Talk:Brown bear

Biggie Bear

Ok, why does it say tat largest weighed close to 2400 pounds? Here is a source that says that largest weighed OVER 2500+ pounds:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/bear.html

and the source is of library of congress research. Could it be edited please.

Also, a book called "Great Bear Almanac" by Garry Brown, a very well known bear expert, mentiones over 2500 pound bear for kodiak and Kamchatka bears. both of course are pretty extremely large individuals, but nevertheless, the largest bears weigh over 2500, not close to 2400 pounds.

Also, here is a picture of 1000 kg (2200 pound) bear (http://www.daylife.com/photo/03Nngke5xR7Vx). To settle the "Oh no, it can't be, bears don't get that large!!!" question finally.

The picture doesn't establish its size.Uniquerman (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Added section on firearms

I've added a short section on which firearms are considered minimum for defending against a brown bear attack.

Queued images

Grizzly

Information Website

Cool, I like this website, Its got a lot of info!

Misnomer

I would contest that there is no such species as "brown bear". There are grizzlies, distinct by the large hump on their back, of which Kodiak are an enormous example, and there are black bear, some of which come in shades of brown. Brown bear is not a species unto itself. My source is bear training while working with the Montana Conservation Corps and working in the backwoods of the Rockies, now working and living in the Appalachians. I find this site, http://www.bear.org/website/ , corroborates my point. 99.66.36.168 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it seems to be an umbrella term for all "Ursus arctos" subspecies. There is no such thing as an "Ursus arctos" bear, but there is a "Ursus arctos arctos", a "Ursus arctos beringianus", etc. They are listed at Brown_Bear#Subspecies. Maybe we should update the first sentence in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not an expert, but my understanding was that the term "Brown Bear" refers to a species of bear (individuals of which are not necessarily brown), and "Black Bear" refers to a different species of bear (individuals of which are not necessarily black). I thought "Grizzly Bear" referred to a subspecies or group of subspecies within "Brown Bear", which is supported by this subpage within the site you linked. There's a long-standing debate within Wikipedia about whether capital letters should be used to distinguish, for example, "Brown Bears" (members of Ursus arcto) from "brown bears" (bears of any species that are brown in color). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "brown bear" is the general English name for the species Ursos arctos, which occurs in North America, Europe and Asia, and includes the grizzly, the Kodiak, the Eurasian brown bear and various other subspecies. American Black Bear is another species, Ursus americanus, occurring only in North America, and although it is commonly black it has various other colour varieties including brown. All this is covered in the articles. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the statement that adult bears are generally immune from any predation except by Siberian Tigers. Adult bears ARE generally immune from tiger attacks, as the sources provided have shown OCCASIONAL instances of smaller adult bears being attacked in their dens during the winter, where the tiger can take advantage of their depressed and dazed state. I have never seen a source showing a recorded instance where a large adult bear was ever taken by a tiger in normal circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if there have been a few instances of tigers taking larger adult bears, it's safe to say that larger adults are GENERALLY immune from tiger predation, though maybe NOT always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "sympatric."

The third paragraph of the section on bear attacks begins with the sentence, "Native Americans sympatric to brown bears...". I would have edited the article directly but it is difficult to tell what the author actually meant. Technically, all humans are sympatric to bears, since it means that they do not interbreed even in contiguous populations. Of course, this is not at issue, because as far as we know humans do not interbreed with bears anywhere. Except for the occasional hybrid, Ursus arctos and Ursus americanus are sympatric species. They inhabit contiguous territory without interbreeding. "Sympatric speciation" refers to populations that did not speciate because of geographic isolation. Most commonly, it is used to describe the confusing and intricate taxonomy of animals like snails, salamanders, birds, and fruit flies, many closely related species of which demonstrate little morphological variation but do not interbreed even when they inhabit the same territory. If the author of the article could explain what he meant by "sympatric", it would be helpful. Anyone who wants to challenge the source material on "sympatric" or "sympatric speciation", I will be happy to hunt it up and give it out.Uniquerman (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)