. I don't mind using these studies as general reference, but using them to draw absolute conclusions is a stretch in my opinion.
The studies show that the bear has better forearm dexterity and the grappling advantage.
The polar bear is the lowest. Panda is not. It makes sense that a panda would grip better and hit more efficiently (when I say more efficient doesn't always mean harder) than a felid.
“Scoring medium or low on PC2 are carnivores that use their front legs to subdue, manipulate, or dig up food. These include Ursids, Mustelids, Procyonids and Felids. While not complete grapplers, medium scores on PC2 characterize small canids. However, small canids and small grapplers do not overlap, and all canids score higher than other carnivores of the same body mass.
I'm not sure if you saw my answer to Warsaw, but while Ursids are capable of hunting large prey, they usually prefer to hunt smaller and weaker ones as they aren't as adept at targeting them hunt like big cats.
Yes I know that
Importantly, grizzly bears would rather prey on winter-killed ungulates or ungulate carcasses killed by wolves than have the energy to engage in predation (opportunistic). Grizzly bears look for winter-killed ungulates (ungulates killed by wolves) and weakened animals in early spring; in autumn, bears seek out hoofed animals that have been weakened by the rut (elk in September/October, bison in August/September) (Schleyer 1983).
Well, for tigers, according to John Seidensticker:
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/han... er1993.pdf
"Tigers take the largest suids, bovids and cervids... the smallest tigers, like those of old
found on Java, killed Banteng (Bos javanicus) males weighing 825 kg".
I can also show how bears kill adult bison (including bull bison) with relative ease in some cases. You are not fair by Guar. Remember, these are the not-so-big bears from Yellowstone.
Don't forget we are talking about Amur tiger vs. Ussuri.
Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the documentary, but this clip shows that a single male lion is quite capable of bringing down a male Cape buffalo, and quite skillfully at that.
Yes, cats have the deadly advantage, I've said that many times.
Ursids often have to brute force their prey (due to their inability to hold them down effectively).
Part 1 is correct. 2. would be wrong. I have shown data on this before.
while the lion (and big cats in general) employed a deadly combination of technique, agility, and physical strength.
Yes. They're built for stuff like that.
We discussed this weeks ago
The female cape buffalo and female gaur killed by lions and tigers are far more formidable prey than what Ursids regularly hunt.
"Regularly" some bears are habitual bull killers. A known bear killed 4 adult bison on its way. We can't be sure
Also for brown bears, 70% of their diet comes from plant matter and a good percentage of the rest of their diet consists of hunting sick/weak prey or carcasses (see the source previously posted). Big cats are true carnivores, meat makes up almost 100% of their diet, and they target large animals. The number of large prey animals that are target bears is quite small compared to big cats.
This claim is not made by a bear specialist.
It all depends on the season.
Bears have a primarily vegetable diet, but the seasonal abundance of newborn ungulates and anadromous salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) can lead to periods of increased meat consumption (see below).
https://books.google.com/books?id=jwsIE ... AF6BAgFEAM
In the early twentieth century, the diet of female grizzly bears in GYE consisted of about 72 percent meat, while the diet of males consisted of about 98 percent meat.https://books.google.com/books?id=MlBQC ... AF6BAgHEAM(Yes I know it's old).
From the page you posted earlier:
Male grizzly bears have a higher proportion of meat in their diet than their female counterparts. Additionally, compared to black bears, grizzlies generally have a larger percentage of meat in their diet. Larger bears typically seek out higher-energy diets (Welch et al. 1997, Rode et al. 2001, Robbins et al. 2004). Female grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Lake area had the same percentage of meat in their diets in 1997-2000 as in 2007-2009; It has also been observed that these values do not differ or fluctuate based on ecosystem-based estimates from 1977-1996 during the grizzly bear expansion (Jacoby et al. 1999, Felicetti et al. 2003, Fortin et al., 2013). However, the proportion of meat documented in the diets of subadult and adult male grizzly bears decreased. Male grizzly bears in the Lake area had a lower percentage of meat in their diet between 2007 and 2009 than between 1997 and 2000. Both levels were lower on an ecosystem basis from 1977-1996 during the grizzly expansion (Jacoby et al. 1999, Felicetti et al. 2003, Fortin et al 2013). From this information it can be concluded that male bears are experiencing the first consequences of declining meat biomass and resources (Fortin et al. 2013).
Check this out too
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/bearfoods.htm
I also have a source that suggests a male (adult) Yellowstone bear has a diet of 80% meat. It all depends
By the way: high-protein diets are good for your muscle mass, but not for your fat reserves.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Y5DxD ... AF6BAgLEAM
The big cat fights I posted show that they fight more skillfully than Ursids.
"One potential benefit of this Plantigrade foot stance is that it can improve combat performance by increasing the ability to apply free moments (i.e., force couples) to the ground."
Which is supported by Blaire's studies.
Bears have an advantage in endurance due to slower-twitch muscle fibers, but big cats have also shown good endurance performances (lions are cursory and jog long distances, tigers swim more than 18 km in summer, leopards had long scrambles with prey, etc.).
Endurance is different from endurance.
While these are good performances in endurance running. Bears can maintain their speed for long periods of time despite being slower.
The bear's limbs would be no stronger (in terms of muscle mass) than a big cat's at parity - they would appear thicker due to more fur and fat, but are not stronger.
Bears have the shoulder and chest advantage at par.
And forearms (since, unlike cats, they dig all their lives) and claws.
My point was that bears can demonstrate a greater range of limb movement with more strength than cats. The bear's backbone is shorter and its denser bones are designed to support more mass, giving it stronger forearms that give it better control in fights and wrestling.
The pectorals and deltoids control shoulder rotation and manipulative behavior, so they would be among the most relevant muscle groups in grappling. We can see that bears have the advantage here; Big cats have smaller deltoids and pectorals. Bears have a broad scapula and postscapular fossa, absent in felids. It provides greater shoulder flexion and humeral extension in bears.
Bears don't just use "brute strength and their weight." There's more to it than that. They have a lot of wrestling and grappling knowledge from a young agehttps://books.google.com/books?id=QV5BB ... ng&f=false
Polar bear grapplinghttps://books.google.com/books?id=cRTbi ... AXoECAYQAw
According to naturalist Wayne Lich, wounds and scars are common in bears.
http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=71fe21 ... AF6BAgJEAM
This: The hump is simply toning.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xUjRB ... AXoECAIQAw
I'll leave it here, don't want to make my post too long (as if it wasn't already long)
^ I think I addressed most of your points in my reply to RedMatter, but if necessary I may reply to your post at some point later.