Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Balam]

@Luipaard

Quote:Is it because you're banned on that forum because of misbehaviour? You know, you insulted many people over there, calling some mentally unstable, an embarrassing fanboy, delusional

it's funny how on every single post you make you can't help but to twist what actually happened, in other words, you are a professional deceiver. Perhaps we should post in here the insults that Chui, whom you worship, threw at Pckts in that forum when he wasn't even active there. It's all based on ad-hominem, and let me remind that it was me who asked for the account to be banned as I find that forum to be of low-quality and discussions like these are better had in forums like this one with users who are more knowledgable than teenagers who are obsessed with animal matchups. Furthermore, the only reason why I'm acknowledging is because you kept mentioning me in your mindless rants, so someone made me aware of it. Moving on.

Quote:Wrong, all big cats have the same morphology except for their characteristics (lions having a mane, leopards a dewlap, tigers a ruff, ...). They all have the same build under their skin. 

No, they do not. Morphology entails the body composition of an animal. A lion has more differences with a tiger beyond superficial traits such as the mane, in both their skeleton and muscle mass. In the case of jaguars and leopards, the difference is even more pronounced and any robusticity study done can and has proven this. And since you think all big cats are the same under the skin, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if somebody were to make the same equalization concerning leopards and cheetahs, do you?

Quote:Wrong:

The statement in that picture bears no relevance to the points being made, Pckts already told you that 2d frames do not represent an accurate representation of animal's body to assess its size and overall compare their differences, so even an expert can have a hard time discerning between species when the picture itself lacks the details of 3D view. And concerning Panthera, this is coming directly from them:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Remember why Central African leopard have larger skulls (i.e. longer AND wider)? I got in touch with Philipp Henschel because I was curious why exactly they such large skulls compared to other leopard populations (excluding Persian leopards). Here's what he had to say:

And I love that the first thing he told you is that you cannot draw conclusions about the absolute size of an animal-based on their skull measurements and that their skull measurements might have developed independently from their size in that specific region. Add to the inclusion that the skull database for this leopards is limited, so even he agrees that drawing the arbitrary conclusions that they weight 110 kg as you've previously suggested is wrong. And as I've shown before the SCI records prove that the measurements gathered for leopards in the Congo have been matched or surpassed by savanna individuals and neither reached 90+ kg on an empty stomach.

Quote:As you can see, Gabonese leopards are known to predate on armourous animals (that require a powerful bite to dispatch) as well. Not all leopards have the same lifestyle, i.e. not all leopards predate upon impala's.

And yet the data that we have for their diet is plentiful and it shows that their preferred prey items are duikers, followed by tree porcupines. Predating on reptiles might be higher in terms of frequency due to the habitat in which they live, but even then the adaptations in their skulls do not match that of jaguars who as a species have specialized in predating on said amorous prey. And if you study the breadth of some skulls from the Congo you will see that their measurements sometimes end up being relatively slimmer in proportion to the skull length, which is the total opposite with jaguars.

Quote:First of all, you keeo claiming they dismissed the 115kg weight number but I still haven't seen a source.

The source was already posted here, so maybe get some glasses

*This image is copyright of its original author

This is the same leopard quoted in the study that was dismissed as 115 kg.

Quote:And while they somehow dismiss the leopard, they still claim him to be the largest ever recorded:

"We excluded an adult male from Tonekabon (northern Iran) with an exceptional weight of 115 kg (I. Memarian, pers. comm.) which is the heaviest specimen ever recorded across the species’ global range" 

It's the heaviest because a leopard of 100+ kg of weight has never been seen, and since the weight was inaccurate its inclusion in the table would've been erroneous, so they rightfully dismissed it. 

Quote:And no you're wrong regarding the weight ranges. If a weight range contains 3 animals, it really means those 3 fall into that weight range so they weigh anything in between that.

When did I say it didn't? I'm showing the weight ranges that show the minimum and maximum values accepted for the species, and since the lowest value is 40 kg for an adult male, the weights for these leopards do not entail predominantly 80+ individuals as you initially stated, not when compared with the average gathered form them.

Quote:There were 21 adult males and 6 adult females, 3 sub-adult males and 3 sub-adult males. Those weights were then put into that chart to give everyone a better summary:

And those weights themselves show hat the majority of the leopards in the study fell bellow 80 kg in weight, so regardless if it's 5 or 8, that's still not even half of the 21 males in the sample. Stating that they reach that weight mark with regularity as you previously said was again, wrong.

Quote:The thing is that you gather weights from all sort of sources, including Instgram posts. You then put them in a table and come to the conclusion they average *insert weight*. That's not how it works.

The weights were gathered from the already mentioned organization that capture the jaguars directly, they were not "random IG posts" as you keep going on about. IG is the most reliable way for these biologists to update on the captures and share the data, and still, most of the weights on that table are coming from the official sites directly, the mouth of the biologists themselves, or already published data. All of this is more reliable than jumping to conclusions about the weights of some very unstudied animals like Central African leopards based on a few skulls put together by another poster here (Chui) in a table, table which you love to reference a lot.

Quote:First of all, the 66kg average number is currently regarded as an average for the whole subspecies while it's an average from data they gather from across Iran. It's not an average of a population. Ignoring the fact that they do in fact grow larger up North won't change that. Also, all the larger Persian skulls originate from these regions. The 115kg or 95kg in your case too originated from upper Iran.

And because the whole subspecies is discussed here, then the averages from all over their range is relevant. And now the burden of proof to show data that depicts that they do grow bigger in the northern areas falls on you.

Quote:Exactly, that's what the skull ratio part of the discussion was all about. Also, both were population averages, no individual skulls or whatsoever.

And what is the number sample and source for both of those averages? Especially for the Congolese leopards, is it Chui's table? Because there are very few collective data on their skulls gathered in comparison to what is available for jaguars, at least in the study by Hoogesteijn.

Quote:How am I mad? Who's the one who decides to reply here? I wasn't even discussing with you in the first place, in this case it happened to be Pckts but on another forum.

In the future I suggest you at least PM me rather than trying to lecture me.

I already mentioned how you kept referencing me in a different forum, if you do not want to be called out publicly then don't disparage others publicly, so nobody is going to PM you. Now it's up to you to post all the data to contradict our claims, otherwise don't reference what we do here when you have nothing of value to contribute. Reply