Talk:Polar bear/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Factoids

Some facts I'm planning to massage into this article:

polar bears feet are turned inwards. this gives them better traction when walking on slick ice
polar bears are the most recent (100,000 years ago) species to begin adapting to aquatic life. The first mammal to adapt to aquatic life is the ancestor of all the whales and dolphins. The next adaptation was the seals and walruses, then the otters and their ilk.
polar bears are most closely related to brown bears. crossbreeding results in fertile offspring. (add also to brown bear)

- UtherSRG 17:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've also heard somewhere that polar bears are the only animals except humans that kill for fun/sport. Can anyone verify that? --Aramgutang 02:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing about various dolphin species, so though few animals seem to do this, saying "only" is overstating the case. Pcb21| Pete 11:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, not true: ever watch a housecat play with a mouse? I recently read David Brin's "Earth", in which he quotes somebody, to the effect: "It's foolish to believe the lie that only humans kill for fun." (It's near the end, I think.) I believe he also gives a few examples (including the cat/mouse one). If somebody is more familiar with the book or the quote, please help... --anon

Polar bears are not aggressive animals by nature. Believe it or not, a Russian naturalist has survived some 500 encounters with this species without carrying a gun. He runs off a polar bear once just with a long stick. His book : Living with the polar bear. You can look for it on amazon.com. Do not rely on online sources too much for wild life information, some, if not many, provide biased information, sometimes based solely on word of mouth and personal opinion.

Lasers

In the article it says that the polar bear's fur can absorb light? Does this mean if they got hit by a laser designed to hurt humans they wouldn't take damage from it? What would happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.160 (talk • contribs)

Probably the same thing that would happen to a person in a white t-shirt. According the the article, the fur absorbs UV light; i.e., a particular wavelength range (100-400 nm range). If the fur absorbed visible light (400 - 750 nm), the polar bear would appear black. Lasers are a focused beam in a specific wavelength; the particular wavelength varies depending on the type of laser. [1]. You might want to read this article for a discussion on the practicality of laser weapons. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So in theory would it be possible to actually kill a polar bear using a laser? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.160 (talk • contribs)

Theoretically, it should be possible to kill anything with a laser. As noted above, the only laser weapons currently in existence are pretty big (either stationary or mounted in a large aircraft) and are intended to be used for shooting down missiles or other projectiles. There are much easier and practical ways to kill a polar bear should the need arise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well bears are really powerful but I don't think they're completely invincible, do you think the lasers we have now for shooting down missiles could be used to kill one of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.160 (talk • contribs)

Probably. Tzepish 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Albinos?

I've been thinking of weird questions lately and I've wondered if there is such thing as an albino Polar Bear? Could somone please verify this for me? Greyhead 15:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Googling seems to indicate that while there's probably no reason a polar bear can't be albino - after all, they certainly do have melanin, which is coded for by genes that are just as susceptible to mutation as other genes - no albino polar bears are known to either exist or have existed. Why not? There just aren't, that's all; perhaps they've got melanin-coding genes on multiple alleles and even if one is defective in an albinism-causing fashion, the others compensate for it? Or maybe it's some other reason. There's only ever been one albino gorilla known, after all. Why? Who knows. DS 13:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be extremely difficult to tell an albino polar bear from a normal polar bear and one couldn't tell if it was albino from a distance.

My grand father told me that a pink nose is the only way to tell a true albino bear. He said that a lot of them have pink dots as well. The only way to confirm a albino is the pink or red eyes.

Spirit Bears - Any Relation?

I was wondering about the Spirit bear - an interesting parallel, though I assume it is much more recent. Does anyone know? And should there be a link? --GwydionM 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Spirit Bears are Black Bears with a recessive mutation. Even in the area where they are found, only one Black Bear in ten bears a double helping of the recessive white gene. -- Geo Swan 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Surreal Edits

In their spare time they do fun stuff. They slide on their bellies, box with eachother, dunk eachother, and more. When the female makes her den she makes it on a hillside so her cubs can slide down the hill on their bottomes.

