WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Jaguar
Modern Weights and Measurements of Jaguars
Modern Weights and Measurements of Jaguars
|
Modern Weights and Measurements of Jaguars
|
@Pckts I was trying to avoid getting involved with this individual but seeing as though he keeps mentioning us from the Carnivora forum and discrediting our table, I'm gonna get involved.
To the mods reading, I'm only bringing this here because this person has a habit of throwing unfounded accusations and temper tantrums in other places, and those whom he has attacked deserve a chance to respond as well. @chui_ let's go over your multiple claims on here as you seem to be an expert in throwing baseless accusations to the easily impressionable crowd of adolescents and fellow leopard fanatics from Carnivora. Quote:You are also justified in questioning the mean weights being claimed for Pantanal jaguars. This whole idea that these jaguars are now bigger than a couple of decades ago is BS. And those aren’t my words, that’s what I’ve been told by a top authority on the subject from the field (see your PM). Quote:The figures for Pantanal jaguars published in the paper, Body Mass and Skull measurements in four jaguars populations 1996, are still considered perfectly valid by experts but of course aren’t good enough for the fanboys. And it’s also clear that researchers from the field are fed up with these guys constantly contacting them about the size of big jaguars for their fantasy tables (again see your PM). Quote:The reason why PCTs and his wildfact crew are calculating a higher mean than that published in proper scientific papers is simple – a lack of understanding of basic statistics and lack of objectiveness. In order for a mean weight to be representative of the population the sample has to be randomly selected, meaning all individuals whether small/big/mediocre should have an equal chance of being included The weights and measurements that have been collected ALL belong to scientific sources and published papers, with the exception of one source which came from a governmental institution, they include jaguars from ALL areas of the Pantanal, meaning the sample cannot be more random. The jaguars in the table have been posted without discrimination, they include every single weight provided by said studies in recent years, or come as a direct source from the mouths of the vets and biologists who gathered the weights themselves. The purpose of the table from the beginning was not to calculate a new average different from the one quoted from Almeida, but to provide a collection of weights to study the changes jaguars have experienced and determine their biology in recent times. The average that comes from it is an indirect result of the collection of data, and it just so happens that is higher than the one provided by Almeida. Quote:But of course, these guys eagerly incorporate weights of jaguars which have specifically been pointed out for their large size. Similarly, when you rely on Instagram posts for most of your data, the sample will likely be biased towards bigger individuals as big impressive individuals tend to be highlighted on social media. A huge 120kg jaguar which is captured occasionally is much more likely to get a post than the typical 100kg males which are captured regularly, and certainly more than any smallish sub 90kg male. No we haven't, as said before every single weight that appears on the table comes from the sources that have publicized it, and not a single one was excluded. The fact that you think we are purposely including the largest individual shows how much of a difference the proper environmental control has had on the morphology on these jaguars in contrast to the state in which they lived during the mid 20th century when they were massively poached and the prey densities where much lower, thanks for proving our point. The jaguars that are posted by organizations such as Oncas do Rio Negro are posted as they are captured, there is little reason to believe that these organizations are selectively choosing to post the largest ones in lieu of creating hype around them. These are scientific organizations with a reputation to uphold, and their purpose isn't to obtain clout out of the jaguars they capture. Your attempt at discrediting their selection of posts is nothing short of intellectual laziness. Quote:Similarly, they know the weight of 131kg for the big male Shaka was recorded when he was gorged and that on a subsequent capture he weighed 117kg, but of course the higher weight is still used. The funniest one was Brutus who was weighed as a fully grown adult (8 years old) at 115kg but despite that, a casual estimate of 130kg stated in the comment section of an instagram post was used instead because apparently Brutus was still growing. They’ve now changed it to 120kg, still adding 5kg to his recorded weight for some reason because hey why not. In regards to the weights provided by Oncafari, the decision was made to post only the publicized weights that appear on their webpage. For a different jaguar, they track named Felino, one of Oncafari's biologists stated once that his weight was 138 kg and was the heaviest they had capture, I later contacted Edu to ask more about him and why there was such a big discrepancy in the alleged weight and the one posted on their page, he told me this:  *This image is copyright of its original author Since in theory the weight of 138 kg for Felino was registered, but through reasoning the likelihood of it being accurate was low, they opted for publicizing the second one of 102,3 kg. In other words, whatever these biologists choose to put as the official weight is what we've decided to use for the table, and in the case of Shaka it has yet to come out of the mouths from any of the biologists at Oncafri that he was "gorged", as you love to accuse of any jaguar that happens to weight more than what you wish they weighed. When pckts asked Edu if the difference in weight was due to stomach content, his answer was "yeah", suggesting that stomach content could've been a determinant but not reiterating that it was the direct cause for the weight difference. A better-formulated question would've been to ask for the reason as to why there was such a discrepancy in both captures and allow Edu to elaborate on it. Since the second weight of 118 was captured following the initial one of 130 kg, it is not unreasonable to think that aging and the further decaying of the jaguar's body played a role in the lower value. But of course, you will take any opportunity you can get to downsize jaguars as much as you can in an attempt to put them beside leopards, so noone of us is surprised. Quote:Then there’s also the fact that the 148kg and 142kg individuals are the same – so they’ve included the biggest most exceptional individual twice. Not to mention, we only know about this individual because he was highlighted for his huge size so there goes random selection. It should be no wonder how higher a mean than that in published sources is derived with such poor science. This has been the only semi-valid post you were able to formulate in your mindless rant, yes we made a mistake by duplicating Lopez weight including two different figures, this was due to the fact that we didn't have the knowledge that the capture shown on the infamous video was the same as the one published by Hoogesteijn as he was not part of said video. Nonetheless, some