Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Acinonyx sp.]

*This image is copyright of its original author

Picture 8.1 Focal palatine erosion, where the first lower molar can perforate the upper palate, can lead to fatal infections in affected animals Reply

[Sully]

I always thought the comparison between clouded leopards and the sabertooth morphology were exaggerations, and that the only had marginally proportionally longer canines than the rest of the pantherinae. However this skull really surprised me, and it's clear to see the similarities with the machairodonts. It's almost an intermediate between the skulls of the panthera and those of the sabertooths. Of course they aren't very alike with the clouded leopard having more pronounced lower canines, a shallower forehead and a less developed sagittal crest. Regardless the comparison holds more weight than I first gave it, and maybe that's just an oversight from me, but I thought it would be interesting to share.

Below is the skull of a sunda clouded leopard and what I'm guessing is smilodon fatalis (the website this image came from doesn't specify).

*This image is copyright of its original author

Compare this with a tiger skull, and the differences are clear to see, with the upper canines not even clearing the mandible, and being relatively thicker at the base.

*This image is copyright of its original author

So I read a few studies, here are some interesting figures and excerpts below

From: Evolutionary convergence of primitive sabertooth craniomandibular morphology: the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) and Paramachairodus ogygia compared

*This image is copyright of its original author

Comparative skull and jaw morphology of the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) and Paramachairous ogygia. a Skulls in lateral view of Neofelis (left; BM30.3.3.5 [♀]) and Paramachairodus (right; B-1377); b upper canines in lateral view of Neofelis (left; CN35 [♂]) and Paramachairodus (right; B-5797); c upper canines in anterior view of Neofelis (left; CN35 [♂]) and Paramachairodus (right; B-5797); d lower jaw symphysis in anterior view of Neofelis (left; BM1938.11.30.24 [♂]) and Paramachairodus (right; B-751); e lower jaw ramus in lateral view of Neofelis (left; BM1938.11.30.22 [♀]) and Paramachairodus (right; B-3109); f–k mastoid region of Paramachairodus (f B-1377; g B-3334; h B-4322) and Neofelis (i ZMB81359; j ZMB22198; k BM43.65), showing approximate anteroposterior/dorsoventral outlines of the mastoid process (double-headed black arrows). mp Mastoid process; pp paroccipital process. Scale bars = 5 cm





Neofelis (0.238 ± 0.012) and Paramachairodus (n = 12; 0.246 ± 0.024) both have distinctly longer canines compared to condylobasal skull length than all extant Panthera (all p < 0.001; Figs. 2a, 5b), and are similar to each other (p = 0.937). Paramachairodus has equally long upper canines relative to skull length to Machairodus aphanistus (n = 3; 0.260 ± 0.033; p = 0.962), Dinofelis barlowi (0.233), and Homotherium serum (0.246; both p = 0.998). Neofelis also has canine/skull ratio equal to M. aphanistus (p = 0.462), Dinofelis (p = 0.993), and Homotherium (p = 0.987). Neofelis and Paramachairodus have, however, significantly (p < 0.001) shorter canines to skull length than other advanced sabertoothed felids, such as Machairodus giganteus (n = 2; 0.329 ± 0.030), Megantereon cultridens (0.392), and Smilodon fatalis (n = 2; 0.446 ± 0.008; see also Christiansen 2006).

"The width across the incisor arcade relative to conylobasal skull length in Neofelis (0.127 ± 0.006) is significantly (p < 0.01) below the ratios among the other great cats (lion [0.146 ± 0.008]; jaguar [0.144 ± 0.011]; tiger [0.155 ± 0.095]; and snow leopard [0.140 ± 0.008]), but is non-significantly different (p = 0.647) from the leopard (0.131 ± 0.007). Neofelis is also far below (p < 0.001) the ratios in Megantereon (n = 2; 0.158 ± 0.016), Machairodus giganteus (n = 2; 0.174 ± 0.014), and Smilodon (n = 7; 0.184 ± 0.013). The values in the last two taxa are significantly (p < 0.01) higher than in any modern felid, but in Megantereon is only significantly above those of Neofelis and the leopard among extant felids."

