Actually, dogs and bears are more closely related than thought, they belong to the parvorder Eufissipedia, which is one of the two major groups of the infraorder Cynopsia, the other being the pinnipeds (parvorder Pinnipedia), eufissipeds are split into the superfamilies Canoidea and Ursoidea, with Canoidea containing the extinct parictids (family Parictidae) and the currently living dogs (family Canidae) and Ursoidea containing extinct families like Hemicyonidae and Ursavidae and the living families Ursidae (Bears) and Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda and Fossil Relatives).

​​@@indyreno2933you can say the same thing with seals🦭 and dogs🐕

​@@indyreno2933source? Because what Im seeing online is not this at all

It says arctoidea contains ursids, muskelids and pinnipeds while canoidea contains dogs, no such thing as eufissipedia, only fissipedia nor cynopsia

@asathadon8498, "Arctoidea" is not a valid taxon, it is now treated as a synonym of Caniformia, which is now thought to be split into two infraorders, Cynopsia (meaning "dog-faced ones") and Galopsia (meaning "weasel-faced ones"), with Cynopsia being further split into the parvorders Eufissipedia (meaning "truly split-footed ones) for the dogs, bears, and giant panda and Pinnipedia (meaning "wing-footed ones") for the seals, hooded seal, elephant seals, sea lions, fur seals, and walrus, and Galopsia being further split into the parvorders Mesopalmata (meaning "middle-handed ones") and Parapalmata (meaning "side-handed ones") with the only extant taxon of the parvorder Mesopalmata being the superfamily Procyonoidea, which contains the families Mephitidae (Skunks and Stink Badgers), Procyonidae (Raccoons and Bassarisks), Ailuridae (Red Panda), and Nasuidae (Coatis, Kinkajou, Olingos, and Olinguito) and the only extant taxon of the parvorder Parapalmata being the superfamily Musteloidea, which contains the families Melidae (Badgers), Mustelidae (Weasels, Ferrets, and Minks), Lutridae (Otters), and Ictonychidae (Zorillas, Muishund, Shulang, Huro, Grisons, Wolverine, Tayra, and Martens), similarly, Feliformia is also split into two infraorders being Aeluropsia (meaning "cat-faced ones") where the cats (family Felidae) are not just the sole extant family of this infraorder, but they are also the sole extant family of the superfamily Feloidea and Crocutopsia (meaning "hyena-faced ones"), which includes all the other extant feliforms, Crocutopsia is split into the superfamilies Hyaenoidea for the families Protelidae (Aardwolf and Fossil Relatives) and Hyaenidae (Hyenas) and Viverroidea for the families Nandiniidae (Feripaka and Fossil Relatives), Prionodontidae (Linsangs), Poianidae (Oyans), Genettidae (Genets), Viverridae (Civets), Herpestidae (Mongooses), and Eupleridae (Malagasy Carnivorans), within the Cynopsia infraorder, both parvorders Eufissipedia and Pinnipedia are split into superfamilies, the two superfamilies of eufissipeds are Canoidea, where the dogs (family Canidae) are the sole extant family and Ursoidea, which contains two extant families being Ursidae (Bears) and Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda and Fossil Relatives), while the two superfamilies of pinnipeds are Phocoidea for the families Phocidae (Seals) and Cystophoridae (Hooded Seal and Elephant Seals) and Otarioidea for the families Otariidae (Sea Lions and Fur Seals) and Odobenidae (Walrus and Fossil Relatives).

Actually, that would be a separate family called Hemicyonidae, which are not bears, but they are actually stem-ursoids, like Ursavidae, another family of stem-ursoids, ursoids are a superfamily of carnivorans constituted by two extant families being Ursidae (Bears) and Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda and Fossil Relatives).

@S.F157, actually, Hemicyonidae is a separate family from bears, as are Ursavidae and Ailuropodidae, based on this, the only four families officially belonging to the superfamily Ursoidea are †Hemicyonidae, †Ursavidae, Ursidae (Bears), and Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda and Fossil Relatives).

