Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Balam]

(06-28-2021, 07:44 PM)Luipaard Wrote: @Pckts 

Quote:OK, so again you're not looking closely.
It has nothing to do with "size''

I'll point out a few easy ones....
First is the mandible shape-The Jaguar has a concaved mandible while the Leopard has a flat/almost convcexed one.

The Nasal Projection and bone above the orbital is raised on the Jaguar and not the Leopard.

The height of the extreme distance of the mandible is more exaggerated on the Jaguar as well. 

The zygomatic arch is also more arched in the Jaguar as well as a more exaggerated sagital crest.

The distance from the  auditory bullae to the back of the mandible is much closer in the Jaguar than the leopard due to its massive size and slope of the crest.

Again, it's exaggerated because of the difference in size. It would be less exaggerated if the skulls would be somewhat equal in size. The most prominent difference between the skulls is the forehead and the jaguar skull being proportionally wider whereas the leopard skull will be proportionally longer.

@Balam 

Quote:You and I both know where you posted it, that's why you knew exactly which study I was referring to despite not giving much information about it at all. Shortridge isn't your only alternate alias. They overlap to an extent in that study, not completely, but I'll go over that later on.

I'm sorry but I'm only active on Wildfact as Luipaard and on Carnivora as Shortridge. Whoever else you think I am, it's not the case. 

Yes they completely overlap as is seen in this study as well:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Source: Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): Implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity

Quote:So is the leopard not another cat? If the skull of jaguars is completely different from other cats not only does that support my previous statements but directly contradicts your wrongful assumptions of both species having identical skulls. Being from the same genus means nothing when they are wired for different lifestyles and their morphology is a reflection of those lifestyles. Irbises are also Panthera cats, yet you're one of the people that gets triggered whenever they are compared to leopards.

Your initial post was focusing on the leopard and jaguars having 'completely different' skulls. I pointed out that the book simply used the leopard to compare as they are the two cats that can have similar skull dimensions. Still the book only implied that jaguars have wider skulls proportionally. Not that the skull is completely different compared to a leopard skull.

When was I triggered and when did someone compared a snow leopard to a common leopard? Have I missed something or are you again bringing up debates on a different forum - Carnivora.net?

Quote:The skull of the Indian tigress was never fully recognized as a leopard skull, the confusion had been derived from verbal descriptions of the fur of the animal killed which was dark. Because the dimensions of the skull were significantly above the threshold for what leopards achieve, it was later concluded to belong to a sub-adult tigress. Not to mention that this has little to nothing to do with what I initially stated, jaguars aren't tigresses so you're reasoning behind bringing this up is once again, bizarre.

The tigress skull was actually first acknowledged to be a leopard skull, a record one that is. Also it had nothing to do with the fur but simply because of the fact that the size of the animal and its skull layed in the overlapping of large male leopards and small tigresses. Here's another case where they made a mistake in identifying the animal; alleged tiger pug marks turned out to be leopard ones:

"Vishal Thakor, who has worked on human wildlife conflict mitigation said that people often mistake pug marks of leopards for that of a tiger. "This is because sometimes leopards can also grow to a huge size. Unless the pugmarks are in wet earth, it is also difficult to get its dimensions from a mere picture. Several measurements need to be taken before one can be sure whom the pug marks belong to," said Thakor." - https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-gujarat-tiger-pug-marks-turns-out-to-leopard-s-2729925

Second the skull its measurements were in the range of the largeest male leopard skulls (287,02 mm x 200,66 mm).

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:The word "completely" implies a total overlap in dimensions, which is false.

Yes they completely overlap in all dimensions I can assure you that unless you believe each and every jaguar skull will be taller or heavier?

Quote:The overlap in skull sizes between jaguars and leopards only occurs between specific populations, the largest jaguars outclass leopards by a very large margin (both averages and maximums). And the proportions of skull widths and lengths between populations of the two species is very different as well.

Wait so first it's false and now you do admit that they overlap although between specific populations? Not all jaguar skulls are the size of a Pantanal jaguar skull. Jaguar skulls smaller than a leopard skull can perfectly belong to an adult male jaguar. Hence why they overlap.

Quote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

The skull length of the largest male is 288 mm, the same as the length of the largest Persian leopard skull, yet its width of 196 is much greater than the width of 181 of the leopard and at par with averages of jaguars from floodplain areas of South America.

Still shorter than the largest leopard skull which was estimated at 297 mm long. Quite believable given the condylobasal length of 264 mm. It's narrower (186 mm) but that's understandable as jaguars have proportionally wider skulls. 

