Size comparisons

[chui_]

(08-28-2019, 11:59 PM)Pckts Wrote: I have already responded to this on the "modern weights and measurements thread.

My Response below
"The images and weights were provided via a "big game" page which has been discussed here prior. Some inaccuracies could very well be listed.


But not all of them are inaccurate 

mrs. tomas fernandez with a record jaguar ; skull 20 8/16-Correct 

milton meirelles shot this monster with a skull of 20 2/16-Correct

monster 127kg jaguar hunted by hector cuellar 279 pounds- Incorrect 118kg *No skull size measured, shown as 127kg*

knut bellinger with monster 257 pounder- Incorrect  actually 108kg not 116kg

330lb local with jaguar RECORD shot by ken vaughn- Inconclusive *No Weight Provided*


Now, I ask you how do you know each image is the corresponding Jaguar mentioned in the Book?
Do you have page references or are you assuming each belongs to that account?"

I will address your mistakes regarding Almeida’s jaguars on the other thread.

Quote:I'm not sure what more you need to see, Jaguars fight often in the Pantanal and the bear the scars and accounts to prove it. 
You are right about males increasing in size when competition is abundant and the Pantanal is no different. The size difference between males and females is very similar to any other big cat.
Males can range 80-150kg females can range from 65-100kg but females in the Pantanal are very large and I've definitely seen the largest female compared to a male there than any other big cat I've seen. 
But to assume that is the only factor that determines competition would be incorrect. 
Here's a few examples of the sexual dimorphism in size:

I’m sure huge male jaguars of upto 300lbs will dwarf small females of around 120lbs as your pictures show. That does not change the fact that typically the jaguar is the least sexually dimorphic of the 4 biggest pantherines, particularly in terms of cranial measurements.

Quote:Sexual Dimorphism isn't a +1 scenerio, some species show more outer difference like color or feather/furr changes while others show size dimorphism and others show a little of everything. There is no correlation to more color or brighter longer feathers/fur to living  a more or less competitive life. Nor is that rule true for every sub species of these cats.
For Instance: 
Dewalps are far less prevalent in Persian, Indian, Sri Lankan, Congo Basin and Amur Leopards. In fact, they seem to be more constant in areas where Kills are tree stashed than where they aren't stashed as much. 
Ruff, many Tigers have little to no ruff, infact, their ruff or mane has been shown to be more individual based than location based.
You also have no correlation to a ruff leading to a more competitive area. Considering one of the most competitive parks in India is ruled by 2 males who have almost no ruff (Umarpani and Chota Munna) I can also name more throughout Kanha and all over C. Indian Parks if need be. 
Manes do show an advantage when females chose a mate but they also show a significant difference depending on location. For instance, in the Ngorongoro Crater they have a mane that covers their entire shoulder while in the neighboring Ngorongoro Reserve and Serengeti, Lions tend to not have a mane that covers the shoulder.

The whole point of these features is to be variable, they will be more prominent in some males compared to others, that is how male quality is differentiated.

Also the dewlap has no connection or correlation to treeing kills, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would a sexually selected trait be associated with climbing with kills? If the dewlap did have some benefit for climbing trees males and females would both have it, especially since females cache kills more frequently. It also wouldn’t become more prominent with age.

With all due respect, it is obvious your grasp of evolutionary biology is limited but I don’t have the time to go into detail and explain to you how natural selection works. Reply