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.
(04-30-2022, 01:42 AM)LonePredator Wrote: I meant the Leopard whose length and weight was written in the book which you sent the picture of. It was written in inches and pounds I think so I converted it.
The longest leopard from India, measured "between pegs", was of 249 cm, so a male of 239 cm seems completelly plausible, and a weight of 77 kg seems correct for it; a shoulder height of 68.6 cm seems correct too, as the tallest Indian leopards was recorded at 74 cm.
Surely, I agree. Indian Leopards are also the longest aren’t they? Are they also the tallest?
I wonder why Indian Leopards still lag behind in terms of weight.
Like all leopards indian leopards are typically thin with the exception of well fed forest dwelling specimens. They are also shorter than african leopards and probably persian leopards as well. I dont think its fair to say that they should be the most massive or heavy leopards simply because of their length.
Indian leopards that have a good prey base and no competition are just as heavy as persian leopards there are many examples of this.
Please read my comment again. I did NOT say that Indian Leopards are the most massive or heavy. I said Indian Leopards are the longest and tallest (I actually asked rather than claim)
And yes, that’s obviously because of the Tigers and in Gir, Gujarat, the Lions.
You said you wondered why indian leopards lagged behind in weight. What i meant was we cant expect them to be just as heavy as persian or SL leopards simply because they are longer
Well length does have a positive correlation to weight.