Size comparisons

[Twico5]

(04-19-2022, 10:12 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(04-19-2022, 07:25 AM)Twico5 Wrote:

(04-19-2022, 04:12 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-19-2022, 03:50 AM)Twico5 Wrote: Yes but belizean jaguars are only half the size of pantanal jaguars, and not half the size of amazonian or cerrado jags. They are not dwarfs its just that pantanal jags have a much better prey base.

So what youre saying is that jaguars get bigger (or heavier) with less prey right? Have a look at this ss from this one study conducted in peru: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
Rodents made up 58% of puma diets and reptiles made up 33% of jaguar diets followed by other large mammals and large rodents. Pumas were definitely eating smaller prey here. And now for weights of pumas and jags in this area: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
“All adults were in good condition. From the track sizes of the captured big cats and the others known on the study area, the average puma and jaguar would each weight about 34kg.” 1 female puma weighed 29kg and 1 female jag weighed 31kg. As i showed you the pumas were eating smaller animals. I thought it would be fair if we compared “dwarf jaguars” to dwarf pumas. 

You claimed that jaguars are on a different tier or level. I strongly disagree. In captivity they weigh the same. In places where both cats have similar mean prey weights, they will also weigh around the same. I dont think theres a need to continue this because as i said from the very start i believe it is unfair for us to compare pantanal jags to any population of pumas and as long as you keep on bringing them up i will continue to say this. Pumas can be just as long and just as tall so if a population of jags and pumas are eating the same they WILL have similar body masses wether the jaguar wins in a fight or not.

So now you are going to base your entire statements in TWO jaguar weights from Peru?

And yes, jaguars from Belize are called dwarfs by several people, and not only Pantanal are bigger, also Venezuela jaguars are bigger, even Amazon jaguars are bigger. 

And captive animals are irrelevant, they depend of how are rised by humans, in that case even a leopard can be bigger than the biggest jaguar (been incredible fat of course), so I don't see the point on this.

As @Pckts says, I can see from a mille that you are biased in favor of pumas, and trying to discard the Pantanal population shows that. Well, let's check the jaguars from Venezuela, equally larger, no excuses from your part this time. And none of what you showed here proved that pumas weighed the same as jaguars, for the contrary, we showed here that you will need an exceptionaly small jaguar population to compare it with a similar sized population of pumas (with better prey base) to reach them at the same size.

Even when they have the same average prey base, you completelly ignored with I told you, you also need to know the frecuency of hunting, a puma killing a large deer every 4 days will eat more than a jaguar eating an armadillo per day.

Again, your same images showed that even when the puma can be as long and tall as a jaguar, there are not even near to the same body mass, robustness and skull size. Jaguars are another tier, that is for sure and even with similar prey base, jaguar always are bigger, there is no discussion here. No expert is going to tell you something else.

I am not basing all of my statements off of two weights obviously because if I was then I would’ve started this convo by posting them. Do you have proof that belizean Jaguars are dwarfs? Maybe in a paper or something?

Captive weights are relevant because if a puma and a jaguar are both eating the same but are the same size then this would mean that neither is larger simply because they have “different body plans” as you said. Jaguars are not on another tier, they are simply really heavy when they have a lot of things to hunt. 

6kg mean prey weight for forested regions vs 110kg mean prey weight for the pantanal region. That is a huge difference. But even the armadillo-eating jags look bulky and healthy. They don’t die of starvation or look malnourished. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

In this study from pench NP the average weight of animals consumed by tigers was 82kg. Pench tigers don’t look unhealthy to me and even though this is a really low average prey weight for a tiger population pench tigers are still able to be bulky and large. Except there is a jaguar population that has a higher mean prey weight than these tigers. Stomach contents from Venezuela showed an average weight of 50kg for all prey including domestic and 32kg for wild prey exclusively.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

It is the prey base of the population that influences their size. Yes, I totally agree with you. 113kg and 34kg are a big difference in mean prey weight. Given how Jaguars (dwarf Jaguars ofc!) can still be healthy and bulky with an average prey weight of 5kg, pantanal Jaguars as well as Venezuelan Jaguars owe their abnormal size to their prey base. 

Let me ask you, why are Jaguars and pumas in nw mexico the same size? I believe you or Pckts said earlier that Jaguars are badly adapted to desert environments, which is true. Body mass however would only be affected by food consumption and not simply by the environment. Let’s see what Jaguars are pumas are eating in Sonora, Mexico! 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Woah! So Jaguars are eating better than pumas in mexico. They are scavenging on kills (likely kills of both other jags and pumas), killing calves, white-tailed deer, and peccary. Pumas are scavenging less, killing calves less and that too the calves they kill are smaller. 

Jaguars are not on another tier, period. I have posted countless studies these past few days here comparing the diets, prey bases and body masses of pumas and jags but none of that seems to have made a difference and you claim that Jaguars are on another tier still. This idea is one that is pushed by your bias towards Jaguars, and not by factual evidence of any sort.