Quote:Hold on, you're using the 200 mm skull that came from that hunting book from the Tanzanian specimen that had a length of 11 inches? So you're now comparing hunting records that cannot be verified to scientifically gathered measurements in peer-review papers and think this somehow makes your point more valid? There are hunting records of jaguars at 180 kg, according to your reasoning we should be using that weight as the new standard for maximums for the species. 

I explicitly said it depends which source you consider reliable. Those are the two widest skulls each from a different source. We can stick to scientific sources only, that's fine as I prefer those as well. A skull width 191 mm is marginally narrower than the average skull width for Pantanal male jaguars. So a Pantanal male below-average shall have a narrower skull than that Persian leopard skull. That's what one would call an overlap in size.

Quote:You haven't proven a single thing nor do you understand how the morphological adaptations of felids work. Irbises have similar skulls to cougars despite belonging to a different genus. Phylogenetic proximity is pointless when evolutionary traits are developed by different species through similar ecological constraints. Your study did not support any single claim you've made so far because it directly speaks of the skull differentiations between cats of the same genus (especially the irbis), the complete opposite of what you're claiming. The rest of your claims are purely subjective "Again I'm not seeing two entirely different skulls". What you're seeing =/= what things really are.

You're right; snow leopards do have similar skulls to cougars (cheetahs as well). Same thing like leopards who have similar skulls to jaguars. I have trouble with your big claim (i.e. jaguars having completely different skulls) that's all. Another comparison between a Persian male leopard skull and a male jaguar:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sources: 'Mystery big cats' in the Peruvian Amazon: morphometrics solve a cryptozoological mystery & Population status of the Persian Leopard(Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock, 1927) in Iran

So where are you seeing these major differences? They're very similar in structure and build and this isn't subjective.

Quote:Sample size: 3, leopards from one specific location. If you think that this study trumps Sunquist's which has not only a larger sample size but likely leopards from different parts of Indian I don't know what to tell you. I could just as easily post scientific tables of jaguars from the Pantanal averaging 110 kg or cougars from Patagonia averaging 76 kg, but you've been hellbent on the 100 kg value based on Hoogesteijn's larger sample size for jaguars, so it's either one or the other, you cannot magically choose the highest averages for leopards because it suits you, but that's your MO so nobody is surprised here.

This was just an example of leopards who vary in size regionally, like most animals. Just because one sample turned out to be smaller doesn't mean every Indian male leopard will automatically average 56kg in weight. Just like every jaguar in Brazil does't weigh 100kg as can be seen when looking at Caatinga jaguars.

Quote:And I will wait on an answer for Shazam's weight, direct data is much better than guesses based on photographs.

You should've done that in the first place rather than giving a clear overestimation to back up your claim.

Quote:Yes they completely overlap as is seen in this study as well:

How do the graphs you show tally with tge data that is being discussed? Here's a dictionary definition of the word completely:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The graph you posted clearly showed that the dimensions in size of jaguar skulls far surpass that of leopards, why would you even think posting that study was going to help your case? But we don't need a graph to tell us that when we know that the skulls of jaguars from the medium to large populations grow much larger on average and maximum dimensions because we have data from multiple studies already attesting to this. 

There is no complete, total, or whole overlap in size when one species dwarfs another one at the extremes. 

Having a partial overlap between the smallest populations of the larger species and the largest populations of the smallest species is not "total overlap" if we used that reasoning the tigers and jaguars would "completely overlap" as well. From the forum's revised policies: 

1. Intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting data continuously to prove their point.

2. Completely ignoring data presented if it contradicted their assertion. 
3. Circular arguments and insatiable desire to have the last word, no matter how empty.

Right now you are engaging in all of those things.

Quote:Your initial post was focusing on the leopard and jaguars having 'completely different' skulls. I pointed out that the book simply used the leopard to compare as they are the two cats that can have similar skull dimensions. 

No, the book did not remotely say anything about comparing them because they had "similar skull dimensions" (1. Intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting data), because compared to any leopard. Anton's excerpt used the skull of the leopard to symbolize how different it is from the jaguar because both species showcase opposite trends in length and width.

Quote:The tigress skull was actually first acknowledged to be a leopard skull, a record one that is. Also it had nothing to do with the fur but simply because of the fact that the size of the animal and its skull layed in the overlapping of large male leopards and small tigresses. 

The width of 200 mm is well beyond anything recorded for any leopard under reputable sources, there is no overlapping there because not even the most extreme outlier in leopard skull breadth approaches these dimensions.

Quote:Yes they completely overlap in all dimensions I can assure you that unless you believe each and every jaguar skull will be taller or heavier?

