Modern Weights and Measurements of Jaguars

[peter]

BALAM

Interesting post!

As to the question. 

Over the years, I posted many, original, tables with detailed information about the dimensions and weights of wild tigers shot in the northern and northeastern part of what used to be British India in the tiger extinction thread. Some tables are based on 'Thirty-seven years of big game shooting in Cooch Behar, the Duars, and Assam. A rough diary' (the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, 1908) and 'Jungle trails in northern India' (Sir John Hewett, 1938). These are the tables you need. 

The tiger extinction thread is a long one. Most unfortunately, I'm unable to tell you where you can find the tables I referred to. I do, however, remember I was working on the tables in late 2015 and early 2016. It's quite likely I posted them in that period as well. 

As to the method used to measure tigers in that period of time. 

In northern and northeastern India, in contrast to central parts of India, tigers were measured 'over curves'. The problem with this method is it can be applied in different ways. In northeastern India, 10 males were measured both 'between pegs' and 'over curves'. The average difference between both methods was 5,5 inches. In northern India, the difference was less outspoken. The reason was the method was applied in a slightly different way. Hewett and a few experienced hunters and forest rangers concluded the difference between both methods in adult tigers and tigresses was 2-5 inches.

Lengthwise, tigers shot 100-150 years ago in Cooch Behar, the Duars and Assam more or less compared to tigers shot in the Central Provinces. Adult males in both regions averaged 9.2-9.4 in total length measured 'between pegs'. Tigers shot in northeastern India, however, were a bit heavier. They also seemed to have a slightly longer skull. Tigers shot in northern part of what used to be British India were longer, but not as heavy as those shot in northeastern India. At least, that's the conclusion when you only consider the information provided. When you have a second look, however, you'll quickly conclude Hewett was unable to weigh most large tigers he and his friends shot. This was not the case in northeastern India. 

Using the information he offered (referring to Hewett), I concluded adult males shot in that part of India weightwise (well) exceeded those shot in northeastern India. In that period of time, tigers in Nepal most probably topped the table. The main reason was conservation. Assuming there wasn't much to choose between tigers in northern India and Nepal, the conclusion was hunting pressure resulted in a loss of about 4 inches and 40-50 pounds in adult males. Roughly half a century later, in the seventies of the previous century, this conclusion was more or less confirmed by Sunquist, although it has to be added his sample was very small. 

As to jaguar skulls. 

Over the years, I measured a few dozen jaguar skulls, meaby a bit more. Most skulls were from wild jaguars. Compared to skulls of lions and tigers, they seemed to be intermediate in most respects. Most posters (referring to different forums) think they're closer to tiger skulls, but this is not the case. In the end, it could depend on the angle you select. About a decade ago, I was invited by a private collector, a biologist. After measuring and studying the skulls for a number of days, we got to a similar conclusion. 

Sizewise (referring to greatest total length, zygomatic width and weight), skulls of large adult male jaguars compare to skulls of average-sized adult lionesses and tigresses. They're different from skulls of large male leopards in that they're more elevated at the orbit and significantly heavier. Skulls of leopards, by the way, are closer to lion skulls than to tiger skulls. All in all, using skulls as the main criterium, I'd say leopards and jaguars seem to be closer to lions than to tigers. Tigers are different.       
    
I've talked to hunters and those involved in capturing wild jaguars in Surinam. Although smaller than in Venezuela and the Pantanal at the level of averages, jaguars in the Guyanas and Surinam can grow to a large size. The prints of the one on a river island I saw were large and the depth of his prints stongly suggest he was heavier than an average man. In Surinam, they were treated with a lot of respect. The skeleton of a wild male I saw in the former Zoological Museum of Amsterdam was large and robust in all respects. The longest skulls ranged between 275-290 mm in greatest total length. One of them slightly exceeded 200 mm in zygomatic width. 

Some decades ago, I interviewed a number of big cat trainers. One of them had a melanistic male jaguar. He said he was interested in an interview, but added it depended on the circumsatnces. Meaning the jaguar. On the day we had agreed on, the trainer and the jaguar had been discussing a few issues. The trainer was wasted, but we did have a chat. I quickly noticed the jaguar, dense and powerful, was done with the trainer. The trainer took the warning serious, meaning he had decided to quit training completely. Good decision, I said when I left. 

I heard similar stories of other trainers. The biologists I referred to above had good contacts with zoo directors all over Europe. They told him jaguars were considered more dangerous than other big cats. Some animals are not to be trained and the jaguar could be one of them. The jaguar I 'met' on a river island in Surinam, however, was outgoing, polite and respectful. Reply