Quote:“All adults were in good condition. From the track sizes of the captured big cats and the others known on the study area, the average puma and jaguar would each weight about 34kg.” 1 female puma weighed 29kg and 1 female jag weighed 31kg. As i showed you the pumas were eating smaller animals. I thought it would be fair if we compared “dwarf jaguars” to dwarf pumas. 

You post these studies but don't seem to actually read the details.
Track size has nothing to do with verifiable weight, it's one of many tools to estimate a weight and not even one of the best correlating tools used.
Next is that neither of the 2 big cats actually stayed in this territory year round and between the two of them, it was the Jaguar who roared, scratched marked more intensely and displayed general territorial characteristics for more than the Pumas. On top that, the Jaguar is the one preying on larger mammals like the Peccary as well as dominating the river banks where the best prey congregates.
Lastly and most importantly, this study is from 40 years ago and is very minimal in  details, they just didn't have much at their disposal. 
file:///C:/Users/Jared/Downloads/Emmons1987BESFelidFeeding.pdf

But like all other locations these two cats share habitat, it's the Jaguar that dominates.

.

Quote: In captivity they weigh the same. In places where both cats have similar mean prey weights, they will also weigh around the same.

Where are you getting this?
In captivity they absolutely don't weigh the same. I can show you numerous captive 100kg + Jaguars that are in good shape while I don't know of a single Cougar in captivity that's reached that weight, at least without being obese. 
And in the wild, the only place they may be the similar size is the Caatinga 

Credits to @Dark jaguar for this info Caatinga 

https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-compari...es?page=28
Post #412

Quote:But even the armadillo-eating jags look bulky and healthy. They don’t die of starvation or look malnourished. 

Literally in that post on Caatinga Jaguars mentioned, they discuss their Armadillo diet and one of their study Jaguars dying of starvation. 

Quote:In this study from pench NP the average weight of animals consumed by tigers was 82kg. Pench tigers don’t look unhealthy to me and even though this is a really low average prey weight for a tiger population pench tigers are still able to be bulky and large. Except there is a jaguar population that has a higher mean prey weight than these tigers. Stomach contents from Venezuela showed an average weight of 50kg for all prey including domestic and 32kg for wild prey exclusively.

You're grasping at straws.
Prey studies, especially based off of scat samples offer no real idea of prey size. They estimated based off of limited information. 

Quote:Given how Jaguars (dwarf Jaguars ofc!) can still be healthy and bulky with an average prey weight of 5kg, pantanal Jaguars as well as Venezuelan Jaguars owe their abnormal size to their prey base. 

Again I steer you back to the post on Caatinga Jaguars and the studies mentioned in within it

Quote:Woah! So Jaguars are eating better than pumas in mexico. They are scavenging on kills (likely kills of both other jags and pumas), killing calves, white-tailed deer, and peccary. Pumas are scavenging less, killing calves less and that too the calves they kill are smaller. 

You know why Jaguars eat larger prey? 
Because they are more powerful, what is there to discuss? 

Quote:Jaguars are not on another tier, period. I have posted countless studies these past few days here comparing the diets, prey bases and body masses of pumas and jags but none of that seems to have made a difference and you claim that Jaguars are on another tier still. This idea is one that is pushed by your bias towards Jaguars, and not by factual evidence of any sort.

Of course they are, Jaguars are the dominate cat over Pumas anywhere they coexist.  They grow larger in size, control the best hunting areas and eat the largest, most desirable prey. 
You've literally been shown this time and time again on top of misquoting studies that you thought backed you for some reason only to have been shown that they didn't. 
Lastly and most telling is that the only places where both coexist and are close in size are places where Jaguars and their prey have been hunted to near extinction,  this isn't a fair comparison since Pumas are more capable to prey on smaller, fast moving animals while Jaguars specifically show shrinkage in size when doing so as well as having unhealthy population numbers and even starving to death.

I never mentioned caatinga jags a single time in that post. Guate called Costa Rican and Mexican Jaguars “dwarf jaguars” despite the fact that they are feeding on chelonians which are pretty much free kills for obvious reasons and calves in nw Mexico. They have enough food they just don’t have a ~90:113 predator mass to mean prey mass ratio like pantanal jags or millions of caiman and etc etc. Pumas are more capable to prey on smaller, fast moving animals? In the screenshot I posted from the diet study white-tailed deer accounted for 24% of Jaguar diets. It also says there how the calves that jaguars killed averaged 90kg while the calves that pumas killed averaged 50kg. So these jags were killing animals twice their size and scavenging more than pumas. 


The study I posted that had the weights of a female puma and jaguaress also included the weight of a male jaguar (37kg). They weren’t making rough estimates of the sizes of these cats. “From the track sizes of the captured big cats and the others known on the study area”.  They captured several jaguars and pumas, measured their paws and weighed them then compared the measurements of the tracks they found to the track sizes of the cats that they weighed. Reply