(11-05-2016, 06:27 PM)parvez Wrote: @Ngala, please say Which group of leopards are the biggest, Assam and terai or Persian or Srilankan leopards? I assume that assam and terai leopards must be bigger and stockier like other animals too from this region. Correct me if i am wrong. Are srilankan and persian leopards proven to be the biggest?

(11-06-2016, 01:14 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Australopithicus ( several species ), normally stood less than 5 feet tall ( 1.52 m ) and probably weighed less than 100 pounds ( 45.36 kg ). I feel sure that a pack of wild dogs or a clan of hyenas could easily make a kill. I question if their habitat was as open as the grasslands of Africa are today. 
                                             

*This image is copyright of its original author

(11-05-2016, 06:39 PM)The brotherbear Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 06:30 PM)parvez Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 05:00 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Two or three years ago, I watched a nature documentary about leopards. This particular program showed leopards of various locations of Africa and Asia. When speaking of the leopards of the tropical African Congo region, the statement was made that of all the creatures of the jungle, the only animal that a leopard fears is the chimpanzee. They went on to say that a troop of chimps can remove a leopard from their territory. 
It is my opinion that when a leopard discovers a lone chimpanzee, the great ape has little chance of survival. But, in mass, the chimps are a force to be reckoned with.

Hi brother bear, man must have been solitary at the time he was struggling for survival during evolution. That must be the time many carnivores must have targeted him as the primates including man were weak bodied comparitively. He became social as the time progressed.

Hi parvez. Our early ancestors could neither outfight nor outrun wild dogs, hyenas, or the big cats. They ( Australopiticus ) had not yet developed weapons. My theory, despite the fact that no one agrees, is that they had an audacious body odor. Perhaps enough that they were not a predators first choice of a meal.

(11-06-2016, 04:20 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 06:39 PM)The brotherbear Wrote:

(11-05-2016, 06:30 PM)parvez Wrote: Hi brother bear, man must have been solitary at the time he was struggling for survival during evolution. That must be the time many carnivores must have targeted him as the primates including man were weak bodied comparitively. He became social as the time progressed.

Hi parvez. Our early ancestors could neither outfight nor outrun wild dogs, hyenas, or the big cats. They ( Australopiticus ) had not yet developed weapons. My theory, despite the fact that no one agrees, is that they had an audacious body odor. Perhaps enough that they were not a predators first choice of a meal.

They most likely didn't have weapons per say but they did use tools, even sharp rocks for carving meat off bone. From what we were told, it isn't tools that truly created our evolutionary boom (intelligence) but the control of fire. The cooking of meat allowed us to bring out the nutrients unobtainable in raw meat which created an increase in brain size throughout the evolutions of man. It also allowed us to stay in one place and build civilizations. (Allegedly)

(11-06-2016, 09:39 PM)Pckts Wrote: What do you mean  @parvez ?

(11-07-2016, 07:09 AM)parvez Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 09:39 PM)Pckts Wrote: What do you mean  @parvez ?

I mean the same nutrients get nourished to all parts of body no matter if it is raw meat or cooked one. They are reduced to same end product that is responsible for body building or energy production or is it like for body building raw meat contributes more? If the former is right then only digestive system of man functions lesser than normal. So comparitively it must have become weaker than other parts. Then how can man eat that much voraciously though digestive system became weak during his evolution. Also the stress on brain and heart is reduced. Heart must have pumped the extra blood to brain. Brain also must have had its stress reduced and getting extra blood supply tha when he used to eat raw meat. So it must have slowly developed in size and gradually intelligence should have began.

(11-07-2016, 07:09 AM)parvez Wrote:

(11-06-2016, 09:39 PM)Pckts Wrote: What do you mean  @parvez ?

I mean the same nutrients get nourished to all parts of body no matter if it is raw meat or cooked one. They are reduced to same end product that is responsible for body building or energy production or is it like for body building raw meat contributes more? If the former is right then only digestive system of man functions lesser than normal. So comparitively it must have become weaker than other parts. Then how can man eat that much voraciously though digestive system became weak during his evolution. Also the stress on brain and heart is reduced. Heart must have pumped the extra blood to brain. Brain also must have had its stress reduced and getting extra blood supply tha when he used to eat raw meat. So it must have slowly developed in size and gradually intelligence should have began.

(11-07-2016, 10:49 AM)peter Wrote: Interesting debate, but I propose to include leopards. I mean, this thread is about leopards. What about their digestive system? And why their interest in primates? In western parts of Africa, largish monkeys are often hunted. The bigger the better, researchers concluded. Some leopards also hunt bonobos, chimps (adult males apparently included) and gorillas. Why is that? Could we be their ultimate prey? Is this why primates, apart from gorillas, live in trees?

What is known about the situation in Borneo (clouded leopards) and Sumatra (tigers)? The male orang utangs ('forest people') I saw were large and powerful animals. How do they deal with cats on both islands?  

A few weeks ago, I read a post about an allegedly new chimp (sub)species. If I remember correctly, they were described as 'lion-killer chimps'. No joke. Could they have developed a way to drive leopards out of their territory? Is it really new, or did we miss something?