I can't confirm or deny this but it seems a bit unlikely? The cubs do seem to 'play' in this way. I strongly doubt that the location of the den is decided in this fashion though. Does anyone have any data for this? akaDruid 15:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weasels?

I had the impression from somewhere that polar bears aren't actually "bears" - that is, although morphologically they certainly look like bears, immunogenetic and/or skeletal analysis showed that they're far more closely related to weasels than they are to other bears. Does anyone know anything about this? DS 13:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you have Pandas confused with Polar Bears.

NEVER MIND, I just read the Panda article and through recent genetic testing Panda's are infact bears.

As polar bears are capable of producing fertile hybrids with brown bears, they must be very similar genetically.

There is a type of bear we Inuit call a weasel bear it is when the bear gets over 12'. other than the build differance it is the same bear. Maybe you herd this and got it confused.

Endangered?

Does the fact that George Bush said that they are endangered mean it holds a hidden question for the white race?

I have read an article that environmentalists are petitioning to have the polar bear listed as endangered because they feel that this will protect polar bears from becoming extinct. The arctic sea ice is disappearing Sandy June 02:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Polar bears are now drowning to death due to global warming. This seems to run counter to the statement that they're "excellent swimmers". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html

There's a difference between swimming 50km to get from land to ice (that's still excellent swimming), and swimming 200km - that distance they might be able to do if they had some food on the way, but as the article points out, although they can swim well, they can't catch seals in the water, they have to get them on ice floes. The arctic ice cap is thawing so much that it is getting beyond their swimming abilities. - MPF 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That is what is going on: polar bears are "excellent swimmers" and they can swim up to 100 miles to reach the ice packs, but they are not designed to swim 200 or more. They are not swimming in a nice, quiet, backyard pool either-- add rough seas to the picture and the concept of polar bears drowning is not too hard to grasp.

It is hard to believe this scince I have seen and herd from my Inuit elders that bears can sleep in water if tired. After a bear gets so big they become to big to hold their weight on ice for very long. Most bears never touch land agian after they are born. These bears must of died of hunger no ice means that they cannot hunt seals. Which like to sun on ice. People have allwas been trying to put them on the list for as long as i can remember. Now they are even trying to put the ringed seal on the list cause the bear hunts them. Even though the warmer seasons are helping the seals mortality rate. Go Figure! I am all in for conservation but people need to make informed dicisions before they go to far.

Left-handedness?

Is it true that all Polar Bears are left-handed? Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 21:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Polar bears can't use their hands to hold, grip, or manipulate things in any meaningful way. Thus, left or right handedness is irrelevant to them Malamockq 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No this is not true Most bears are right-handed not all though. I was tought that when my Grandfathers father hunted them with dogs and a spear he would look for this. They run with thier stronger foot first this is their "handedness". When charged by a bear that this is their one weakness they cannot turn very fast to their oppisite hand. To think that animals do not share our traits is very... jaded. Sorry! The mystic and respect for the polar bear is one that none can share.

Polar bear dimensions

I remember hearing somewhere that a giant male was exhibited in 1962 at the Seattle world Fair. It's mounted height was 11 ft 2 inches and it had an estimated original weight of 2,200 lbs.

That's right. But, becareful, that is an estimate. A male polar bear stands about 2.2m - 3m on its hind legs and weighs 350kg - 600kg. I have been trying to verify this figure for a year now.Thanks for your figure, I can now quite assure that the bear in question weighs perhaps about 650kg-720kg, not that heavy( bigger than even a large bison bull). When you compare the size among specimens, you wil figure out it is impossible for a polar bear to weigh that heavy with this size. One thing that could make the bear heavier is the last time it feeds before being killed. A polar bear of this size can put in about 60kg of food. So, at peak, this guy weighs 700kg-780kg with a full stomach. Thanks again for the figure.

One more thing, when talking about the weight of a Kodiak bear: Before it goes into its winter den, it puts on up to 180kg of fat. So, if you hear that Kodiak bear is very heavy, that's also deceptive. The best way to measure the "working weight" of a brownbear is at the time it's active during the year. tht is truly the real weight, the weight based on which you can measure the corresponding strenght of a bear. So, with regards to some Kodiak bears which can measure 680kg in the wild, I suspect that those are shot in winter. In summer, they are about 500kg-540kg.

