Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

[Luipaard]

Quote:You said that they overlapped "completely", now you are twisting Rishi's point to paint yourself as the misunderstood one. You were very clear from the beginning and very wrong. If they overlapped completely then the largest leopards would have to match the largest jaguars in dimensions and they do not. You made the claim, not mem and unsurprisingly you've failed to prove or back up any of these points.

They overlap completely since leopards have surpassed the length and width of jaguar skulls. You keep sticking with the extremes but that's not how it works. For example, the Persian leopard with a skull width of 191 mm has surpassed the width of adult male jaguar skulls from the Amazon (175,9 mm). It's once again evidence of the overlapping in skull dimensions. What's not to understand?

Quote:There is nothing childish about highlight forum violations when you repeatedly engage in poor reasoning based on preconceived notions and then double down on them repeatedly, even when they are verifiably false and when the data has been shown to you multiple times (deflection fallacy). 

Lot's of 'difficult' words especially when it just means you didn't know what to do say so you spammed your response with the forum policies. At least I stayed on topic unlike you.

Quote:What part of the entire dataset available showcasing that the gap between jaguars and leopards is just as big are you not getting? The largest jaguar skulls (not even belonging to the heaviest specimens) on public record far surpass the largest leopard skulls and they do so in averages as well. Do you think that posting a graph and taking it out of context is going to all of a sudden offset the rest of the available data publicized?

Take a breath and look carefully at the objects (square = leopard, rhombus = jaguar). Now notice how the two figures overlap. Notice how there's a square (= leopard) ovelaps with the bigger jaguars (and even lionesses).

Quote:Strawman #2, I've never once said this and once again this breaks the forum rules. Mods?

You realise you made a moderator interrupt on of our debates right? You also realise you ignored this which resulted in another moderator locking the thread right? 

Quote:Read what my post says: Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. A range implies a distribution between the smallest to the largest, because it was you who made the claim that leopards and jaguars "completely overlapped" in dimensions, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that they match the largest measurements for jaguars from these populations (a complete overlap). Once again mods, this a circular argument in violation of the forum policies with the dismissal of crucial data.

A range distribution between the smllest to the largest populations yet to stick with Llanos, Pantanal and Chacoan population - A.K.A. the largest ones. Why not those from Belize for example? right, because they overlap, in fact leopard surpass these meassurements. You obviously know this hence why you want the largest population for comparison.

Quote:Another fallacy, appeal to authority, what does you having had seen this before has anything to do with points being discussed? And how is it being "abused"? What do measurements have anything to do with this since we're comparing skull proportions?. If the jaguar skull were to be scaled down to the leopard's size based on length, the differences in anotomy would remain the same. One more thing, the skull length of the Central African leopard almost perfectly matches the average for this population, while the skull of the Bolivian jaguar (likely a Chacoan or Yungas specimen) falls well short of the average size of a Pantanal or Llanos jaguar skulls and yet it still dwarfs the leopard skull. Interestingly how your claims of Central African leopards attainting the dimensions of Pantanal jaguars fall apart, especially when we take into consideration that an average-sized skull from the Pantanal of 290mm in length and 195 mm in width would be even larger against that average-sized Central African specimen. Comparing one to two outliers against a population average (and still failing to meet the dimensions of said average) doesn't symbolize an overlap, but I digress.

First of all I am the one who wants to compare the skulls, but skulls that equal in dimensions. The comparison you posted is everything but equal or similar (245 mm vs 280 mm) whereas the skulls I posted looked close in size overal. Unfortunately you found this cherry-picking; not my problem. Still waiting for these major differences that makes these skulls completely different.

Quote:That is not how it works, jaguars are classified as a monophyletic species but that doesn't mean that genetic differences between populations do not exist. And your comparison is completely flawed because national boundaries have no relation to the things that matter in this context which are regional differences based on ecological factors. 

Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey to the point that some of the studied specimens from this region have died from starvation @Dark Jaguar knows all about this. The Caatinga environment is completely different from the Pantanal and is separated by a vast savannah known as the Cerrado. These two populations are as different as the Arabian and Persian leopards or Sundarbans and Kaziranga tigers, and I don't know why all of a sudden you're such a puritan when it comes to taxonomical orders when you've complained in the past about how African leopards shouldn't all be lumped into one single subspecies.

Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey... What do you think Arabian leopards are? Or Cape leopards? You really think this rule applies to jaguars only do you? At least they're from the same species unlike Arabian and Persian leopards.

Quote:Ultimately you still haven't proven that:

1. Jaguar and leopard skull completely overlap in size. (keyword that's being repeatedly ignored in this discussion: completely)
2. There are minor differences in their skull morphology. (I expect a dissection of the main skull parts from you in this regard and why they are similar)

1. I've just shown you why they overlap completely. You sticking with the extremes won't change this.
2. You expect a dissection of the main skull parts? Seriously? I asked you twice to show me why a jaguar skull is 'completely different' than a leopard skull? 

Quote:As I said in the previous post I'm not going to continue going back and forth until this person brings forward sound data to back his claims up instead of lengthy word-salads that have nothing to do with what's being discussed and as shown multiple times are in violation of the forum policies.

I've included scientific data alongside photographs of leopard and jaguar skulls. Remember that YOU claimed jaguar skulls to be completely different than leopard skulls. I've posted data of the skulls overlapping in size plus photographs being similar in build and structure.

So for the third time, please show me the major differences when the skulls are similar in size.

@Pckts

Quote:Another perfect example, ignore the size and notice the morphological differences, it wouldn't matter if you scaled the Leopard up the Jaguar down, they will never look like two Skulls that came from the same species to anyone with knowledge on the subject. 

How about we don't ignore the size difference and look at the morphological differences:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Now I'm waiting for two persons to tell me how 'completely' different they are. Reply