Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

Options

Pckts

Bigcat Enthusiast

13,824 Replies

58 Topics

Joined: Mar 2014

Reputation: 68

#414

07-08-2021, 11:57 PM

(04-30-2021, 02:03 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-13-2021, 07:03 PM)Balam Wrote: I'm almost entirely sure that the Persian leopard from this chart:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Was taken over the curves, the shoulder height of 91 cm is too high, higher than some Siberian tigers. Not only was it taken over the curves but with the extended paw as well.

All other measurements show a pretty large leopard, my guess it that one a very large of somewhere in between 85-95 kg.

I have to bring some clarity on the information from the chart above because misinformation being passed around genuinely bugs me.

It was rather odd that the name of the paper where this leopard was mentioned was not included in any of the posts here, the table was simply posted, and it was expected of everyone to simply take it at face value while for jaguars the information comes in a very clear and transparent form, the methods used to measure the animals are laid out etc.

The table above comes from the paper Analysis of leopard (Panthera pardus) status in Iran (No.1). by Sinei (2007), in such paper it is mentioned that the measurements gather did not came exclusively from live animals, but that it included taxidermy individuals (as mentioned in the table itself), flat skins and skeletons:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here are some examples of the taxidermied (e.g. stuffed rendition) individuals evaluated in this paper:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And here are all the measurements of leopards gathered from live animals, flat skins, and stuffed taxidermy samples:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And then one actual specimen that was alive:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

And finally, excellent craniometric data which I have not seen shared here before:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

So the person who initially shared the table of the taxidermy individual purposely chose not to share the source of where it came from because he knew that when looking at it from its proper context his obsession with trying to equate leopards to Pantanal jaguar quickly falls apart. A taxidermy individual does not have the same dimensions as the live animal itself, the organic factors that contribute to the body mass of an animal cannot be replicated by synthetic means. There is no way to verify that the specimen mentioned in the table above had the same morphometric measurements had it been alive (very unlikely considering the extreme measurements), since it was stuffed the dimensions of the taxidermied animal were likely inflated.

You cannot compare a taxidermied animal to other animals that are not only measured alive but whose methods of measurements are described in detail and in the utmost professional matter (oftentimes on a straight line). In the same way that you cannot misrepresent craniometric data to paint a flattering picture of one animal based on skull length when the metrics in other departments of the skull are significantly lesser than the animal it is falsely being claimed to mirror in body mass.

The great table on skulls above shows two greater skull lengths 271 mm, but with drastic differences in width. The first one had a width of 191, which surpassed the record-holding leopard with a skull length of 288 mm by 10 mm (181 mm in width). The second one with the same length had a width of 177 mm, which is 7 mm greater than the third with a very similar skull length of 270 mm. Then comes the fourth one which had a dramatic drop in length with 259 mm, but retained the same width as the 270 mm skull.

What this shows is that there is little consistency in the direct correlation between skull length and width of Persian leopards, in contrast to jaguars who almost always show a direct correlation in this area in terms of the overall skull size. There is very little room to liberally assume that the record skull of a Persian leopard that is 2 mm shorter than an average gathered for Pantanal jaguars will translate to the leopard depicting the same average body mass when:

1. The skulls analyzed by Hoogesteijna and Mondolfi do not belong to the same jaguars utilized in the body mass average.
2. The width of said skull is significantly lesser than the jaguar. The skull height and bone density would also be lesser on the leopard skull and the full score of this outlier leopard, when compared to the jaguar's population average, would still be smaller and lighter.

This is what purposely misrepresenting data to spread an agenda looks like. The same people doing this tried their hardest to look with a microscopic lens the scientifically agreed-upon values for very large jaguars like Lopez to look for ways in reducing the body mass (despite the direct confirmation by the biologists involved that this jaguar had little to no stomach content). Meanwhile, I don't see anyone questioning the stomach content of the record-holding leopard of Namibia that weighed 96 kg, why is this? Then they share posts from hunting forums depicting butchered leopards with alleged weights of 100+ kg, with no reputable source behind them, and think that these records are somehow more reliable than the official data presented firt-hand by biologists involved in jaguar captures, the double standard here is staggering but the agenda very clear. Then they tried to misrepresent that the data that was shown in a paper where an alleged weight of 115 kg for a leopard was discarded for being too unreasonable, even after multiple other sources (including the authors of the paper itself) later clarified that the actual value was 95 kg and not 115, and of course this is without counting stomach content for this particular leopard in the same way they try to overanalyze it with jaguars.

Finally to show that "Persian leopards attain the body dimensions of Pantanal jaguars" they show the measurements of a taxidermied individual and then attempt to compare to the measurements of jaguars, many of whom are gathered in a straight line following the strictest protocols.

The facts are that not a single Persian leopard skull has attained the same dimensions as the average gathered for Pantanal jaguars, Persian leopards do not attain larger dimensions at averages or absolute values than female Pantanal jaguars (baring neck girth only, which in mature individuals is inflated by the dewlap which jaguars lack), the maximum recorded skull for a Mexican jaguar is larger than the largest Persian leopard skull, no leopard has been recorded weighing the same as the averages gathered for Pantanal or Llanos jaguars. While the standard on these forums for so long involving jaguars has been to examine every little bit of data with the utmost rigorous questioning, leopards shouldn't get a free pass from this either, especially when this group of individuals then likes to misrepresent the data to spread misinformation to others online.