"A Discriminant Analysis on the partial warp scores indicated substantial differences among the species (Wilk’s Lambda = 0.0001; p < 0.0001), and Neofelis and Paramachairodus clearly stand out from Panthera (Fig. 7a). The F-matrix indicated that Neofelis is very different from Panthera, but the F-score between Neofelis and Paramachairodus indicates much greater similarity. In fact, so similar is mandibular shape in Neofelis and Paramachairodus that one specimen of the latter was misclassified as the former in a subsequent jack-knifed classification analysis (Table 6). The jack-knifed classification matrix showed slight misclassification of some species of Panthera, and most often the misclassification was with the leopard."

And from: Sabertooth characters in the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa Griffiths 1821)

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Are clouded leopards on the evolutionary road to reviving this very successful killing adaption? They very well could be. Reply

[Balam]

Jaguars are called American tigers for a reason, I couldn't help but to notice the striking similarities in morphology between this Kaziranga tiger and this Llanos jaguar. Both are incredibly stocky with short rostrums and tall skulls:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[CatLover]

(09-23-2020, 05:57 PM)Spalea Wrote: @Pckts : about #226.

Mohammed Shujath: " Grumpy... "

And so what ? When you are looking at the Mohammed Shujath's instagram site, you notice a clear majority of tiger photos. Because he's living in India or because he's biased towards tiger (no problem about it) ? He just expresses his own opinion.

And this very biased photo is absolutely not the best one to show Earless at its best moment. We know very well it had very tough times (no use to come back about it). To be more objective I prefer this one...

*This image is copyright of its original author

A bit late... but no matter.

I have seen Earless in many other pictures. In his prime he was definetely one of the most mascular felines that ever lived.

I have here a picture of him. Lions without manes are very impressive. You can definetely see that they are thick built. The arms as well... damn ?
   

Probably his prime-ripped time:

And here a another video... so earless changed really through the years.

Reply

[Balam]

(03-13-2021, 07:03 PM)Balam Wrote: I'm almost entirely sure that the Persian leopard from this chart:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Was taken over the curves, the shoulder height of 91 cm is too high, higher than some Siberian tigers. Not only was it taken over the curves but with the extended paw as well.

All other measurements show a pretty large leopard, my guess it that one a very large of somewhere in between 85-95 kg.

I have to bring some clarity on the information from the chart above because misinformation being passed around genuinely bugs me.

It was rather odd that the name of the paper where this leopard was mentioned was not included in any of the posts here, the table was simply posted, and it was expected of everyone to simply take it at face value while for jaguars the information comes in a very clear and transparent form, the methods used to measure the animals are laid out etc.

The table above comes from the paper Analysis of leopard (Panthera pardus) status in Iran (No.1). by Sinei (2007), in such paper it is mentioned that the measurements gather did not came exclusively from live animals, but that it included taxidermy individuals (as mentioned in the table itself), flat skins and skeletons:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here are some examples of the taxidermied (e.g. stuffed rendition) individuals evaluated in this paper:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And here are all the measurements of leopards gathered from live animals, flat skins, and stuffed taxidermy samples:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And then one actual specimen that was alive:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And finally, excellent craniometric data which I have not seen shared here before:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So the person who initially shared the table of the taxidermy individual purposely chose not to share the source of where it came from because he knew that when looking at it from its proper context his obsession with trying to equate leopards to Pantanal jaguar quickly falls apart. A taxidermy individual does not have the same dimensions as the live animal itself, the organic factors that contribute to the body mass of an animal cannot be replicated by synthetic means. There is no way to verify that the specimen mentioned in the table above had the same morphometric measurements had it been alive (very unlikely considering the extreme measurements), since it was stuffed the dimensions of the taxidermied animal were likely inflated.

You cannot compare a taxidermied animal to other animals that are not only measured alive but whose methods of measurements are described in detail and in the utmost professional matter (oftentimes on a straight line). In the same way that you cannot misrepresent craniometric data to paint a flattering picture of one animal based on skull length when the metrics in other departments of the skull are significantly lesser than the animal it is falsely being claimed to mirror in body mass.

The great table on skulls above shows two greater skull lengths 271 mm, but with drastic differences in width. The first one had a width of 191, which surpassed the record-holding leopard with a skull length of 288 mm by 10 mm (181 mm in width). The second one with the same length had a width of 177 mm, which is 7 mm greater than the third with a very similar skull length of 270 mm. Then comes the fourth one which had a dramatic drop in length with 259 mm, but retained the same width as the 270 mm skull.

