Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Luipaard]

@Balam 

I'm quoting your post here since this thread is more appropriate.

Quote:Yes, that is exactly where I got it from, Namibia is southern West Africa.

You first said West Africa (the Western part of Africa) though. But yes Namibia is located southern west of Africa.

Quote: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

Yet his original weight of 115kg is included in scientific published documentation. Where is it stated to be a mistake? All I see is a Facebookpost.

Balaji's case is dubious no doubt about it but the fact that he's well known in India indicates that the story is most likely true. He was captured back in 1998 weighing 115kg and became obese in zoo (143kg when he died).

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

There are 3 cases at this moment (injured Persian leopard, Balaji and the South African leopard). They're debatable, but it is what it is.

Quote: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. 

Again, there are multiple undisturbed pristine area's in the whole Congo Basin. And there are area's where leopards face competition of bushmeat hunters. Yes they consume smaller prey to avoid said bushmeat hunters. The fact that those 2 Gabonese leopards were snared, and therefore in bad condition, tells me that these are indeed from a smaller leopard population. But do you really think these 2 leopards represent all the separate leopard populations in the Congo Basin? 

Quote: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.

Once again, it's not about skull length. They're more robust, heavier overall and have heavier teeth. If you look at each and every skull data from scientific sources, the largest skull originate from either Central Africa or Iran.

Quote: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. 

But we're talking about samples, not just a couple of individuals. Overall there's limited data on them but despite this they have the largest skulls. On average and in absolutes.

Quote: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.

Skull data is both scientifically accurate however. Unfortunately you seem to not rely on this except for hunter records ironically.

Quote: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.

So you acknowledge them being very muscular but then again not necessarily bigger? Muscles weigh more than fat so a muscular leopard will weigh more than an equally large leopard who's less robust.

Quote: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.

You rely on the body weight of 2 injured leopards but you consider their (much numerous) amount of skull data to be inaccurate. And the fact that their overall skull data is comparable (if not more impressive) to the largest leopard populations (Persian leopard) doesn't mean anything to you? Following your logic they're smaller than the Persian leopard (average weight 67kg) but in the mean time they have such large skulls? Doesn't make sense. Reply