Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)

[GuateGojira]

(02-12-2022, 12:00 AM)Pckts Wrote: Unfortunately CBL doesn't equate to TL always. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
You'll notice the Leopard from Egypt and Sudan both have CBL longer than the largest verified scoring Leopard on the list while both have a shorter total length. You can also see the one from Upper Uele and Faradje, Congo have a CBL that is only 1mm less than largest verified skull yet one is shorter in length and the other is actually longer in total length. This is a total of 4/7 skulls, not including the broken one that show inconstancy when basing total length off of CBL length. 

In regards to Jaguars skulls, I'm not sure which you're comparing to but unfortunately Almeida doesn't present CBL, only width and lenght.
Generally speaking a large Jaguar is going to have a skull that is in the high 11''+  long and high 7'' + wide. 
Scores of 20''+ for Jaguars are considered upper tier but not uncommon and even 21''+ skulls have been registered. 

The mean CBL score for the Pantanal was 252.32 for 72 males and Hoogestejin Referenced Almeida *unpublished* for Pantanal skulls but my guess is that since Almeida didn't provide CBL, I doubt he's going to be able to measure all of his skulls that he mentions since the hunters he took out would most likely keep their skulls as trophies. So who knows what skulls he's provided CBL measurements too as well as Quigley, Crawshaw, Pocock and Allen's skull measurements too. 

In regards to Lioness v Pantanal Jaguar skulls, from this study 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
The average Lioness scores 19.6" which a little smaller than most Monster Jag Skull sizes.
That being said, I know very little about this study *age, location, captive/wild, weight, etc*
My guess would be that Lioness would probably have a slightly higher scoring skull than Monster Jaguars more often than not which makes sense since they'll be averaging 130kg while Pantanal Jaguar will average 107kg. But lb for lb, the Pantanal Jaguar skull is going to get you more bang for your buck. *Larger skull on a smaller body*

Honestly scores are irrelevant for me, as there are just a value used by hunters, I don't pay attention to that, but thank you for sharing your point of view.

Now, again, that table that you put there is weird (I think it was made by Chui, I don't know), because is quoting 4 skulls from the paper of Van Neer et al. (2013) and in the documents there are only two, the one from the tomb HK6 and the mention of the CBL of the giant skull IRSNB-KBIN 8640, but that is all. I can't found the other three skulls in the paper (CBL 247, 253 (from Sudan) and 243 mm each) described in the table, unless that they were estimated based in the Fig. 9 and 10 of the same document (which is unlikely). Am I missing something?

About the jaguar skulls, I am not checking Almeida, but Nelson & Goldman (1933), Pocock (1939) and Seymour (1989). They provided information about from skulls measured by them in a scientific manner. Reply