@@indyreno2933 yea the Hemicyoninae are a basal clade of ursids, during the Middle Miocene, the two most prominent groups of land predators in the Northern Hemisphere were both caniform carnivorans, and they both combined bear-like features and dog-like features. One group was the amphicyonids or "bear-dogs", a group most closely related to bears that functioned as big cat analogues (albeit with somewhat better endurance, though by and large they were still reliant on ambush). The other group were the hemicyonines, the "dog-bears", which were true bears but acted as the equivalents of large canids or hyenas. Hemicyonines diverged from the group that would lead to all other bears very early in bear evolution; the very first hemicyonids, like Cephalogale, had diverged from other bears by 30MYA, which is all the way back in the Early Oligocene. Even as the trend in bear evolution was away from a strictly predatory lifestyle and towards generalized omnivory, hemicyonines went down the opposite path, developing the dental hardware of a hypercarnivore. Bears generally have dentition that can process both plants and meat (similar to a lot of primates including us), but these were the exception. More noteworthy, perhaps, than their dentition is their limb anatomy. Unlike other bears, hemicyonines were digitigrade, making them better suited to running down prey. While all bears can move quickly, in all Quaternary species this is more a function of raw muscle power rather than running adaptations. Hemicyonines, however, were genuinely built for speed and all the more dangerous to prey because of it.

@@indyreno2933actually, no 😊

@Teponecc, actually yes, there are only four confirmed families in the superfamily Ursoidea, which are †Hemicyonidae, †Ursavidae, Ursidae (Bears), and Ailuropodidae (Giant Panda and Fossil Relatives).

...and ANY organism you can think of.

What about werewolves

@@ilyadratutin6385 sure

​@@ilyadratutin6385😂😂😂

Of course they had a common ancestor. They're carnivorous mammals. Lol. But the question I think should be what was there last common ancestor and when? Edit: bears are omnivores, but they hunt nonetheless like dogs and therefore wolves

Not a chance. Your dumb.

haha i love this 😂 truly a scientific fact

just proves your dog has good taste.

Case closed

Truly the best internet style research possible has proven your hypothesis 😂😂

They are dogs just look at them look at their jaws they resemble dogs so much.

Actually, bears are more closely related to dogs than to raccoons, this is because dogs and bears constitute the infraorder Cynopsia along with pinnipeds, whereas raccoons belong to the infraorder Galopsia.

There more closely related to pinnepeds Doglike carvinores

@automotivemachinerytechnic412, dogs, bears, and giant pandas all belong to the parvorder Eufissipedia, which is in fact the sister group to pinnipeds (parvorder Pinnipedia), both parvorders constitute the infraorder Cynopsia, which contains caniforms primarily larger than many of the smaller caniforms.

A bear can't bark

Actually, raccoons are related to bears.

Agreed

Try snuggling one 😅

Wolves have entered the chat lmao

@@laxmirio lesser forest doggos lol

@@jesselucian106 lol

No thanks!

I don’t think they’d be as aggressive anyway since they wouldn’t have to compensate their lack of size with hyper aggressiveness.

Imagine a honey badger

A cat the size of a grizzly bear would be deadlier.

​@@H.K.5 Siberian tigers have been known to body Russian bears so yeah

That would be a fun plane ride.

Just don't poke the bear with the stick lol

Not really.

@@NordicWiseguyyeah even me and a plant split genetic pathways 700 millionish years ago

@@BoyBoy-nm9le i'm not related to some vegetable.

@@NordicWiseguy yes u are

@@NordicWiseguy

Let me get this straight, so raccoons and bears share similar sockets and can both climb trees, hmm what is going on here 🤔 😅

Now if the bear was skinny like the dog imagine how fast it would climb, wow

Did the bear shag the raccoon or did the raccoons shaggy the bears while they tried running up the tree but was not fast enough, perhaps science or aliens were involved? Maybe ai lmao

Lol, KZfaq has plenty of proof of dogs making short work of climbing trees😂😂😂

My dog can climb trees, I have trained it

The diversion happened so long ago that there shouldn't be any DNA left. Min 15 mya according to this video at least.

​@@bskec2177 That's awfully convenient.

@@ShadowFiend777 No it's not. If it was available, now that would be convenient.

That's not how genetics works.

Ummm, odd that you think it’s possible for two different kinds to reproduce. Have we ever witnessed a chicken reproducing with a iguana?

