Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[peter]

BALAM

An interesting, make that excellent, attempt to discuss a problem typical for many forums. Double standards seem to be everywhere these days. However. Every disadvantage has an advantage. In this case, there could be more than one advantage. 

The first is the double standard problem resulted in a post. This means you decided to give it a thought. This attempt resulted in an accurate description and an assessment of the damage. Chances are your post, and that's the second advantage, could result in a debate. 

The third advantage is the double standard problem forces you to learn how to deal with invalid reasoning. This is needed to get to a productive discussion. Size can be expressed in different ways. The question is which indicators are needed to get to a reliable assessment. The first step is to identify, and eliminate, invalid arguments and unreliable indicators.      

Your effort, and that's the fourth advantage, resulted in action. I'm referring to the decision (of you and Dark Jaguar) to collect information about the length and weight of wild jaguars. The result is we now have tables about the size of jaguars in different regions. 

For biologists, size has no priority. Conservation tops the list. We understand, but the result is a bit of confusion. A few years ago, there was a debate about the size of tigers in Nepal and Russia. Some of the posters involved in the debate contacted biologists. Sunquist (Nepal) and Miquelle (Russia) responded. What I read suggested the method used, in spite of the protocol, was applied in a slightly different way in both countries. This means it has to be reviewed. It would be interesting to know what biologists think.     

Anyhow. I'm preparing a second post on the size of Ussuri brown bears and Amur tigers. In this post, I will refer to a debate about methods in British India. I'll let you know when I'm ready. Thanks again for the post. Reply