Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Balam]

@tigerluver I have a big problem with the claim that they "completely overlap in size" and I don't think it's fair to brush it to the side because that is verifiably false and a clear attempt at misrepresenting data to spread a false notion. In terms of skull sizes, I could make the argument that individual jaguar skulls attain similar dimensions to certain mainland tigers and lion skulls, but that doesn't mean there is a "complete overlap". That entire point was even odd to bring up because size differences have nothing to do with proportions in craniometric values, the other person clearly has no understanding of what is being discussed here to begin with. 

But to clean it up, I will use only publicized data from single studies:

• The largest leopard skulls come from Persian leopards: ML 245 mm, ZW 162 mm
  

The largest population of leopards is similar in size to the one of the smallest jaguar populations on average:

• Central American jaguar skulls: ML 244 mm, ZW 166.4 mm
  

Despite being 1 mm shorter these jaguars have a wider zygoma by a greater margin, what does this say about the ratios in skull proportions?
The overlapping on averages ends there because medium to large-sized jaguars far surpassed this on average as well:

• Amazon ML 263 mm, ZW 176 mm (7.5% larger ML, 8.3% larger ZW)
• Llanos ML 290 mm, ZW 194 mm (17% larger ML, 18% larger ZW)
• Pantanal ML 291 mm, ZW 194 mm (17% larger ML, 18% larger ZW)
  

If we understand averages from a statistical point of view as a good measure to gauge how often a species will surpass a certain size threshold with regularity and which one likely possesses the greater sizes on averages as well, then there is no doubt that most populations of jaguars greatly surpass leopards in this regard. Any overlap that one might find between individual specimens is pointless when looked at from a bigger and more complete picture. The fact that the largest population of leopards was the sole one used to illustrate this point is also important to highlight as smaller populations will have smaller average values, hence making the gap between them and jaguars even greater.

Largest skulls (different specimens, largest dimensions):

• Leopard ML 288 mm, ZW 191 mm
• Jaguar ML 324 mm, ZW 223 mm
  

Jaguar 12% larger ML at maximums, 16% larger at ZW at maximums.

The gap between the largest jaguars and largest leopard in skull size is similar to the one between jaguars and tigers:

• Indochinese tiger ML 329 mm, ZW 223 mm (13% larger ML, 16% lager ZW)
• Bengal tiger ML 353. 4 mm, data on ZW from the same source lacking (20% larger)
• Caspian tiger ML 339 mm, data on ZW from the same source lacking (16% larger)
  

Largest skulls:

• Indochinese tiger ML 365 mm, ZW 247.4 (12% larger ML, 10 % larger ZW)
• Bengal tiger ML 378 mm (15% larger)
• Caspian tiger ML 369 mm (13% larger)
  

Primary sources used here are Mazak et al., Farhadina et al., Hoogesteinj et al. What this shows is that the graph posted above was completely misunderstood to try to paint a false picture that was flattering for leopards. When looking at the general size variations in averages and maximum dimensions jaguars dwarf leopards in a similar fashion to tigers do jaguars, with the smallest tiger populations (Sunda and Sundarbans) overlapping in size with the largest extant jaguar populations, much like the largest leopard populations overlap in size with the smallest jaguar populations.

The study you posted is a perfect example of craniometric differences between both species with opposite results, meaning they show the least similar ratios. Jaguars and tigers aligned more in this regard particularly in P3 dimensions, M1, and condylobasal length than they do with leopards. Reply