Animal Strength Feats

[Balam]

(03-30-2021, 01:04 PM)Luipaard Wrote:

(03-29-2021, 03:50 PM)Balam Wrote:

Quote:Well yes it is a fact that it's the smallest of the big cats and it is a fact that none of the other three have dragged prey 2-3 times its own bodyweight vertically up a tree.

They don't because they don't have to, they aren't subordinates to other larger carnivores across their range. It's called being an apex predator.

Quote:Male leopards are everything but gracile hence why they're able to take down tough and robust prey such as wild boar, warthog and red river hog. And for some leopards this on a regular basis

Robusticity index studies that show empirical data and numbers speak for themselves. Killing suids has no correlation whatsoever with being a robust cat. It's an undeniably fact that the P. pardus is the most gracile of the pantherines. This makes sense as an adaptation for an animal that is arboreal and needs to have a lighter build for flexibility and agility. You can become a master in something without compromising in other areas, and leopards compromised in the robustness/size department (hence why you don't see 100+ kg leopards).

Quote:And how are they least impressive when they possess the most extreme sexual dimorphism among the big cats? The males constantly dwarf the females because they have a different build. Take a look at their broad heads or massive bulking neck. That's a real eye test

No they don't, Llanos jaguars posses a more drastic weight difference between the sexes than Persian leopards, for example. But nonetheless, the drastic sexual dimorphism has nothing to do with the overall morphology of the species. Another bizarre statement backed up by personal interpretations rather than solid scientific data.

Quote:They don't because they don't have to, they aren't subordinates to other larger carnivores across their range. It's called being an apex predator.

Guess what? There's plenty of leopard populations who are an apex predator and they still now and then drag prey up a tree;

Sri Lankan leopard with water buffalo calf:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Robusticity index studies that show empirical data and numbers speak for themselves. It's an undeniably fact that the P. pardus is the most gracile of the pantherines.

Yet male leopards are comparable to the other pantherines at equal size. Female leopards if another story but as explained before; because sexual dimorphism.

Quote:Killing suids has no correlation whatsoever with being a robust cat.

Yes it does; killing suids requires brute strength because of their robustness and temperament. This is why the most robust leopard populations are the ones who frequently tackle suids (i.e. Central African leopards and red river hogs, Persian leopards and wild boar).

Quote:This makes sense as an adaptation for an animal that is arboreal and needs to have a lighter build for flexibility and agility.

Again, Central African and Persian leopards don't live an arboreal life hence why they're the biggest in the world and the most robust with also the biggest skulls. It's because they're the apex predator and frequently tackle large and tough prey. 
According to Phillip Henschel, Central African (Gabonese ones in this case) live a life comparable to Pantanal jaguars as they heavily predate upon reptilians:

Quote:leopards in Gabon are also known to prey on crocodiles, feed on marine turtles, crack open forest tortoises, and prey on giant pangolin.

It's no coincidence that these leopards have skulls at extremes that approach the dimensions of Pantanal male jaguars who weigh 100kg or is it now 110kg?

Quote:leopards compromised in the robustness/size department (hence why you don't see 100+ kg leopards).

That's a 'bizarre statement backed up by personal interpretations rather than solid scientific data' isn't it. According to you Central American jaguars are not robust compared to most South American jaguars as they don't weigh more than 100kg. But looking at camera trap footage of Belizean, Mexican and Costa Rican jaguars, I still notice very robust jaguars but just not well fed with cattle like the Pantanal jaguars. 

Leopards do not have to weigh more than 100kg in order to be robust or comparable to jaguars, lions or tigers. If you scale them to the same size (e.g. same size of a leopard) they will be very similar in dimensions and the difference will be marginal. Each and every cat will dominate a particular department such as the neck department for leopards, skull department for jaguars and limb department for lions/tigers.

Quote:No they don't, Llanos jaguars posses a more drastic weight difference between the sexes than Persian leopards, for example.

Comparing Llanos jaguars and Persian leopards with each other is comparing two specific populations with each other. Overall the leopard possesses the most sexual dimorphism. I already proved it via skull data.

Quote:But nonetheless, the drastic sexual dimorphism has nothing to do with the overall morphology of the species.

Yes it does; female leopards are powerful but gracile. Adapted to tackle light and nimble prey whereas the males are built to tackle large and tough prey which results in a much, much heavier build. The best and most extreme example will be Gabonese leopards who live a different live; the females are still lightweight but not arboreal and they target the duikers in the area or rodents whereas the males primarily go for red river hog and in some sites even young adult forest buffalo.

