Size comparisons

[Shadow]

(04-26-2019, 01:39 PM)Luipaard Wrote:

(04-26-2019, 11:02 AM)Pckts Wrote: I've seen sumatrans in person and what their weights were, that is a tiny sumatran you're comparing it to. Sumatrans I've seen outsize any leopard by quite a margin. 
Also, what would it matter? You know Java Tigers are in the 100kg category and that one obviously outsized any leopard we've posted, cherry picking a small tiger to compare to a leopard isn't looking for answers but more so trying to skew a fact to back a claim.
Also, how many times are you going to post the same leopard?
You've already seen numerous leoprd from the S/E Africa who easily match it.

In regards to the hog, as you can see they are warthog sized and obviously that is in a Leopards prime prey category. In fact, leopards are specialized killers of warthogs and deliver a bite to the chest to kill them and avoid their large tusks.  Its probably not far fetched to say a warthog is actually more dangerous prey due to the superior tusks they possess.

So whenever I make a comparison, it's cherry picking. Meanwhile you show a Bali tiger and claim that no leopard comes close to its size. Who are you to make those claims?

This leopard seems close in size, of course it's a Central African one from Congo (sorry posting the same leopard):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now I what you're gonna say, that it's a wrong comparison becouse of different angle, ... But so is your comparison, holding dead leopards v a dead tiger hold like that.

Only large males predate on warthogs. And again, it's not their main prey unlike Central African males who's main prey are red river hogs. Warthogs are indeed more dangerous, but they don't predate on them on a regluar base.

I don't even know why you're still debating about this. They are larger overall, just look at their skull measurements; they're bigger on average and the largest skulls come from these leopards. That's a good indicator.

I put here one thing which causes criticism from me and I think, that some others see this thing in same way as I do. 

This is a very rough picture so, that idea should be crystal clear. Two shapes, both at as long and wide. But I think, that everyone can understand why other one is considered to be larger. So when skulls of different species are compared, it isn´t that simple, that just saying: "These are almost as long and wide, so these animals have to be about same weight". Everyone can guess, which shape represents leopard and which jaguar in this very rough comparison. But it is good to remember, that jaguar skull is described robust, leopard skull slender. Reply

Attached Files

Image(s)