This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article Extinction B‑class Low‑importance This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Mammals B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Arctodus simus page were merged into Arctodus. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Hello ~ I think there is an error on this page. According to the article in the second cite (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724630903416027), the maximum weight found in their study was 957 kg (2110 lbs.). However, in looking at the article, Table 3 appears to show a maximum estimated weight of 1,110 kg or 2447 lbs. Am I interpreting this correctly?? Mithalwulf (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the original talkpage and talkpage history were redirected to Talk:Short face bear and never moved back when this article was renamed. This and Talk:Short face bear need to be merged. --Kevmin § 18:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a more accurate size comparison somewhere? If so, I can use it as reference, and shrink the man in the article's image. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i added new recent informations about the mass of this animal. I also replaced the image which compares arctodus simus with a human because this image was not really accurate.--C T (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the reference for the largest male specimen of Short Face bear from Shasta County, California and Yukon Territory give a standing height of 4 meters. I was curious if this is true? All of the height estimates on 2 legs, that I have seen for Arctodus range from 11 to 12 feet, or 3.5 meters. Is there any evidence Yukonensis and Shastanensis were taller than the average. Large males may have commonly grown this big, but it seems very tall for an average. Just curious. --174.25.117.220 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true, take it as original research but I've made an skeletal based on the specimen described by Richards & Turnbull (1995), I've improved it in details since the last time I reposed it to be standing on 2 legs but I got it to be 2.9m tall and its measurements are around 90% those of the biggest specimens known, heights over 3.5m are certainly out of the question, even 3.5m looks like a tall order. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The short-faced bear, also known as the bulldog bear, or Arctodus (Greek, "bear tooth")

Doesn't this imply that short-faced bear is as valid a name as Arctodus? wouldn't something like this be more appropriate? "The short-faced bear, also known as the bulldog bear, is the common name of the extinct bear genus Arctodus (Greek, "bear tooth"). Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Paul Matheus, paleontologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, determined that Arctodus' moved in a pacing motion like a camel, horse, and modern bears, making it built more for endurance than for great speed. A. simus, according to these arguments, was ill-equipped to be an active predator...."

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. There are lots of carnivores that are endurance hunters, chasing their prey over long distances until it wears down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.217.104 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, all bears are 'active predators' - they grab fish and small animals all the time - Matheus' comment needed to be fine-tuned. Are bears killers like a lion? No - but they are most assuredly active predators. So is a blue whale. 104.169.28.113 (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is worth creating a subsection for, but this animal appears in the video game Guild Wars 2 in an ice age-like setting. Might be worth creating a subsection if anyone knows any other notable depictions. Natural ironist (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Arctodus pristinus evolved about 2.5 million years ago as described in the PBS Eons episode "The Mystery Behind the Biggest Bears of All Time"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The request to rename this article to Arctodus has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using ((subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.)) and ((subst:RM bottom)) and remove the ((Requested move/dated|…)) tag, or replace it with the ((subst:Requested move/end|…)) tag.

Short-faced bear → Arctodus – In doing my research for short-faced bear articles on Wikipedia (see my contributions), it has become clearly apparent that the term "Short-faced bear" is not just the common name of Arctodus, but also of the entire Tremarctinae subfamily of bears (which while including Arctodus, also includes Arctotherium, Tremarctos and Plionarctos),. This would be the equivalent of choosing the title Ape for an article on Homo. Particularly now that the other colossal tremarctine, the South American short-faced bear Arctotherium, has entered the public conscience in the West, both Arctodus and Arctotherium are usually referred to via their genus names these days, if not the general term "Short-faced bear", or "North/South American short-faced bear" (at least in the media I've seen). I would suggest that the title "Short-faced bear" redirects to Tremarctinae instead, and Arctodus regains its own article. SuperTah (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I also think the scientific name is more well-known for this particular genus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: You didn't search for the uncaptalized variation. When you do, the Google Ngrams show that "short-faced bear" is more common.

• Support There should be a redirect notice at the top of the Tremarctinae article once it is done, and a disambig page for giant short-faced bear, which can be used to describe both Arctodus and Arctotherium. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, would be open to seeing this happen... SuperTah (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: I have not doubt the term "short-faced bear: is still used frequently in academic literature- in fact I totally expect it to be so. However, as I mentioned in the initial post, the term "short-faced bear" is not exclusively used for Arctodus- the term is also used for other tremarctines, such as Arctotherium and Tremarctos floridanus. As a result, the general term "short-faced bear" is also used in conjunction with the genus name whenever a paper or book is talking about any of these three genera (e.g. "Arctotherium belongs to Tremarctinae, a subfamily of ursids otherwise known as the "short-faced bears" / "Another short-faced bear from North America, Tremarctos floridanus, also went extinct at the end of the Pleistocene"). The rise of "short-faced bear" over "Arctodus" in this graph more demonstrates the increase in research and press about the latter two genera in the last ~25 years- if "short-faced bear" were used exclusively with Arctodus, you'd imagine they'd roughly mirror each other on the graph after 1995, no?. SuperTah (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if this is a common name for an entire subfamily, we can't even know what those search result refer to. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia articles for Tremarctinae already refer to short-faced bear being for the entire family, and a search on Google Scholar show that Arctotherium and Arctodus are both known as giant short-faced bears. Unless we want to change the article title to North American giant short-faced bear, renaming the article Arctodus seems to be the easiest way to avoid confusion as long as it is done thoroughly enough. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per reasons mentioned above.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment shouldn't Tremarctinae be named Short-faced bear then since it's the obvious WP:COMMONNAME for something?--Ortizesp (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps! Could be like the Glyptodont article SuperTah (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Arctotherium is also known as a short faced bear Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, although I have a nice picture book where the 'short-faced bear' isn't given a binomial, but I reckon it's Arctodus simus. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move, since short-faced bear refers to multiple genera. However, I preemptively oppose moving Tremarctinae to short-faced bear because not all of its species are called short-faced bears- some are called spectacled bears. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: but surely some short-faced bears can also be spectacled bears? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: In the spectacled bear's case, both names are valid- just like a macaw is still a parrot. I would also be against the potential re-naming of the Tremarctinae page if each member of Tremarctos didn't already have their own Wikipedia pages. Seeing as only one member of the subfamily is commonly referred to through a different name, and that there isn't much space for confusion as the spectacled bear has its own page, I'm open to it. The only scientific issue I have is that technically their snouts are deep rather than short... the shortness is an illusion. However, looking at the spectacled bear, the illusion is strong enough to fool me! Curious to hear everyone else's opinions about that move though. SuperTah (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperTah: seems fine to me. I think the illusion of shortness is caused by them actually having deeper faces than other bears, so maybe deep-faced bear should be the name (or maybe not). YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat: Maybe! SuperTah (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Giant short-faced bear at Lubbock Lake Landmark IMG 1587.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. As I've spent a while trying to add to this article (but also needing to work), I've decided to lighten the load on my Chrome and place a bunch of sources I was reading through here, in order to be used later. Some other things I learnt while researching Arctodus: a) The Pliocene includes the Gelasian before 2009, so be careful b) Finding a paper on the Kansas river Arctodus simus specimen, on whether the Indianan A. simus is in the Field Museum, the term "running bear" and on black bear-Arctodus pristinus interactions, is proving challenging.

Sources- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100219900012

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212000958?casa_token=QbWqsbOCDh0AAAAA:PlPNQ2LHOJbPk2YeHxFk196vlf9txBXEOFvKwLbwsRtPolnUbu7mPR_mQLjImwPUB-u-gXYCW74

https://bioone.org/journals/western-north-american-naturalist/volume-80/issue-3/064.080.0301/The-Age-and-Vertebrate-Paleontology-of-Labor-Of-Love-Cave/10.3398/064.080.0301.short

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/gj.2633?casa_token=HMNRT_9XoV8AAAAA:jWaNP5ySvK5Z2h1s8LSIpmRQ5NDGjW7VGkvd3GF9lafyvhYKzVuEqLx62Cs4sYGmplUwZx9CNIuXR3SN

https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/9491

Natural Trap Cave

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/3480

https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/E10-018

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229585904_Late_Pleistocene_giant_short-faced_bears_mammoths_and_large_carcass_scavenging_in_the_Saltville_Valley_of_Virginia_USA

https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3638&context=faculty_pubs

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104061820900442X?casa_token=oZIugIOE3SMAAAAA:wn_jLumaqmBDeaI9j1p-1PYOAwXSUOWEUvXEEj0RD3bn-ciUytO_jz55YPeQCcUUDVa5mX4VriI

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618209001633?casa_token=aGkq6iYlrpwAAAAA:x7KLANF2tRgwWXepbCwRxPBOE0DlBDlDiwcrXUuRGmfo_hiUqD61KF9mauhm95DkMAyzAdvuNCo

http://biostor.org/reference/4117

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077531 (re-analyse)

SuperTah (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]