Hmmm I would argue that Cats more so resemble Speed and Agility. Dogs got Endurance and one hell of a Bite. They rely more on more patient tactics while cats rely more on their ambushes and outlasting tired prey . Bears are absolutely 100% pure raw brute strength.

Yeah it's deceiving when you see a huge bear, but he's faster than a dog and more agile too, especially for its size, what canides have is a pack work.

Bear definitely isn't more agile and depending on the dog they are fairly similar in speed

Hahaha. Brilliant!

Lol

The domestic dog is just a subspecies of the gray wolf. There is no real biological difference.

@@KurNorock "The domestic dog is just a subspecies of the gray wolf. There is no real biological difference." - a study in contradiction

@@Dr.Ian-Plect that's not a contradiction at all. So either you don't know what the word "contradiction" means, or you don't know what the word "subspecies" means.

@@KurNorock Yes apparently domestic dogs have 99.8% the dna of the gray wolf.

@@KurNorock "that's not a contradiction at all. So either you don't know what the word "contradiction" means, or you don't know what the word "subspecies" means." - no, I'm not surprised you couldn't fathom out any other possibilities beyond that dichotomy Here's your contradiction again; "The domestic dog is just a subspecies of the gray wolf. There is no real biological difference." - the clear contradiction - ironically as you suggest _me_ not knowing what a subspecies is - is that if there was 'no real biological difference', they wouldn't be a subspecies, you clown. Being designated a subspecies _is what indicates there IS a biological difference_

I always thought the same thing.

Not really, Wolves can run for days.

@@chalkandcheese1868wolves can run for days while bears can not but bears can fight for hours while wolves can not. It’s a different kind of stamina but it’s still greater than most animals.

​@@Heywoodthepeckerwood wolves can fight for a while but they lack the bulk to tank significant damage.Other than that, I definitely agree with your assessment.Wolves are better runners while bears are better fighters.

Snow leopard Sloth bear African lion Black rhino Gray wolf Spotted hyena Tie (on land bear wins, in the water gator wins) Leopard seal

@@MarcoSuperNova2784 spotted hyena - easy

Well, closer related to bears, not 'unrelated' to cats though. They (dogs and bears) have a closer common ancestor, but all 3 have a common ancestor too.

Who told you that dogs are walking on toes?😂😂😂

Nearly all of the arguments made in this video apply to house cats and big cats. The argument that bears aren’t big dogs because dogs were domesticated and bears are wild and therefore dangerous is no different than saying a house cat is domesticated and tigers are wild animals and therefore dangerous. House cats and tigers diverged with house cats being more closely related to lynx than tigers in a similar way that bears and dogs diverged with dogs being more closely related to wolves than bear.

@@turtleinashirt You think you're much smarter than you actually are. The difference here is: Cats of all types are felids (felines) but dogs and bears are NOT both canids (canines)

​@@turtleinashirt Thing is tho that Bears and Dogs share a common ancestor at least 33 million years back, while Tigers and Housecats share a common ancestor 10 million years back. Bears are Ursids, Dogs are Canids, but both Tigers and Housecats are Felids

@@tonyhawksproskater2406 uhuh, 10 million vs 33 million, an arbitrary number that is a drop in the bucket as far as the history of Earth is concerned. I’m not saying it’s a 1:1 comparison, I’m saying that the arguments made IN THIS VIDEO can be made for house cats vs big cats. You aren’t making the same arguments as the video makes. You are making better arguments. I’m all for that. This video makes some really crappy argument, as densin8336 pointed out. How is “wild therefore dangerous” a reason to think bears aren’t dogs? The real reason is because they don’t share a set of some number of common traits. Dogs share X number of traits, bears don’t share Y number of traits with dogs. Therefore bears aren’t dogs. That is a good way to argue. Dogs aren’t wild and bears are wild is a crappy argument because some dogs are wild and some bears aren’t wild. So, like your predecessor, I agree with you, but that still doesn’t mean the arguments in this video are good arguments.

Aron has a BSc in anthropology. That aside, what does 'yes they are' refer to?

@@Dr.Ian-Plectlikely the title of the video

@@ShaunHensley Quite, I was seeking confirmation before telling him it's tripe. I will now, as he didn't respond.

Huskymax, as you didn't respond, I'll assume you mean the title. Tripe, bears are not dogs.

​​@@Dr.Ian-Plectobviously he means the title

Lmao smartass 😂

Yuri Tarded

@@user-nk5gb4ok5f Yuri should know because it takes one to know one!😒🤤

Every 50 year old found this funny

Not unless they get a throne crown and scepter, well then I would agree.

@@henrysniper8481 hahah, they probably did in a previous life

Not really. Big cats are still cats while bears aren’t dogs, but ursids.

Not really... cats are more closely related to hyenas than bears are to dogs.

There used to be a big dog family but it died out due to competition with big cats

Big Dogs went extinct. Epicyon, Dire Wolf, they're gone.

​@@arianlatifi5492 I mean bears are caniforms the same way hyenas are feliforms. So they are related. True big cats technically aren't cats, they're panthers while cougars, domestic cats and cheetahs are all felines which are true cats

tripe

@@Dr.Ian-Plect A revolution in thought/understanding about a species key our very survival - is trivial, silly, or worthless? Am I getting you right?

Nope. Wild felines are still considered cats but bears are considered ursids.

Lions and tigers aren't felines, they're panthers. You have to go further back in evolution to find their common ancestors. This is kind of similar to how bears, wolves, dogs, seals, and mustelids are related. A long time ago the caniforms and the feliforms were quite similar but one group turned into what I listed above (the caniforms) and the feliforms turned into felines, panthers and whatever tf hyenas are called which i forgor

@@theorangewarrior03 The cat family is collectively referred to as felidae. The felidae family includes both panthers (leopards, jaguars, lions, tiger) and small cats (lynxes, cheetahs, pumas). Any member of the cat family is considered a feline.

Nonsense. Bears and dogs are distinct species in distinct families. Your silly analogy is comparing a single trait within the same species.

That's wayyyyy off

Kind of off there.

Thats like saying a pinball machine is like a video game.

@@albertross2456 nope it’s pretty accurate. And a dogs bear ancestors would absolutely murderr a cats lion ancestors

Gorillas aren’t really that big they look big because they are very muscular but they’re are many humans that are taller than gorillas. Basketball players to be precise.

That was funny to read. Wildebeests _are_ antelopes, which _are_ bovids!

Lol, except the joke is on you and they can, you don't even have to go far, just a quick search on KZfaq and your results will be flooding with videos of dogs taking to the skies!

@@thabzmad7265 ok and?

Gorilla King cobra Lion

I bet a tiger could take out a bear

@@blackburned maybe those tiny sloth bears, not a grizzly or polar

@@blackburneda tiger aint beating a kodiak bear even if it’s a siberian tiger

@@jmnapigkit this is all hypothetical and depends on specific specimens so let's just agree to disagree

Tiger has the speed advantage by like almost 5X but Bears are too durable and will put up too much fight. But I think Both of them lose to Hippo though.

indeed

Trust No One.

@@simhess9720 trust this fa sho doe 👀

What is digittigrade

@@davidmercado2329 digitigrade is walking on toes, like a dog or a cat. That's different from plantigrade which is walking on the soles of the feet, like a bear or a human.

@@CirclingDuck thanks for the callout

@@CirclingDuck Yeah, that was pretty bad. Thanks for calling it out so I don't have to. :)

​@@CirclingDuckAnd digitrigates are smartest mammals

tripe

Members of the order Carnivora are called carnivorans not carnivores.

@@indyreno2933 In the context used, it isn't necessary to state the noun member name relating to the taxon Carnivora. He's just informally stating their dietary grouping. WAKE UP

@Dr.Ian-Plect, members of the order Carnivora are called "carnivorans" not "carnivores", this better helps avoid confusion.

Dogs are further from the other 2.

not so

Both are pretty predictable, especially wolves. Wolves have only killed one human in North America, in recorded history. I can predict if you try to take a selfie with a bear, it will try to eat you😂

@@dallasburgess5329 well i will never be in bear country and documented history does not equal history. Hell I remember a woman more or less recently being mauled to death in the mountains by either wolves Or coyotes i cant remember which

@@Dakingsnake Fair enough; its certainly possible...likely even.

@@dallasburgess5329 and i have an unhealthy level of respect and wariness of bears.