I hope this clear the doubt about which is the really biggest bear. Polar bear is the "biggest bear species". Only some exceptionally large Kodiak bear in winter can match the size of a large Polar bear. The sources claiming that brown bear weighing 1000kg or more is unbelievable. To reach that size, a bear would need to be at least 5m tall, or else it won't be able to move, let alone feeding itself, much like obesity in human. A bison averages twice the weight of a brown Kodiak bear, a bison can grow up to 1100kg, how can some creature half its bulk can surpass it? It is just unreasonable, especially in the wild, where every one fights for food, and every one can starve, now and again.

"Bears of the world" has a reasonable discussion on the size of all bear species. You can have a look.

When I was 12 I went to the muesum in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory they had a 13'9" on display it is a giant to behold! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.204.126 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 November 2005

"Global warming" instead of "climate change"

"Climate Change" was a propaganda term pushed into popular usage by Frank Luntz. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html

Capitalization of common names

Copied the following from User talk:Keenan Pepper and User talk:Wsiegmund. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keenan! I wonder if you are aware that capitalization of terms like polar bear is controversial? "Whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter has been hotly debated in the past and has remained unresolved. As a matter of truce both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but a redirect should be created from the alternative form." See WP:MOS. Earlier, the MOS advises "do not enforce American rules on pages about Commonwealth topics". Since polar bears live in both America (Alaska) and Canada (as well as other non-English countries), their nationality may be disputed.

The article was started in October 2001 with polar bear uncapitalized. [2] It was changed in March 2004. However, most of the edits have occurred since the latter date. It is possible that other changes occurred; my search was not exhaustive. I think the article history is sufficiently checkered that neither side can claim significant support from it. [3]

I have little interest in this argument since it affects the content not at all. Moreover, it seems to me to be one of the delights of editing Wikipedea to learn about this sort of thing. But, I thought some background on this matter might be helpful to you, in case you were unaware of it. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me about the capitalization of common names for species; I didn't even know there was any controversy. Do Canadians really capitalize it "Polar Bear"? I was just going by what I read at Talk:Bear#Caps. —Keenan Pepper 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Talk:Bear#Caps. That was a low intensity discussion! The second edit was almost two years after the first, and your edits were nine months after that. User:Funnyhat is still around. He has been editing U.S. topics, so it may be that he was just citing the American practice, rather than Wikipedea policy. I may leave him a note on his talk page tomorrow. Regarding the Canadian practice, I really can't say. But, I have worked with one English editor who said that they capitalize common names. I didn't find consistent (or even frequent) capitalization of common names at the Banff and Jasper National Parks websites. [4] [5] My impression is that Canadian English is intermediate between the U.K. and U.S., but that is only an impression. I'm pretty certain that they have retained much of the U.K. spelling of words, e.g., colour. Word pronounciation is much closer to the U.S. than to the U.K. I'm relieved that you didn't mind my comments. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keenan Pepper! I was curious this morning to look into the current practice for capitalizing the common names of North American mammals. Among Grizzly Bear, American Black Bear, Gray Wolf, Moose, Wapiti (Elk), Bighorn Sheep, Mountain goat, Wolverine, Puma, and Pronghorn, lower case seems to be more common. For plants, the common names are mostly or all capitalized. See Subalpine Fir, Engelmann Spruce, Whitebark Pine, Limber Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Rocky Mountains Juniper and Quaking Aspen. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keenan - happened on your note at Walter's talk page, thought I'd add a bit for clarity. It isn't a US/Canadian or any other variant of English, it's more of a disambiguation and clarification thing, with capitalisation probably started by various field guide authors many years ago (e.g. Roger Tory Peterson capitalised names in his field guides; he may well be one of the first). There are various reasons for it, most importantly that a brown bear (a bear that happens to be brown in colour) is not necessarily the same as a Brown Bear (a particular species, Ursus arctos) - e.g. many Black Bears are actually brown. Also very useful is that it takes away the need to know the etymology of a species name, as to whether it is derived from a proper name or not, e.g. if using proper name rules, did you know that Brazilwood should not be capitalised (the country is named after the tree, not vice-versa), whereas Bishop Pine is (named after the CA town San Louis Obispo, not after the church rank) - and then there's names borrowed from other languages, e.g. should Pohutukawa be capitalised or not - do you know enough Maori language?!? I don't!! Another is that it gives uniformity of treatment in lists without "first-class, capitalised" species and "lesser, non-capitalised" species. Generally, most wildlife-interested people capitalise species common names (having picked the habit up from field guides), whereas most other people don't, but it isn't a hard-and-fast rule. If you want to dig further, there's been extensive discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life page, take a look through the archives. There's been a small but consistent majority in favour of caps (with no discernible geographic bias of those for and against). Hope this helps! - MPF 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keenan - I looked into this a bit more. I have field guides with capitalized common names and field guides with uncapitalized common names (I got into this controversy in the first place by referring to the latter). However, the more major ones, especially The Sibley Guide to Birds (a new American guide) and others use the capitalized convention. The WP:MOS asserts, American English and Commonwealth English differ in their inclination to use capitals. Commonwealth English uses capitals more widely than American English does. That is how I got the notion that this was a US/UK usage difference. But, the Times (London) uses uncapitalized common names. [6] So, I stand corrected. I'm convinced by Michael's arguments and support the use of capitalized (or capitalised) common names in Wikipedia articles on plants and animals. Thank you, Michael. BTW, do either of you object to putting a copy of this discussion on the Polar Bear talk page where it might be found more easily? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

