Modern Weights and Measurements of Leopards

[Luipaard]

(12-08-2022, 10:02 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-08-2022, 07:47 PM)Luipaard Wrote:

(12-07-2022, 06:57 PM)Pckts Wrote: This is Rowalnd Wards Volume 2
Skulls are measured in the same way SCI skulls are measured so should be taken with the same grain of salt.

At least the Rowland Ward Records has shown some huge male leopards unlike the SCI Records. Seriously, the no.2 male from the SCI Records looks normal in size yet rivals the top 3 Asiatic male leopards from the Rowland Wards Records in terms of skull measurements. Like Chui said, he has a lioness-sized skull despite his average size. He also originates from the Kalahari which isn't exactly known for its big leopards. Compare that with the 200-220lbs estimated male with a skull score of 17.75" from the Rowland Ward Records and it's clear which one is more reliable between the two. A Tanzanian male had a skull score of 15.75" and weighed 78kg so again the Rowland Ward male leopard's weight with his 17.75" skull score is realistic.

Both should be taken "with a grain of salt" because they're hunter records after all. It is interesting to see the consistency of the Persian leopard's origin though, being all from North of Iran. That again proves that the biggest Persian leopards are to be found in North of Iran.

I will admit that I still find it impressive for a recorded 20" skull score no matter which source (i.e. scientific or hunted). But, at the same time I don't take it fully serious. For example, there's a hunted leopard with a skull width of 200 mm, wider than the widest scientifically leopard skull (191 mm). Guess which one I consider more reliable/possible? Also, why do you specifically take the 115kg Persian male with a grain of salt when the source is scientifically and we both got confirmation from the wildlife veterinarian (Iman Memarian)? He did say he was found near a carcass so we can safely assume he wasn't empty though. Yet Troncha, the Pantanal jaguaress was pregnant and wasn't empty and still everyone acknowledges her 110kg weight figure.

What do you mean? SCI has shown numerous cats. Some look big and others not as much but hold little value as forced perspective images don't mean anything.
The idea that one is more "clear" to you than another again doesn't mean much. Skull size doesn't always equate to body weight and on top of that, body condition will play a major role. 

They should be taken with a grain of salt because of the protocol used, not because they are hunters. Hunters like anyone need to be vetted and protocols need to be mentioned then you can determine how valid they are. The protocol used to measure these skulls isn't the same used to measure others and can lead to exaggerated sizes at times, that is why they should be taken with a grain of salt when comparing to others without knowing the protocols used. 
In regards to N. Iran Leopards being larger than their S. Cousins, I don't think anyone disputes it but would I never saw were mention of Indian Leopards being larger than Persians so now are we going to claim them to be the largest of all Leopards?

Lastly, the comparison about Troncha holds no weight as the information provided was by the one who created the table and of course specifically mentions her condition and pregnancy.

Quote:What do you mean? SCI has shown numerous cats. Some look big and others not as much but hold little value as forced perspective images don't mean anything.

I know SCI has photos, hence why I said the no.2 from Kalahari is average-sized while having a lioness-sized skull. Only morphological changes can give you a proportionally bigger skull. A desert-like leopard from the Kalahari will never have such a long and wide skull. Central African leopards do because they're known to predate on crocodiles and other armoured prey. It's an adaptation to a lifestyle. Persian leopards rival these leopards because of a different lifestyle, this time the reason being living in a colder environment.

Quote:The idea that one is more "clear" to you than another again doesn't mean much. Skull size doesn't always equate to body weight and on top of that, body condition will play a major role.

But it is more clear; we have a huge male with photos from a region where it's known the male leopards are of big size. Its skull measurements/score is realistic unlike the no.2 from SCI who scored better yet looked much smaller and had a visible smaller skull. In terms of BCS (body condition score); both the Aberdare and no.2 SCI male looked perfectly fine.

Quote:They should be taken with a grain of salt because of the protocol used, not because they are hunters. Hunters like anyone need to be vetted and protocols need to be mentioned then you can determine how valid they are. The protocol used to measure these skulls isn't the same used to measure others and can lead to exaggerated sizes at times, that is why they should be taken with a grain of salt when comparing to others without knowing the protocols used.

A lot of explanation going on here so I'm wondering what's the difference between method 17 and method 18? You shared records from Rowland Ward's Records and so did I; but via method 17 (which you shared) the record is 20", via method 18 it's 19".

Quote:In regards to N. Iran Leopards being larger than their S. Cousins, I don't think anyone disputes it but would I never saw were mention of Indian Leopards being larger than Persians so now are we going to claim them to be the largest of all Leopards?

Scientifically speaking the Persian leopard is still overall the largest leopard subspecies because 115kg (Persian) > 83kg (Indian). I mean, you did say:

Quote:Skull size doesn't always equate to body weight

So why would you consider the Indian leopard the largest subspecies? And when it's vice versa with Central African leopards walking with lioness-sized skulls, you believe them to be smaller than savannah leopards? So the question is; does a large leopard skull correlate with a larger weight/size.

Quote:Lastly, the comparison about Troncha holds no weight as the information provided was by the one who created the table and of course specifically mentions her condition and pregnancy.

I remember the 110kg figure being a reason to say a Pantanal jaguaress is larger than any male leopard because of that figure. Not on this forum though, but we both know where. Almost everybody accepted the weight unlike the 115kg Persian male. Reply