ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)

[chui_]

(09-02-2019, 05:44 PM)peter Wrote: POCOCK ON MR. LIMOUZIN'S SKULL

Almost a century ago, a Mr. Limouzin shot a very large leopard in India. At least, he thought it was a leopard. Same for Mr. Prater, a big cat authority who saw the skull. As a result of the unusual size and the doubts expressed by some, the skull was discussed in the JBNHS.

Poster 'Luipaard' recently posted a part of the discussion in the thread 'Size Comparisons'. When I said the skull belonged to a tiger, he wanted to see proof. The reason was he got the informaton on Mr. Limouzin's specimen from an authority who had published on the skull. I posted a paragraph of Pocock's letter to the JBNHS and promised I would scan and post his letter. Here it is.

As not all of us have the time to read his letter, I'll do a summary.

When the skull of the big cat shot by Mr. Limouzin had been found, Mr. Prater published a photograph of the side view (profile) of the skull together with photographs of an Indian leopard, a tiger and a lion. Pocock saw the photograph and quickly concluded the skull belonged to a tiger. This decision was not accepted by Mr. Limouzin and Mr. Prater. Pocock offered to examine the skull. Mr. Limouzin accepted the offer and brought the skull to the Natural History Museum in October 1929, when he returned to England. Pocock had it for a week and again concluded it was the skull of a young adult tigress. Adult in the sense of being sexually mature, but youngish in that the sutures hadn't quite closed. Pocock didn't doubt that age would have added a bit of length and, in particular, width.

In December 1929, he sent a letter to the JBNHS. It has two plates. I'll do another post on the skull in the tiger thread:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Great summary. I would point out, however, with regards to the Congo leopard skull ( the largest leopard skull in the British Natural History Museum) used for comparison was itself that of a youngish adult male. Pocock noted in his 1932 paper, The Leopards of Africa, that this big skull from the Welle River in northern Congo would probably have grown longer and broadened with age even though it was already very muscularly well developed. Most other adult male leopard skulls from scientific sources of similar length are broader by 10-20mm.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

The Gabon skull, Pocock was referring to was similar in length to the Congo skull at 11.1" (282mm) but was broader at 7.1+" (181mm). The measurements of that skull and others from that region are in the following table. Note even this skull according to Pocock was also not from a particularly old male (meaning it may have gotten a bit bigger as well).

*This image is copyright of its original author

(09-02-2019, 06:39 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: This gives me the impression that the skull belongs to a melanistic tigress which could have been mistaken for a black leopard. After all, as mentioned by @Luipaard, Limouzin asserted that he and Col. W. saw a 'panther', and though the word 'panther' is used in mainstream science to refer to black leopards and jaguars, there have also been allegations of melanistic cougars (see the photo below), at least one melanistic Asiatic lion from Iran, and yes, melanistic tigers. Add to that the mystery of the Australian black panther, or the felid behind the name and history of Singapore (derived from a Sanskrit phrase meaning "Lion City"): if it was a tiger, then how could a Prince from a tiger-containing place like Sumatra, Malaya or Southeast Asia mistake it for a lion, which isn't native to Southeast Asia, as argued by Turnbull?

You seem to be confused by the word panther. That does not mean they were referring to a melanistic leopard as you seem to be thinking. The word panther was commonly used for leopards in general (both normal phase and black) in the early 20th century, especially in India. Often panther was used for big leopards and leopard for small ones - because of the huge variation in size in leopards many early hunters/naturalists believed there were 2 distinct types - a big one and small one. But Pocock simply used the word Panther because that is how leopards were referred to in India at the time (even now some people in India use the word panther for all leopards). Reply