Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Balam]

(08-12-2020, 02:44 PM)Luipaard Wrote: @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.

Quote: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.

No, it isn't, here is what the reasearchers of the paper had to say about that weight:

"We excluded an adult male from Tonekabon (northern Iran) with an exceptionalweight of 115 kg (I. Memarian, pers. comm.)which is the heaviest specimen ever rec-orded across the species’ global range (Stander, 1997; Sunquist & S"


And here is another Facebook post coming directly from the Persian Leopard Project which clearly corrects that weight of the individual was 95 kg, not 115 kg:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote: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).

Being famous and well-known doesn't make a story true because fabricated claims can become popular, but again, even if he did surpass 100 kg in weight, that weight comes from an obese individual, here is a picture of Balaji allegedly before being captured:

*This image is copyright of its original author

He's not necessarily big, just clearly very fat. This, combined with the lack of reliable sources for its weight, leads me to believe that his weight doesn't signify that healthy leopards can surpass 100 kg, any obese animal will produce weights much higher than what's normally expected of that animal. Clearly the 143 kg claim for a leopard is ridiculous so there's no point in even addressing that.

Quote: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.

Balaji being obese and his weight unreliable, and the South African leopard being completely full-bellied and taken on a defective scale. You're grasping onto straws.

Quote: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. 

Unless you can provide solid data to sustain that they consume smaller prey to avoid competition with humans, that claim holds no validity. First of all, duiker is a less common animal than river hog is, by far, if leopards in the Congo had a predisposition to tackle the larger prey they would have no problem doing so because there would be larger quantities of said prey at their disposal, and based on the data that is simply not the case:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:But do you really think these 2 leopards represent all the separate leopard populations in the Congo Basin?

Nice attempt at a straw man fallacy, I said that we simply cannot discount the weights that we do have of these leopards like you're doing, I also explicitly mentioned that those leopards were not in good condition, and that's why for hypothetical purposes I gave them an extra 20 kg of mass which still then didn't increase their mass to more than 70 kg. Furthermore, those two weights are better and more accurate results for weights in the Congo bain than the couple of skulls you're using to generalize the entire population, so while there might be leopards heavier than the two mentioned before, I don't see any reason to believe that on average that specific population is producing leopards larger than other populations with bigger and more abundant prey.

Quote: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.

If you look at the same data you're using, as well as SCI records, you will notice that there are savanna leopards with similar and higher skull scores, including some with sores of over 19" which is larger than any measurement retrieved for Central African leopards, and yet none surpass 100 kg in weight.

Quote: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.

Once again, there are multiple SCI records of leopards from savanna ecosystems with higher scores. For a point of reference he highest quotes score for a rainforest leopard is 18.25", and here are the scores of different savanna leopards from more recent hunts:

*This image is copyright of its original author

" Rodney A. Klein poses with his leopard taken in 2001 in Kalahari, R.S.A. It measures 19 10/16″."

*This image is copyright of its original author

"Steven Chancellor took the number 1 leopard in 1997 in Okavango, Botswana. This magnificent cat scored 19 11/16″.

*This image is copyright of its original author

"B.H. Smith took this number 8 Ranked cat in Khomas,Namibia in 2008. It measures at 18 4/16″.

Here is a complete list which comes directly from the SCI Record Book: https://huntforever.org/2014/12/30/sci-t...n-leopard/

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

Another lazy strawman, I never said it wasn't scientifically accurate, I said it's not a scientifically accurate measurement to gage body mass, which is correct because it's not.

Quote: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.

Right, appearing more muscular doesn't make animals necessarily heavier than another if the proportion of the muscle mass is lesser than the overall mass of the other individual, especially when there is little reason to believe that leopards differ dramatically in their muscle composition among different populations. And my claim of them looking more muscular was mere speculation. Furthermore, my claim that they are muscular doesn't equal to me saying that they are more muscular than other populations, to me savanna leopards look more impressive.

Quote:[quote pid='123991' dateline='1597225450']
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.

[/quote]

Correction: I rely on the weight records that are available instead of dismissing them like you do because they don't align with your preconceived ideas of the weights for that specific leopard population. The skull data for them is limited, not numerous, and since we have SCI records (which are accurate and highly reliable) that show savanna individuals with highest scores the claim that CA leopards are bigger in dimensions is completely false. Yes, they are in my opinion smaller than Persian leopards who live in colder climates which makes them likely to put more mass and hunt large prey. Reply