time ago the repeated weight was removed, and even then it didn't end up affecting the average, it remained at 111 kg. Quote:Here is the published data on the weights of Pantanal jaguars captured by scientists in the last 2 decades (including what you posted). A total of 21 adult males average 100.1kg, with the majority of the males weighing in the 95 to 105kg range. The largest male weighed 130kg and the next 2 biggest both weighed 115kg. This is a pretty good sized and unbiased sample which is perfectly adequate to tell us about the size of these jaguars. The weights for the males in two out of those three tables had already been included in the table, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you got them from Dark Jaguar's post as you clearly are a professional lurker on here. Regardless, it goes to show how clueless and pathetic you are to try to dismiss the table under the disguise of lacking official sources to then take weights from sources that have already been included in the table to formulate your own average, despite the sample being much smaller to what we've been able to gather. Quote:In addition to the published papers, we can also include weights from the Oncafari website which has profiles of the jaguars being tracked, with the weights of some individuals listed ( https://oncafari.org/en/especie_fauna/jaguar/#oncas ). Shaka was captured at age 8 and recorded at 131kg (although according to PCTS himself he weighed 117kg when not gorged). Apache weighed 107kg at age 7, Pirata 106.3kg at age 9, Felino 102.3kg at age 4, Zico 110kg at age 9, Sombra 120kg at age 11. Brutus was weighed at 115kg at 8 but he is actually already included in the last paper above. If you take all of the weights from Oncafari the average you get is actually 114.4, and none of the males on their database is below 100 kg in weight. Again, all of these weights are already factored into the table, and since the mean is much greater our average would be more accurate than the mess you tried to calculate by doing the same thing you tried to accuse us of: cherry-picking data. Also, the accurate weight from Brutus comes directly from the biologist Gediendson in collaboration with Oncas do Rio Negro, in his latest capture with them he weighed 120 kg, and as his most recent capture said weight was included in the table. Quote:The difference occurs when you start conflating the data with social media posts and start asking the experts about specific individuals which stand out. Your attempts at character assassinations are so poor and desperate it's hard to read them with a straight face. The "social media posts" are valid because they come directly from the source that had direct contact with said jaguars, not any random photography page (from when you and your crew decided to claim the weight of 97 kg of Vin Diesel, speaking of cherry-picking from unreliable sources). Not only that, but any person who has common sense can look at the table and see that most of the weights gathered come from scientific papers and are official in their nature. And your last insinuation that we only reached to the experts to know about specific individuals continues to highlight your ignorance, we've asked about Lopez weight to get reassurance on his stomach content, all other weights gathered directly from them come from animals much lighter in weight and are given at the discretion of the biologists and vets. Quote:In fact, Dr. Hoogesteijn thinks your whole idea that the Pantanal jaguars are now bigger is BS! When asked about the size of Pantanal jaguars and the possibility the current average weight is higher, he guided me to his 1996 paper (Body Mass and Skull Measurements in Four Jaguar Populations) which gives an average weight of 99.5kg for adult males in the Pantanal. The paper which you are using to put words in the mouth of Hoogesteijn contradicts his own words concerning the recent research he and the rest of the team of Panthera have performed. Not too long ago Hoogesteijn participated in a live conference with the US embassy in Colombia to discuss developments in the protection of jaguars in the country, Francisco Santos, the US ambassador, asked Rafael about the differences or similarities between la Aurora (Llanos) and Pantanal jaguars, and he said: "It's the same jaguar, there is partially no difference, the Pantanal jaguars from the analyses we have done are slightly larger, slightly heavier, but in the Casanare Llanos (Colombia) and the Llanos of Apure (Venezuela) you will also get some very heavy males, as heavy as the ones on Pantanal". He has reiterated multiple times by now that today Pantanal jaguars are on average larger than Llanos jaguars, which contradicts the averages publicized on his paper which put the Llanos population above it. Of course, this is not his fault, the data from his paper is accurate to what was able to be gathered at the time it was gathered, since the environmental conditions in which these two populations have changed (i.e. prey density), and the hunting pressure that Llanos jaguars experience in comparison to the well-protected Pantanal ones is more marked, it's no secret the latter is producing larger individuals, as he himself has reiterated. Quote:Dude this is so pathetic, it's embarrassing. In Hoogesteijn's original email to that person in Spanish there is nothing about a 115kg average weight. That was added in by one of the Wildfact goofs themselves when they posted the English translation. Look at the image of the original Spanish text you posted yourself. In fact, there is, let me help you since your compression level and willingness to misinterpret what's put forward to you appears to be challenging for you:  *This image is copyright of its original author I mentioned in my initial post that I showed the table with weights to Dr. Hoogesteijn and then, as the underlined text shows, asked him what he thought of our current average at the time barring the newer data we had received and without counting larger males that have not been weighed and therefore not included in the table, and how they compared with the data from Almedia. His answer was the one published before, he agreed that from the recent research Panthera has done in the northern Pantanal the jaguars do express the potential shown on the table, highlighting how with the absence of hunting and proper preservation of its natural prey the jaguars have been able to increase in size in comparison to the 20th century when their genetic pool was depleted thanks to overhunting and their prey base was much lower. So as a result you end up looking like the huge fool that you are, do us all a favor, and come here next time you want to debate these things and mention us directly. Stop relying on the worship of the same three leopard fanatics that run to like your posts because they can't come up with proper rebuttals and need your overly wordy and misleading posts to live vicariously through. Finally, we're going to continue to post the data that we receive here, which so far has been appreciated by the knowledgeable posters and readers who come to get updated on recent developments with these jaguars. You can throw all the tantrum you want and quote Almeida to the point of insanity, the numbers and data don't lie, and as Ben Shapiro would say, facts don't care about your feelings. Edited due to spelling errors. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 10 Guest(s) |