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.
09-03-2019, 04:01 AM( This post was last modified: 09-08-2019, 11:44 PM by peter )
(09-02-2019, 09:16 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:
(09-02-2019, 07:20 PM)chui_ Wrote:
(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 broader even though it was already very muscularly well developed. A few 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 big 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).
The issue is either:
1) How can a leopard have a relatively huge skull that corresponds to the size of a tigress' skull, or
2) Assuming that the big cat was a tiger, how can a tiger be confused for a leopard?
A logical answer that I can think of was that the skull didn't belong to either a regular-coloured tigress or leopard, but a melanistic tigress which Limouzin and the Colonel mistook for a black leopard, because they didn't just see the skull, they saw the big cat before its demise, and they asserted that it was a 'panther', and a regular-coloured tiger is visually different to a regular-coloured leopard, so I don't see how 2 men could mistake a regular tiger for a regular leopard.
1 - SIZE AS A DISCRIMINATING FACTOR IN DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN TIGERS AND LEOPARDS
At the level of averages, there is a very clear distinction between adult male Indian leopards and adult female Indian tigresses. At the level of individuals, however, it can be very different. The reason is individual variation is quite pronounced in both big cat species.
1a - Total length
Large male leopards in India and Shri Lanka can reach a total length of 7.6-7.11 'between pegs', maybe a bit more. Small adult tigresses can be similar in total length, meaning the difference in length between a large male leopard and a small tigress can be very limited. It can´t be excluded that a long male leopard could be a bit longer than a short tigress.
1b - Weight
The range in adult Indian tigresses is 90-170 kg. roughly. The minimum is a bit suspect, as I read reliable reports about very old or incapacitated tigresses (both in India and Nepal) well below average (less than 200 pounds or 90,72 kg.). The range in male Indian leopards is 40-85 kg., but it can't be excluded that a very large male could reach 200 pounds (90,72 kg.) in his prime.
1c - Skull size
Large male leopards in India can have a skull with a greatest total length of about 10 inches, maybe a bit more. In small adult Indian tigresses, the greatest total length of the skull can be 11 inches or a bit less. Skulls of adult Indian tigresses often are more robust and wider, but the range is considerable. I've seen large skulls of adult wild male Sumatran tigers dwarfing small skulls of adult wild male Indian tigers. This although wild male Indian tigers seriously outaverage wild male Sumatran tigers.
1d - Conclusion
All in all, one could conclude that the difference in size between large male leopards and small tigresses can be close to zilch and be very close. In the tiger thread, I did a post on what could have been a hybryd between a large male Indian leopard and a small Indian tigress.
Size, therefore, isn't a discriminating factor per se. That is to say, not at the level of individuals. That leaves the skin and the skull.
2 - SKIN
Leopard have spots, whereas tigers have stripes. In broad daylight, the difference is as clear as it gets. In dusk, however, colours and markings (stripes and spots) often completely disappear. Even experienced hunters wrote they were unable to distinguish between (large male) leopards and (small) tigresses.
3 - THE ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SKULLS OF BIG CATS
I agree with your (referring to Bornean Tiger) remark on big cat authorities and the ability to distinguish between skulls of tigers and leopards. Reality, however, says even experienced hunters and naturalists have been involved in quite serious mistakes in the skull department. Read the JBNHS and other journals for confirmation. Mr. Limouzin and Mr. Prater are examples, but there are many.
Same for biologists employed by natural history museums today. Over the years, I visited a number of natural history museums in northwestern and southern Europe to measure skulls. Every now and then, but not very seldom, I saw things difficult to understand. One, quite extreme, example: I saw a skull of a man-eating African lioness that turned out to be the skull of a polar bear (...). Most unfortunately, the list is quite long.
In every case, I informed the conservator. My opinion was dismissed time and again. The reason was that those involved in determining skulls had graduated in Biology, whereas I graduated in Geography.
Poster Luipaard was informed about the skull of Mr. Limouzin by a man who could be regarded as an authority in the department of leopard skulls. If correct, he even published about the skull. Most unfortunately, he assumed it was the skull of a leopard.
In the old days, documents were reviewed by peers before they were published. Today, things are a bit different. Most unfortunately, humans and mistakes are good friends. Always have been and always will be. I wouldn´t worry about it.
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)