What this shows is that there is little consistency in the direct correlation between skull length and width of Persian leopards, in contrast to jaguars who almost always show a direct correlation in this area in terms of the overall skull size. There is very little room to liberally assume that the record skull of a Persian leopard that is 2 mm shorter than an average gathered for Pantanal jaguars will translate to the leopard depicting the same average body mass when:

1. The skulls analyzed by Hoogesteijna and Mondolfi do not belong to the same jaguars utilized in the body mass average.
2. The width of said skull is significantly lesser than the jaguar. The skull height and bone density would also be lesser on the leopard skull and the full score of this outlier leopard, when compared to the jaguar's population average, would still be smaller and lighter.

This is what purposely misrepresenting data to spread an agenda looks like. The same people doing this tried their hardest to look with a microscopic lens the scientifically agreed-upon values for very large jaguars like Lopez to look for ways in reducing the body mass (despite the direct confirmation by the biologists involved that this jaguar had little to no stomach content). Meanwhile, I don't see anyone questioning the stomach content of the record-holding leopard of Namibia that weighed 96 kg, why is this? Then they share posts from hunting forums depicting butchered leopards with alleged weights of 100+ kg, with no reputable source behind them, and think that these records are somehow more reliable than the official data presented firt-hand by biologists involved in jaguar captures, the double standard here is staggering but the agenda very clear. Then they tried to misrepresent that the data that was shown in a paper where an alleged weight of 115 kg for a leopard was discarded for being too unreasonable, even after multiple other sources (including the authors of the paper itself) later clarified that the actual value was 95 kg and not 115, and of course this is without counting stomach content for this particular leopard in the same way they try to overanalyze it with jaguars.

Finally to show that "Persian leopards attain the body dimensions of Pantanal jaguars" they show the measurements of a taxidermied individual and then attempt to compare to the measurements of jaguars, many of whom are gathered in a straight line following the strictest protocols.

The facts are that not a single Persian leopard skull has attained the same dimensions as the average gathered for Pantanal jaguars, Persian leopards do not attain larger dimensions at averages or absolute values than female Pantanal jaguars (baring neck girth only, which in mature individuals is inflated by the dewlap which jaguars lack), the maximum recorded skull for a Mexican jaguar is larger than the largest Persian leopard skull, no leopard has been recorded weighing the same as the averages gathered for Pantanal or Llanos jaguars. While the standard on these forums for so long involving jaguars has been to examine every little bit of data with the utmost rigorous questioning, leopards shouldn't get a free pass from this either, especially when this group of individuals then likes to misrepresent the data to spread misinformation to others online. Reply

[Dark Jaguar]

TOP: Vitória Adult Caatinga female Jaguar

BOTTOM: 43 kg Lampião Adult Caatinga male Jaguar

credits: Rafael Garay

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[peter]

BALAM

An interesting, make that excellent, attempt to discuss a problem typical for many forums. Double standards seem to be everywhere these days. However. Every disadvantage has an advantage. In this case, there could be more than one advantage. 

The first is the double standard problem resulted in a post. This means you decided to give it a thought. This attempt resulted in an accurate description and an assessment of the damage. Chances are your post, and that's the second advantage, could result in a debate. 

The third advantage is the double standard problem forces you to learn how to deal with invalid reasoning. This is needed to get to a productive discussion. Size can be expressed in different ways. The question is which indicators are needed to get to a reliable assessment. The first step is to identify, and eliminate, invalid arguments and unreliable indicators.      

Your effort, and that's the fourth advantage, resulted in action. I'm referring to the decision (of you and Dark Jaguar) to collect information about the length and weight of wild jaguars. The result is we now have tables about the size of jaguars in different regions. 

For biologists, size has no priority. Conservation tops the list. We understand, but the result is a bit of confusion. A few years ago, there was a debate about the size of tigers in Nepal and Russia. Some of the posters involved in the debate contacted biologists. Sunquist (Nepal) and Miquelle (Russia) responded. What I read suggested the method used, in spite of the protocol, was applied in a slightly different way in both countries. This means it has to be reviewed. It would be interesting to know what biologists think.     

Anyhow. I'm preparing a second post on the size of Ussuri brown bears and Amur tigers. In this post, I will refer to a debate about methods in British India. I'll let you know when I'm ready. Thanks again for the post. Reply

[Pckts]

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Styx38]

For Post #363, the Tiger completely dwarfs tue Jaguar.