i'm seriously considering making some changes here to line this article up with the standards in use by WikiProject Mammals. note that this would include, among other things, capitalization of the the common names of all mentioned species as well as proper citation of much of the uncited material. please see that project page and associated projects for details. discuss. - Metanoid 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm kinda ambivalent on the capitalization (see a discussion here. I think the citation issue is more serious. Just be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Xiner (talk, email) 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

so much vitamine A in their liver ?

Anybody knows why polar bears (more generally polar mamals), got so much vitamine A in their liver? Probably an adaptation for the extreme cold, but how does it work ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.135.57 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 December 2005

Biggest bear

I removed "The Polar Bears are one of the biggest carnivores and it is the biggest bear", just now. The first point is already in the article. The second is implicit in the second sentence of the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Names

Why not include the name "Nanook" which is the traditional name of polar bears used by the Inuit? They are the people who have the most history and stongest connection with these bears.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bear-baiting

Polar Bear-baiting If u have more information, citations, images or other, please do not hesitate to post it to the articles discussion page. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 02:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Antarctic

Surely the first line should read "The Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus), aka purple bear aka north-east-western bear aka puddle bear, is a large bear native to the Arctic" (not "Antarctic" as it read on Mar 1).

Relocation to Antarctica?

"There have been no proposals to date to transplant the species to some other environment, such as Antarctica." If there have been no proposals, why is this line even in the entry? Is there any source for the notion that this would even be a viable idea?

What a dreadful idea. If it succeeded, it would almost certainly result in the extinction of Antarctic fauna, e.g., Emperor Penguins. It seems to have been added in early October. [7] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

needs looking over by someone a tad more expert perhaps?

Good first draft, but: "For example, when a Polar Bear sits and waits by a seal's breathing hole, it covers its nose with its paws. This is because a Polar Bear's nose is the only non-white colored part of their body, and a seal could see it through the surface of the water."

This is a rubbish myth and it is compounded 2 pars later with the even more rubbishy myth about hand preference.

"Almost every polar bear is left handed. When stalking prey on the ice, a polar bear draws his right paw across his black nose, hiding his primary dark body part, the better to successfully sneak up on his next meal. (Some polar bears also squeeze their eyes almost closed, for even more complete camouflage.) Then, the bear batters his lunch to death with his stronger, dominant, left paw."

