Modern Weights and Measurements of Leopards

[Balam]

(05-25-2021, 09:57 PM)Luipaard Wrote:

(05-23-2021, 12:13 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:

(05-22-2021, 08:31 PM)Luipaard Wrote: I'm Shortridge and no I haven't posted anything about 70,6kg leopards. Are you sure you're not talking about the weight range of Kenyan highland leopards? 

No man I am totally sure what I'm talking about and it's my memory who made me say the wrong name, it was probably TwicoFive (sorry if I am bad at names) who collected old hunting records for Leopards in Kenya I remember there were two 92 and 91 kg ones, several 69 kg ones and a 78 kg one got in 2017.

Found it:

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://carnivora.net/cougar-v-leopard-t3069-s1890.html#p160456

You are hilarious, you are using a self-made table after trying to discredit the work @Dark Jaguar and I have done here with jaguars in that troll-filled forum to later rely on other "self-made" tables with no sources that are flattering to leopards. 

Since you've linked that Carnivora link let's quickly go over this and clear the rest of the lies you like to make over there:

*This image is copyright of its original author

• +80 kg leopards make up a significantly lesser percentage of the global leopard populations than jaguaresses are. Considering that Pantanal jaguaresses are bigger than the largest leopards in both averages and absolute weights and measurements it comes as no surprise that they would produce specimens that surpass the 80+ kg barrier with more consistency, it's called statistics. 
• You linked a table for Indian leopard weights made by the notorious troll TwicoFive that has 0 sources to back them up and decided that the alleged weights of 80+ kg were sufficient to substantiate your claim that leopards reach this size threshold with more consistency than female jaguars when there are only two weights in that table above 80 kg and whose reliability is not even certain.
• Considering that the number of leopards from various populations in Asia and Africa like Sri Lanka or southern Africa have yet to produce 80+ kg specimens with any sort of regularity (being completely absent from Sri Lanka), your claim that they grow to that size "all over the place" is another one of your unfounded lies.
• Female jaguars likely don't reach those sizes in North America because they inhabit areas where the prey biomass is extremely low (less than 6 kg according to data from Hoogesteijn and Mondofi)
  
  *This image is copyright of its original author
  , by contrast, leopards from across their range in Africa and Asia have access to plenty of large ungulate prey and yet still struggle to reach or surpass 80 kg in weight (30+ kg in prey biomass if often quoted in multiple studies). Your entire argument is based on the fact that jaguars have no other choice but to dwarf in size in areas with very little prey to then compare them with leopards who inhabit areas with plenty of prey, because the moment all things are more leveled up and jaguars are able to gain access to prey that are similar in size to the antelopes and hogs that leopards naturally hunt across their range, they vastly surpass them in size, that is why you're so pressed when Pantanal jaguaresses are brought up.
  

To recap, leopards don't reach +80 kg in body mass with more consistency than female jaguars across their global range, Pantanal jaguaresses alone outnumber them in this regard and this list grows bigger when Llanos and At Forest jaguaresses are factored in. Central American jaguars are the equivalent of Arabian leopards and other dwarfed forms of leopards, so if those jaguar populations are to be compared to leopards make sure you are using their right equivalent, in which case where are the +80 kg Cape or Arabian leopards? Reply