Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Cougars

[Balam]

(08-12-2020, 01:53 AM)Luipaard Wrote:

Quote:The heaviest weighed leopard was an specimen from West Africa who yielded 96 kg (unknown amount of stomach content), and recently we have seen some males from Iran surpassing 90 kg in weight, with one topping at 95 kg, Persian leopards, in my opinion, being the heaviest and largest population.

The heaviest leopard, at this moment, is a 96kg male leopard from Valencia, Namibia (from The Hunter or the Hunted: An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy). Not sure where you got that West African specimen from. This, of course is if we exclude the 115kg injured Persian leopard and the Indian leopard Balaji (116kg when captured).

Quote:The 113 kg leopard was debunked some time ago, it was a man water who was killed after badly clawing the face of a man and had plenty of stomach content. Someone also said that the scale in which it was weighed was defective which affected the accuracy of results.

Not entirely true. While I too question the leopard's weight, it wasn't a man-eater. Link to event (from Landmark Leopard & Predator Project - South Africa): https://www.facebook.com/LandmarkFoundation/posts/another-leopard-has-been-killed-in-the-eastern-cape-by-predator-hunters-in-alice/1441037779263823/

Quote:I also do not believe Central African leopards to be among the biggest populations. There have been two captures of two males who were in somewhat of a dire state, and neither surpassed 50 kg in weight. Even if healthy, 50 kg is a far cry from the 100 kg estimated I have seen some suggest for those leopards.

Those were 2 leopards caught in snares and therefore in bad condition, they were far from healthy and below 50kg. Also are you aware that these countries are in conflict with poachers and bushmeat hunters? There are leopard populations in Gabon who have to coexist with bushmeat hunters (who target the same prey i.e. duiker & red river hogs). Luckily there are area's where they are undisturbed and this is where you can find healthy leopard populations. 

Quote:the argument I often hear mention is that they have big and heavy skulls which could suggest a large body mass, but as @peter said recently, skull length is not the best determinant to gage body mass, and in my opinion, prey biomass is a more important factor.

What @peter also mentioned, is that their skulls are heavier (heavier teeth too) and more robust compared to other leopard populations. So you do acknowledge that Persian leopards are one of the larger leopard subspecies/populations but Central African leopards somehow are smaller than savannah leopards (ca.60-65kg) despite having skulls as large as Persian leopards? I'm not just talking about skull length FYI.

Also, skull measurements are more reliable than body weight (e.g. stomach content), especially with dead animals.

Based on videographic footage (camera traps etc) and skull data, they're most likely the largest leopard population.

Quote:The heaviest leopard, at this moment, is a 96kg male leopard from Valencia, Namibia (from The Hunter or the Hunted: An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy). Not sure where you got that West African specimen from. This, of course is if we exclude the 115kg injured Persian leopard and the Indian leopard Balaji (116kg when captured).

Yes, that is exactly where I got it from, Namibia is southern West Africa. The 115 kg Persian leopard was quickly corrected as a mistake, his real weight was 95 kg which is the weight that I mentioned in my initial reply:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Balaji was an obese leopard who's real weight was never verified, even if he did surpass 100 kg of weight, it would've been the result of copious layers of fat which don't represent an accurate depiction of a healthy individual. Any obese cat will show weights much higher than what the normal average is, we even have obese captive lions pushing 400 kg, they do not represent healthy individuals and as such aren't counted in official weight records. Balaji didn't possess a large frame either, when compared to the men around it in this picture, one can see that he isn't necessarily big, just very obese, and his fat spreads around his body. I have seen leopards with more impressive frames who were much healthier:

*This image is copyright of its original author

No reliable record exists of a leopard surpassing 100 kg that was not obese.

Quote:Those were 2 leopards caught in snares and therefore in bad condition, they were far from healthy and below 50kg. Also are you aware that these countries are in conflict with poachers and bushmeat hunters? There are leopard populations in Gabon who have to coexist with bushmeat hunters (who target the same prey i.e. duiker & red river hogs). Luckily there are area's where they are undisturbed and this is where you can find healthy leopard populations. 

I did mention they were in bad condition, hence my use of the term "dire", but even if that was the case, their weight as healthy individuals would not have approached anywhere close to 100 or 90 kg from that initial start point of less than 50 kg. If we give them 20 more kilograms at around 65-70 kg, that would put them right beside large leopards of different populations such as Sri Lanka, but wouldn't make them bigger. 

The second claim of the bushmeat hunters further solidifies my claim, these leopards already consume smaller prey in smaller quantities than leopards from savanna biomes, and if you add the extra pressure from human competition, that would reduce both the biomass and the frequency of predation. Animals size reflect the biomass of the prey they consume and the regularity of such consumption, at 29 kg, the biomass of the prey Central African leopards consumes is lower than that of savanna individuals, and the congregations of animals in the rainforest is also much lower than what savanna leopards have at their disposal. 

Quote:What @peter also mentioned, is that their skulls are heavier (heavier teeth too) and more robust compared to other leopard populations. So you do acknowledge that Persian leopards are one of the larger leopard subspecies/populations but Central African leopards somehow are smaller than savannah leopards (ca.60-65kg) despite having skulls as large as Persian leopards? I'm not just talking about skull length FYI.

Also, skull measurements are more reliable than body weight (e.g. stomach content), especially with dead animals.

Based on videographic footage (camera traps etc) and skull data, they're most likely the largest leopard population.
R

I would let Peter clarify what he really meant with that statement as he has had access to those skulls himself, but SCI records have shown several leopards with scores just as high as Persian leopards from savannah ecosystems, and the database on the skull of Central African leopards is more scarce than what's available for savannah leopards, so gaging an average of length with a smaller sample and compare it with that of savanna leopards with a higher sample will yield inaccurate results. You can have a couple of really big rainforest leopard skulls found, but 10 more who are significantly smaller undiscovered, and if you retain those two large skulls the impression will be that they are the bigger population compared to savanna leopards who have a wider range of sizes and a higher number of them, including once again, some as big and bigger than the ones found in Central Africa. 

Skull measurements are not reliable sources to determine size because there are several factors that could play a role in the size of an animal's skull, including genetics and predisposition to develop different morphological traits from a different population due to environmental differences i.e. Siberian tigers having longer skulls than Bengal tigers, yet Bengals being larger in the wild. Direct weight measurements are as accurate as you can get with weight, you are literally measuring the mass of the animal directly, and any form of stomach content found in it can be deducted afterwards to get a more precise and accurate result. 

Finally, footage is not a scientifically nor accurate way of determining size because there are different factors that play a role in one's perception of said footage. An animal can look impressive from a specific angle of a picture or video, including how close it is to the camera, and the personal biases of the person looking at the footage also play a role in the perception they get from the images. Furthermore, with the footage that is available right now (if we are going to use), rainforest leopards are shown as very muscular but not necessarily bigger than other populations, especially savanna leopards. And based on the weights that we do have of them, the fact that the prey biomass is lower than their savanna cousins, and the few skull records available which don't really provide an accurate estimation of their size or weight, I don't see any reasons to suggest that they are any bigger than their savanna cousins, let alone the biggest population of leopards in the world. Reply