2. Completely ignoring data presented if it contradicted their assertion. 

Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. The word "overlap" is being repeatedly used by this person as if that claim wasn't objectively wrong.

3. Circular arguments and insatiable desire to have the last word, no matter how empty.

The last portion of that response is a clear example of a strawman fallacy. Stating that jaguars and leopards do not completely overlap in skull dimensions doesn't mean they do not overlap in some levels. The premise here is that they do not "completely" overlap and their proportions in terms of skull structure are completely different even when comparing animals of similar sizes.

Quote:Wait so first it's false and now you do admit that they overlap although between specific populations? Not all jaguar skulls are the size of a Pantanal jaguar skull. Jaguar skulls smaller than a leopard skull can perfectly belong to an adult male jaguar. Hence why they overlap.

1. Intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting data continuously to prove their point.

Quote:Still shorter than the largest leopard skull which was estimated at 297 mm long. Quite believable given the condylobasal length of 264 mm. It's narrower (186 mm) but that's understandable as jaguars have proportionally wider skulls.

Keyword: estimated. Not only is that skull useless for this comparison because its total length is impossible to ascertain with full accuracy, but the statement above has absolutely nothing to do with my initial claim. I said that even at length parity the jaguar will show significantly wider zygomatic arches, and you responded with a supposedly longer-skulled leopard which has an even narrower breadth. 

Quote:A skull width 191 mm is marginally narrower than the average skull width for Pantanal male jaguars. So a Pantanal male below-average shall have a narrower skull than that Persian leopard skull. That's what one would call an overlap in size.

You have no way to prove that an adult male Pantanal jaguar would have a similar skull even if it was below average, a skull of those dimensions would likely belong to a sub-adult at best unless you can provide evidence to the contrary by showcasing specific skulls with their live ages dated. Good luck.

Quote:You're right; snow leopards do have similar skulls to cougars (cheetahs as well). Same thing like leopards who have similar skulls to jaguars.

So you admit that your phylogenetic analysis made no sense the moment we factored in the irbis and then doubled down on an objectively false statement you've yet to prove with sound and quantifiable data? From left to right: American lion, African lion, Siberian tiger, African leopard, jaguar, cougar, and clouded leopard:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As I've said numerous times on here before, when looking at these skulls from a top view it becomes evident how different jaguar and leopard skulls really are. The width of the rostrum is much more pronounced in the jaguar, the width of the zygoma is much more pronounced in the jaguar, the anterior fontanelle is wider and more indented in the jaguar, the sagittal crest is more protruded in the jaguar, etc. One could even go as far as to suggest that cougars have more similar skull anatomy in terms of proportions with the jaguar than the leopard when observed from this view. 

Quote:I have trouble with your big claim (i.e. jaguars having completely different skulls) that's all. Another comparison between a Persian male leopard skull and a male jaguar

My "big claim" which is backed by scientific texts has already been addressed in the previous post. I'm sure it took you a long time to cherry-pick the two skulls that resembled each other the most, let's just pretend like this side-by-side comparison shown by Peter on here was never posted:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:So where are you seeing these major differences? They're very similar in structure and build and this isn't subjective.

2. Completely ignoring data presented if it contradicted their assertion. 
[i][b]3. Circular arguments and insatiable desire to have the last word, no matter how empty.[/i][/b]

Quote:This was just an example of leopards who vary in size regionally, like most animals. Just because one sample turned out to be smaller doesn't mean every Indian male leopard will automatically average 56kg in weight. Just like every jaguar in Brazil does't weigh 100kg as can be seen when looking at Caatinga jaguars.

The number of logical fallacies in this post... 

You posted a table with three Indian males from one particular location while completely dismissing the study from Sunquist which has a larger sample size because the latter yielded an average that is not to your liking, not once did I make the claim that every Indian male will average 56 kg based on that study (strawman). 

And you decided to divide jaguars by country of origin rather than population as if Pantanal and Caatinga jaguars weren't two completely different populations separated by vast amounts of land in completely different eco-regions with putative scientific recognition as different sub-species (false dilemma), your Pantanal/Caatinga analogy would be equivalent to me comparing a Persian with an Arabian leopard. 

You chose to use the 100 kg benchmark to make your attempt at a point when I specifically noticed that depending on the scientific studies used Pantanal jaguars will average 110 kg or more, especially when divided by area, hence my comparison with your Indian leopard table. 

---

@tigerluver I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with this individual who as I have shown keeps violating the rules that have been put in place for sane debate based on objective data. You can intercede if you want but the violations in his post are clear based on the revisions you posted and I've made my points. Reply