|
Size comparisons
|
 (07-12-2019, 03:04 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: @ This study was a good find: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220033215_Jaguar_conservation_in_Venezuela_against_the_backdrop_of_current_knowledge_on_its_biology_and_evolution When looking closer, it still looks like, that they also have used that study from 1996 what comes to sizes of Llanos and Pantanal jaguars. I think, that they rounded a bit numbers in summary in the part, which you quoted. (Body size of today’s jaguars is highly variable; the largest are found in the Brazilian Pantanal and Venezuelan Llanos (mean male body mass >100kg). The smallest jaguars live in Central America (~56kg).) Later in study situation is explained with more detailed information: "The body size of jaguars is highly variable, both at the continental and local levels, and there is sexual dimorphism in body size, females being 10-20% smaller than males. Females from western Brazil and from Central America are the smallest, while jaguars from Paraguay and Pantanal are believed to be the largest (Seymour, 1989; Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi, 1996) Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi (1996) analyzed body mass and skull measures of several jaguars from the Venezuelan Llanos, the Brazilian Pantanal, the Amazon basin and Central America. The largest jaguars were from the Llanos (mean body mass for males of 104.5kg and for females of 66.9kg) and the Pantanal (99.5 and 76.7kg, respectively). Skull measures were slightly higher for Pantanal males and significantly higher for Pantanal females. The smallest jaguars were those from Central America (56.1 and 41.4kg in males and females,respectively) while those from the Amazon were intermediate (83.6kg for males, no data for females)." It is interesting to see, that "several jaguars". That can mean quite small sample size actually. Anyway it is easy to see why in summary they rounded male Pantanal and Llanos jaguars to same category >100kg. Especially, when skull sizes then again favor Pantanal jaguars all the way more or less. What is situation today is then another thing. Anyway this is a good example, study is published 2011, but it´s based partially to information from 1996 and in some things even older studies. So in some issues it gives new information, in some it repeats older. What comes to Adriano and 158 kg, he was weighed 2013-2014? @Pckts you maybe have information for that. If so, then this is a good example about importance to make a timeline when looking at information and making conclusions about it, that why some study tells what it tells. Naturally a study from 2011 can´t have included information, which has been confirmed afterwards. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |