There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
Allometric scaling how? You say that the average Jaguar has a ‘pound for pound’ stronger bite force than the average Bengal Tiger.
So the average Jaguar needs to be ISOMETRICALLY scaled to the size of the Tiger otherwise the proportions of the Jaguar will completely change and the resulting animal after scaling will not even have the morphology of an actual Jaguar.
This is basic common sense. You are comparing the morphology of Jaguars to the morphology of the Bengal Tiger.
So where going back to bite force now?
We then agree at equal weights the Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder but heavier in body? *more often*
Allometric would still be better than Iso simply because the growth rate of these cats is not 1:1. Their morphology is different and as they put on weight their bodies don't grow the same. Like I said, a jaguars body holds more weight at smaller sizes, so if we were to make it "Tiger sized" you'd need to grow it's body piece by piece to accommodate that. The limbs may not grow at the same rate as the chest or neck, and the body length may not grow at the same rate as the shoulder height or head. It's an imperfect science.
In regards to Bite force, there are many factors that go into it.
Generally speaking, Sumatran Tigers have larger Skulls than Jaguars, but they are generally larger in size. Unfortunately we don't have much data on Sumatran Tiger Skull size to body weight.
Where as we have quite a bit of data on skull size to Jaguar weight up to 119kg empty.
But from the skull sizes I have seen, I'd say Sumatran Tigers top the list even at equal weights. It's very rare for a Jaguars skull to score 21'' or more where as Sumatran/Java Skulls can possibly score 23'' or more. Unfortunately those scores are just the highest totals of all the specimens used, not necessarily from the same individuals. Regardless though, if you did the same for Jaguars, they still wouldn't reach that size. So long story short, I think I agree that the Sumatran Tiger would probably have the higher bite force lb for lb between the two since weights are close but Skull is much more exaggerated in the Sumatran Tiger. Of course we can get in Rostrum Width, Mandible shape, canine curvature and density, Sagittal Crest shape and size as well are zygomatic arch shape. But if we keep it simple and just use surface areas and muscle attachment openings, I think the Sumatran Tiger is going to top the list.
No! I do not agree with you at all on the body length topic but since you won’t even listen to reason, there’s no reason to argue on it anymore.
And even Bengal Tiger will have stronger bite force even at equal weight. Please make the comparison for it. You talked about allometric scaling, didn’t you? (Allometric scaling won’t even apply to such cases)
But I already scaled the Jaguar with my equation and everything and I even calculated the bite force at equal weight and concluded that the Tiger would still have a 12% stronger bite.
Now I would invite you to make your own calculation and please show me how would the Jagaur’s bite force compare to that of Bengal Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Please do a calculation right here and show me what your estimate is.
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
