I know they are the same species, and I’ve seen where grizzlies are considered a subspecies of brown bear. The main difference appears to be based on location…Brown bears are coastal, eat a salmon rich diet and are bigger. Grizzlies are inland, eat more plants and are smaller.
My question is…Are these two populations really genetically distinct or are they separated only by convention of where they live? In other words, can we take a grizzly, plop him in a coastal environment and watch him grow into a brown bear and not be able to tell the difference from other brown bears? Or are they truly separated by clear genetic markers with no blur between the two groups? Are they really two different groups or just two different populations of the same species that are only morphologically distinct based on their food source and environment?
Grizzlies have shoulder humps, rounder ears and larger claws. There are also differances in their foot print. Both can be brown and this adds to the confusion.
FWIW, all I know about grizzlies comes from watching Grizzly Adams, Jerimah Johnson and the NatGeo channel.
There aren’t two genetically distinct brown bears in North America. They’re all the grizzly subspecies regardless of what habitat they live in. They do have regional adaptations though, i.e. Arctic grizzlies are much smaller than coastal ones.
I agree with the fact stated, No brown bears in Arkansas. Seen it written. Heard it many times by people in the know. Black bears come in many colors. Told it over and over. Looked at many pictures and first hand photos.
Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are considered a subspecies of Brown bears ( Ursus arctos). Grizzlies are a population of Brown bears that share common physical features.
Ursus is bear in Latin, while arktos is bear in Greek, which means brown bears are “bear bears” and grizzly bears are “horrible bear bears.” And the Arctic is a place where bears live, and the Antarctic is a place with no bears.
Genetics can be tricky, because different individuals have different genetics (excluding identical twins, do bears have identical twins?). As you move from parent-offspring groups, to local populations, regional populations, etc., you can expect the individuals to show less genetic relationship. If you have enough information, you might be able to take a genetic sample and say it seems to be closer related to Arkansas black bears than to Alaskan black bears, even though they are the same species.
The primary issue is that groupings of things into species is a human imposed condition, not something inherent to the natural order. Genetic tasting may classify an animal as either a brown/grizzly bear or a polar bear, yet they can produce fertile offspring. So there is always blur between close groups.
Can I take a Ursus arctos horribilis at a young age and plop him down in a coastal area to where he would grow and take on the physical characteristics (e.g. size) indistinguishable from neighboring brown bears?
This plays to how ‘artificial’ our construct is on calling grizzlies a different subspecies. To me if they don’t change physically to match the brown bear population, that is evidence that the difference is guided by genetics and not environment.
I have a harder time calling something a true subspecies if environment and food source is the largest cause of the morphological difference.
Subspecies is a horrible designation that has no consistent meaning. All evidence shows the common characteristics of Grizzlies to be genetic, not environmental, yet not very genetically distinctive and likely to be found in any concentrated population of a species. All Brown bears are the result of long term intermixing of the same set of genes from a common ancestor.
Except that sub-species can be defined by naturally breeding population group, so geographic isolation can cause distinct groups that are considered different sub-species.
As mentioned, all of these classification demarcations are human efforts to create lines within a blurry gray area.
What is “yet” and “with my own eyes” supposed to mean here? In plain English, it implies that you think what you saw is a contradiction of what went before.
Is there some part you do not understand about the fact that there are species named Brown bear (Ursus arctos) and American black bear (Ursus americanus), but that not all members of the latter species are colored black?
Oh, I understand. They have all the cites. All the proof… all the knowledge.
I still saw a brown bear. It’s a thing with me. Like the time a grand-daddy spider bit my toe. Everyone says no, couldn’t have happened. Yet it did. I saw it with my own eyes. Unlike the bear(thank heaven) I felt it as well.
Are you saying you saw a black bear (its species) that was brown (its actual color)? Or a brown bear (its species)?
It still sounds like you’re saying you saw the latter, and you’re going to believe your own eyes, not some expert cite says that species isn’t found in your state.