I understand that they have similar morphology, but it is still interesting to see the size difference between the two. The Tiger makes the Jaguar look like a large cub or sub-adult, or a mini-me. 


Anyway, here is an African Lion-Asiatic Lion visual comparison.

*This image is copyright of its original author

This was made by TheUndertaker45 on Carnivora.net Reply

[Pckts]

Tigress attacking a Blue Bull

Lioness attacking a Blue Bull

Both preferring to hamstring the large Antelope then proceeding to eat it alive. Reply

[Charger01]

Source - Lion (Panthera leo) Care Manual. Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare

9 Point Body Condition Scoring (BCS) system for Lions

   

   
    Reply

[LandSeaLion]

(06-15-2017, 10:30 PM)Pckts Wrote: @peter

Questions 1, 2 & 3


 I have only seen a few captive lions and tigers and to be honest, I find it very difficult to compare them to their wild counterparts. Wild cats have individual characteristics that are raw, they are primal, they have a much harder look in their eyes, scars on their face and body and are much more active. The captive cats I have seen either seem to be lazy, stressed or completely out of it.
Physical differences are easier to describe,
Captive lions are probably heavier than the wild ones I saw but they certainly aren't stronger. Captive lions I have seen usually seem more robust but also have more fat, wild lions are lean, strong and powerful. It's hard to describe but when you see a wild lion, it's body looks beaten but from this beating it's gained strength, a captive lion looks soft, unchallenged and weak in comparison.
It's the opposite for the captive tigers I have seen, Tigers seem seem much less dense in captivity and have more of a lanky look to them while in the wild Tigers are stocky, dense and strong. Their bodies are packed with muscle, their heads seem much more powerful and they seem lower to the ground, probably because they are more muscle packed. Tigers like lions have the same characteristics, wild individuals just look beaten and strong. Their forelimbs seem so strong, there is just something that happens to the body when you spend your entire life grappling and killing things, ripping into tough hides and eating highly nutritious prey compared to being fed slabs of meat.

Question 4 and 6

Females in the wild compared to captivity are as different as the males, they have a bit more elegance to their body but still powerful, especially in Tigers, I was more impressed by the tigress I saw than the males of either species because I was expecting the males to be powerful, but I didn't realize how powerful females could be. But with the females it's the attitude, females scare me, they look at you like food or a threat, males don't care about you, females definitely gave me the chills once or twice. Whether it was the durga female at Pench constantly snarling, lunging or never being settled or the Serengeti females walking in front of the jeep then purposely walking next to it and making eye contact as they walked past, they just seem more unpredictable.


Question 5

Male lions don't care about you, you're nothing to them, they don't look at you, they don't want to waste their time on you.
The Male tiger I got to spend time with was the same way, he was too busy roaring for his female to pay any attention to us, he was focused on the task at hand. The other Tadoba male I saw came out of the forest, walked in front of the jeeps then off to the other side of the road and he was gone. I really feel like either cat looks at us as a fly pestering them, not worth their time unless they get really annoyed. 

Captive cats of either species don't have the confidence, aura or power you feel when seeing their wild counterparts. Maybe it's my own doing, but seeing animals that live by the sword and die by it is so cool. It's raw, honest and beautiful. Seeing a cat behind bars takes away the magic, seeing a cat in nature, surrounded by it's natural habitat as far as the eye can see is what it's all about IMO. 


Question 7

"Controlled Aggression"

Seeing a male Lion in the wild is primal, you watch so many documentaries on them growing up and you know what they are capable of, then you see them and you finally can truly imagine what ferocity they posses. Their faces tell the tale, their eyes pierce your soul and they remind you of a time long lost.


Seeing a male Tiger in the wild is haunting, you have to search high and low, listen to calls, look for pug marks and most of the time it turns into empty promises then finally it happens, this striped beast emerges out of no where and he is beautiful and powerful at the same time. His head hangs low while his eyes look up, he is like a ghost. It's hard to believe that this massive beast actually lives there, but he does and he is king. You are lucky to even share a second with him and you should thank your lucky stars that you did.

Question 8

Yes and No

Talking to guides is much like being on a forum, each guide has their own opinion and stories, each has their favorites. What I learned from guides more than anything else is tracking, they are so in tune with the surroundings, their eyes, ears and noses are far better than ours. They have trained them their entire life, they almost become super human. Having them with you is so much fun, if you pay attention you can really learn a lot about tracking. 