The difference couldn't be more pronounced, even you have to agree:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Guess what? There's plenty of leopard populations who are an apex predator and they still now and then drag prey up a tree; Sri Lankan leopard with water buffalo calf:

 
I already knew you were going to say this, so predictable that the point flies over your head. Sri Lankan leopards don't hoist their prey up trees nearly on the same rate as leopards who live alongside larger carnivores. But that's not the point, the point is that comparing the strength of big cats based on whether they hoist up prey on trees or not makes no sense because that is behavioral trait specific to leopards developed as a result of living subordinate to other larger carnivores for thousands of years. Lions, tiger and jaguars are just as capable of pulling large amounts of mass in different ways, they just don't have the need to hoist carcasses up trees because they're not subordinates in their environments.

Quote:Yet male leopards are comparable to the other pantherines at equal size. Female leopards if another story but as explained before; because sexual dimorphism.

Male leopards are at the bottom of nearly all the index calculations for bone robusticity on comparison to the rest of the pantherines, do I have to post the list here? 

Quote:Yes it does; killing suids requires brute strength because of their robustness and temperament. This is why the most robust leopard populations are the ones who frequently tackle suids (i.e. Central African leopards and red river hogs, Persian leopards and wild boar).

Again, the point flying all over your head. When speaking in scientific terms you cannot deduct robusticity based on hunting feats of suids, what part are your not getting? Not to mention that suids of different kinds are targeted just as much by savannah leopards.

Quote:Again, Central African and Persian leopards don't live an arboreal life hence why they're the biggest in the world and the most robust with also the biggest skulls. It's because they're the apex predator and frequently tackle large and tough prey. 

Quote:According to Phillip Henschel, Central African (Gabonese ones in this case) live a life comparable to Pantanal jaguars as they heavily predate upon reptilians:

Congratulations on proving my previous point, not all leopards live an arboreal lifestyle and don't hoist their prey items on trees, that still doesn't change their morphological adaptations gathered through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution that made them the most gracile of the big cats.

Pantanal jaguars prey primarily on crocodilians, Central African leopards on duikers and hogs, they are not the same. Hence why the width/length ratio of Central African leopards skulls is so poor compared to Pantanal jaguars, there is in fact no comparison at all.

Quote:It's no coincidence that these leopards have skulls at extremes that approach the dimensions of Pantanal male jaguars who weigh 100kg or is it now 110kg?

It's not a surprise that you're still pushing this lie/fantasy of yours considering you're still pushing the lie of your imaginary 115 kg leopard.

The skull size of a Llanos jaguar with a weight of 113 kg was 31,25 cm long and 22,50 cm wide, dimensions that no leopard is ever approaching.

I'm going to repeat myself once again to you: the skulls of Central/West African leopards compare in length to male Central American jaguars, and in width to female Central American jaguars on average. Despite jaguars having more proportionally shorter skull, Pantanal jaguars still vastly surpass the average length of Central African leopards even in the absolutes, and completely dwarf them in width. The largest skull of a Persian leopard still did not reach the same length of an average Pantanal jaguar and the width was a far cry from the width of an average Pantanal jaguar. Jaguars also have taller and heavier/denser skulls and dentition. You cannot assume that a leopard will weight the same as a Pantanal jaguar even if we were to agree to your claims on skull values because they are different species with different correlations of skull size and overall mass.

Quote:That's a 'bizarre statement backed up by personal interpretations rather than solid scientific data' isn't it. According to you Central American jaguars are not robust compared to most South American jaguars as they don't weigh more than 100kg. But looking at camera trap footage of Belizean, Mexican and Costa Rican jaguars, I still notice very robust jaguars but just not well fed with cattle like the Pantanal jaguars. 

Huh? Where did I say that Central American jaguars were not robust? Care to show this? Not to mention Pantanal jaguars seldomly feed on cattle, they just happen to grow bigger because they have readily access to medium-sized abundant prey, whereas leopards that grow half their size do have access to cattle-sized ungulates across their range, oops!

Quote:Leopards do not have to weigh more than 100kg in order to be robust or comparable to jaguars, lions or tigers. If you scale them to the same size (e.g. same size of a leopard) they will be very similar in dimensions and the difference will be marginal. Each and every cat will dominate a particular department such as the neck department for leopards, skull department for jaguars and limb department for lions/tigers.

Again, robusticity indexes which divide the length of bones by their width to arrive to a percentage are not determined by size, that is why it is an index. If you were to scale leopards to the size of the other larger pantherines they would still be the more gracile ones because their bones are less robust.

This is why Central American/Mexican jaguars who are some of the few jaguars that overlap in size with leopards all around are significantly more robust and stout all around. Jaguar morphology is consistent throughout, as it is with leopards.

Quote:The difference couldn't be more pronounced, even you have to agree:

I'm getting tired of arguing with you because you clearly don't understand a single point I'm making and it's exhausting. The drastic sexual dimorphism between one population of felids doesn't directly correlate to the males of said felids being comparable to completely different species known to be more robust. Flattering camera pictures is just another unscientific way for you to hold on to straws. Reply