I've edited both references out. Plus I've removed the external reference http://www.wildanimalsonline.com/mammals/polarbear.php which not only appears to be a source (there are thousands more all over the net, of course) of the handednes/hunting story but is also a commercial sucker site, baited with pop-ups that are just ready to trap kids who may be looking for homework references.

Any chance of getting a little more rigorous with fact through the entire article? Thedarky 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true polar bears have been observed to cover their noses when hunting and while sleeping to improve heat retention. When they are studied by reseachers they put the paw on the nose to keep them warm until they revive. Once agian all animals share alot of our traits to think that they are stupid or not like us is IDIOTIC and should have no place in the sensitive balance of our ecosystem.

Capitalization?

Is there a reason why nearly every time the species' common name appears in the text, both words are capitalized? This does not seem standard to me... Radagast 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It varies all over the place, and has been brought up numerous times to much debate and no concensus on a standard, thus capitalization and lack of capitalization methods are both accepted, as long as the article is consistent. -Dawson 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunting by humans

My school-aged daughter came home today with a very POV (anti-hunting) article on polar bear hunting (i.e. hunting of polar bears by humans). Since I knew nothing about it, I checked Wikipedia and to my dismay there seems to be nothing on it. A quick google reveals about 500 are hunted per year, about 1/5 by Inuit, the rest by hunters who pay a hefty license fee. Anyone knowledgable want to write something up? Otherwise I'll add a very terse section myself. It seems to me far more relevant than Polar Bear-baiting, which has its own article. Rocksong 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added Polar bear hunting article, and will add a link from this article shortly. Rocksong 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am happy to wade into this issue with you and your daughter. I am a Inuit Hunter I have also been on a few sporthunts. do you have any specific questions I will be happy to answer any questions.

Blubber?

I'm certainly no expert, but is it correct to say, as this article does in its first paragraph, that polar bears have blubber? I thought blubber was limited to marine mammals and was physiologically different from fat. Could someone who knows more than I about adipose tissue and polar bears please weigh in on this and correct the article if I'm right? Do polar bears have fat or blubber? — CKA3KA (Skazka) 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, and the substance may well be physiologically different, but for the common understanding of the term blubber, I think it applies. Almost every source I've read on polar bears, from kiddie encyclopedia to scientific papers, refers to their fat layer as blubber. -Dawson 16:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bears Are conciderd as marine mammals. It looks and tastes like blubber also.

Exceptional size/footnotes

On 18 April 2006 an anonomous editor added information on exceptional size sourcing "Guinness world of records" (undated). [8] I wasn't able to verify this but replaced it with a number from a web source that I cited, but didn't necessarily view as a WP:RS. On 06:30, 22 April 2006 an anon (probably the same one) left me a nice note on my talk page, [9] and restored the information citing "Guinness World of records 2006". [10] This complies with my understanding of the guidelines for reliable sources, and I think it should stand. I've added the complete citation. While I was at it, I converted the footnotes to the Cite.php form. See WP:FN. The web footnotes need to be fleshed out and I will do that if no one else beats me to it. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hibernation of Polar Bears

Do Polar Bears Hibernate?

Hibernation in its true sense does not apply to polar bears. True hibernators experience a large drop in heart rate and a body temperature that drops to circa O° C (32° F). Brown and black bears are also not true hibernators. Though their heart rate slows, their body temperature does not decline to this extent. Bears do not enter a state of deep hibernation because they need a higher body temperature in order to meet the demands of pregnancy, birth, and the nursing of young. Though brown and black bears hibernate in winter, all polar bears do not. Only pregnant female polar bears hole up in a den. Pregnant female polar bears den up from August/September to March/April. Some polar bears also enter a state of hibernation due to the lack of food. Because they don't den, scientists have dubbed the condition "walking hibernation." Polar bears appear to have the ability to control their hibernation. A study done on a group of Hudson Bay polar bears that fed at a garbage dump during the autumn "lean period" revealed that the animals were not in a state of hibernation. Those bears, however, that steered clear of the dump were. (source : http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/)

Source

The part about eating grease and motor oil, that's from an issue of either Equinox or Canadian Geographic that I read when I was at my parents' house. I'll see about finding the specific bibliographic data. DS 21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)