Question 9

This is hard for me, I've read so many that they start to run together, most of the stories I remember seem to sensationalize these cats and that's not the cats I got to know. I never got to see them hunt or fight, I only got to see them doing their day to day operations.

Question 10

Male Lions seem taller and leaner while Male Tigers seem shorter and thicker.
Body length is hard to tell with the naked eye, but Tigers do seem a bit longer but no by much.
Body weight is impossible to tell, they carry their weight very differently, and both are massive in their own ways.


Females are similar in body dimensions but again I think Tigress are a little longer but female tigers definitely seem more powerful. Both my girlfriend and I noticed this, seeing the Link 8 female may have jaded me, but I kid you not, she is a massive Tigress and after seeing her, I have a hard time being fair to lioness'. Overall they are both very close in size and weight I'd bet.

Personalities are very different,
Lions are much more care free, they like to lounge and relax, tigers are on edge, they are always moving and active, even while sitting in a pool, their eyes are always scanning.


Question 11

Get out there and see the places where your favorite animals live, you'll learn more than you can ever learn behind a screen.


There is no rule...
Tigers are not larger than lions and lions are not larger than tigers....
Every species has a huge range, you see these animals and they come in all shapes and sizes.
When you see a Tiger or Lion in person you realize that no one can actually know what they weigh, how long or tall they are, nor does it matter. Just enjoy them for what they are, the last remnant of truly wild beasts!

This is an older post, but I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading it. I’d love to be able to see lions and tigers in their natural habitat...some day. I can’t see it happening any time soon though, with the global situation being what it is. Reply

[dominusforti]

Didn't see this posted here so thought I'd share:

Biceps brachi leverage index (BBL) among large felids

N. nebulosa: 13.97
P. onca: 13.38
P. leo: 12.72
P. tigris: 12.51
P. pardus: 11.59
A. jubatus: 7.38

(Length from proximal end of biciptal tuberosity to proximal end of the radius/total length of the radis × 100)

Source: "Carnivoran paleoguilds of Africa: implications for homonid food procurement strategies."

None of these values are all that surprising. All felids have relatively powerful biceps. Nevertheless, there is some differentiation. The clouded leopard (perhaps surprisingly) has the most powerful biceps by far, reflective of them being specialist climbers that nees mechanical advantage for the forearm flexors in order to pull themselves up a tree. The jaguar follows closely behind, and also has especially powerful biceps. The jaguar is both a robust, large prey specialist, as well as relatively large and scansorial, and this may be a reason why they have very powerful biceps. In the Americas, jaguars coevolved with many more sturdy, robust prey, like sloths, pampatheres, etc. The unique presence of many heavily built prey species may have driven the jaguar to focus more on strong prey restraint, as did the extinct Smilodon compared to its ancestors, respectively.

The leopard has relatively less powerful biceps than other large felids, albeit still powerful compared to other carnivores. This is unsurprising, with leopard being an overall generalist that often hunts smaller prey than lions or tigers, and certainly evolved to hunt smaller prey than jaguars (even if the jaguar today has little choice but to hunt smaller prey, in ecosystems mostly devoid of megafauna).

The lion and the tiger have have very similar biceps brachii configurations, which is to be expected. Together, the two represent a terrestrial, large prey specialist morph of Panthera, and have similar adaptations overall. Both have powerful biceps brachii that are needed to pull down large, struggling prey. It would be interesting to consider the implications of lions' relatively long distal limbs, though. Reply

[Dark Jaguar]

2 Adult Dark male Jags from the brazilian Caatinga and Cerrado biomes.

---

Top: 43 kg Caatinga male Jaguar (Lampião male)

Bottom: 117 kg Cerrado male Jaguar (Tiago male)


credits: Rafael Garay and Leandro Silveira

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Luipaard]

This is a comparison made by Sankha Wanniatchi regarding Sri Lankan leopards from a. low-lying area's such as Wilpattu, Yala and/or Kumana National Park and b. the elevated regions of Sri Lanka; Horton Plains National Park

"This is a small comparison between a Wilpattu Leopard cub (left) and Horton Plains Cub (right). At the time these shots were taken, they were both somewhere around 4 to 5 months old. 

This clearly shows that the highland leopards are much more bulkier. Even though it’s the same species It could be the diet and the weather that makes them look like this. 

The matured large males and females I have seen in the park is definitely much bigger than the leopards I have seen in other parks."

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply