There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 4 Vote(s) - 4.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences

Luipaard Offline
Leopard enthusiast
****

(03-12-2021, 01:33 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:03 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 02:11 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:14 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 08:27 PM)Balam Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 02:23 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-07-2021, 10:41 AM)Balam Wrote: I wanted to make this post to clear up some misconceptions I've seen spread regarding the sexual dimorphism on jaguars and how it compares to other felids of the genus Panthera. There is an idea I've seen that claims jaguars have the least pronounced sexual dimorphism among the pantherine felids and this somehow translates to them being the worst fighters (??). I find this claim to be, to put it mildly, ridiculous and speaks to how easy it is for people to spread misinformation about a species they dislike when the data used is skewed and the public it is being presented to might not be the most versed on the subject to push back against it.


In terms of body size, jaguars present sexual size differentiations that fall in line with what is seen with other pantherine cats, with males being usually 30% larger than females, while the largest individuals of each sex having a very drastic sexual demarcation, with the heaviest male being almost 50% larger than the heaviest female on record (100-110 kg vs 148 kg, Troncha/Lopez). Sexual size differences and therefore dimorphism also varies across different jaguars populations, as described by Hoogestijn and Mondolfi in their paper BODY MASS AND SKULL MEASUREMENTS IN FOUR JAGUAR POPULATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR PREY BASE (1996). Here, by comparing the size differences among the two largest populations, Llanos and Pantanal, it became clear that Llanos jaguars showed more pronounced size differences among the sexes:


The aspect ratio in weight differences between Llanos jaguars was 1.1:0.67, for Pantanal jaguars it was 1:0.77. In the Llanos, according to this study, the females were 36%, whereas in the Pantanal the gap between the sexes was 23%. By contrast, if we compare these ratios to Persian leopards, as an example, from Patterns of sexual dimorphism in the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor) and implications for sex differentiation by Farhadinia et al. we get the following:


Aspect ratio 0.66:0.45, with males being roughly 32% larger than females. Therefore, jaguars from the Llanos would show an even greater gap in size than Persian leopards, while Pantanal jaguars would remain with the smaller gap size among the three populations.

These size gaps remain constant with skull measurements as well:


In skull length, the Pantanal male jaguars had a longer skull by 11,3%, whereas with Llanos jaguars the skulls of the males were longer by 16.2%.
When we compare the ratio differences between floodplain jaguars and their immediate interspecific size counterparts, the Sunda tigers, we get the following results from the tigers, using the data on the greatest skull length of Mazak and Grove from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:


For the extant population of Sumatran tigers, male skulls were 12,51% longer than females, putting the size difference only slightly higher than Pantanal jaguars, but substantially lower than Llanos jaguars. So far, Llanos jaguars have shown the most drastic sexual dimorphism on weight craniometric measurements compared to three other populations of pantherines.

Here's 130 kg Ruxu mating with Jagua female, the size difference between these two could not be more obvious:



This discussion of marked sexual dimorphism is derived from a claim that jaguars having the least prominent secondary sexual differentiating traits somehow means that male jaguars are less equipped to fight in comparison to other pantherines, and the ones pushing for this idea focus on the dewlap in the leopard to make their points. What do actual scientists and biologists from reputable organizations have to say about the function of dewlaps in leopards? Johanna Taylor from Panthera released the following article on the subject:

"Mature male leopards are at least 60% larger than females, and broader, with larger chest girths and longer, bulkier heads. But there’s something else you may notice that sets males apart: Their thick necks can be adorned with a loose flap of skin hanging underneath. These skin folds are called dewlaps.

Dewlaps are observed in a variety of species throughout the animal kingdom, most notably in certain birds, lizards, and hoofed mammals. In mature male leopards, a well-developed dewlap is prominent and one of the best ways to determine age.
However, the function of leopard dewlaps remains unknown and largely unexplored. Since they are a sexually-dimorphic feature—meaning only one sex exhibits the trait—scientists speculate that this enigmatic ornament is linked to sexual selection or male fitness. 

Of another conspicuous, sexually-dimorphic feature among cats—the mane of a male lion—Charles Darwin postulated: “[It] forms a good defense against the one danger to which he is liable, namely the attacks of rival lions.”
The idea behind this hypothesis is that adaptations such as body armor or weaponry, like antlers on male deer, increase the ability of males competing against other males. Most often the winner is the lucky male who gets to mate with the female and pass on his genetics.

On the other hand, results of more contemporary research indicate that injuries sustained during fights between lions don’t appear to differ between maned and non-maned sub-adult males or even females. This outcome suggests that the mane/neck area is not a high-target region during fights. Instead, observations find that the back and hindquarters seem to be the targeted areas during confrontations.

Many biologists believe that a male lion’s mane serves as an indicator of sexual fitness. Studies using life-sized toy lions sporting contrasting mane colors and lengths found that male lions were more likely to approach the imposters with lighter, shorter manes, while female lions were drawn more to models with darker manes. These results suggest that males with shorter, blonder manes are less intimidating to rival males, and thus perceived to have lower overall fitness.

We can apply this theory to hypothesize about the functions of a dewlap on a male leopard. However, fights between elusive male leopards are rarely observed and documented by scientists. This makes it difficult to confirm if the leopard’s dewlap has any defensive functions. Likewise, it’s hard to determine if it serves a similar purpose to that of a large, dark mane in sexual selection, as an indicator of fitness and longevity.

Another speculation about the dewlap is that it simply makes mature leopard males appear larger and more intimidating to rivals. Typically, as a male leopard ages, his dewlap enlarges. Mature males hold wider territories and have more opportunity to mate with females.


This also means that there are more opportunities to come into conflict with other males seeking the same territory and females. It would be ideal to avoid physical confrontation, and potential injury, by being able to display fighting capability and fitness, thus deterring potential rivals without physically engaging them. Fighting with other males has potential to lead to injury or death. Even the smallest injuries can fester and inhibit hunting abilities, leading to a decline in body condition that could result in death.

Younger and smaller males may be dissuaded from engaging in a fight with a larger male sporting a more pronounced dewlap. Alternatively, estrous females may select a male with a larger dewlap, perceiving him to have greater fitness than his peers. As of yet, no studies have been conducted to determine if dewlap size correlates with testosterone levels or is linked to reproductive success as an indicator of longevity."

The claims stated above by Dr. Taylor are very clear in that the function of the dewlap in leopards as a sort of protection for males during territorial fights has little to no scientific standing and is not widely supported by biologists and researchers. Instead, much like many other species of animals, by making the neck of the leopard appears larger, males are able to avoid direct confrontation by intimidating smaller males who might not want to risk injury in the case of a fight that could prove fatal down the line.

It is also claimed that among 4 of the 5 pantherines in this discussion the jaguar shows the lesser external dimorphic traits and that besides the dewlap in leopards and the manes in lions, male tigers have ruffs around their heads which females, according to them, do not, and therefore that trait symbolizes that tigers have more frequent confrontations than jaguars. How exactly is a short patch of hair around the jaws supposed to defend a tiger from 10 cm canines is beyond me, but that is their claim.

This is of course not true, the ruff in tigers is present in both sexes and it not always consistent in size or occurrence at all. Here's a captive Sumatran couple mating, the female just like the male possesses a large ruff of hair around her head:


Here's a wild female displaying a small ruff as well:


By contrast, the very famous Umarpani male who is renowned for defending his territory and even going as far as to kill larger opponents in fights does not have ay ruff around his head:

According to the "hypothesis" of the external sexual dimorphic traits and their link to fighting abilities, one would expect a dominant male tiger such as Umarpai to show a very marked and distinct ruff around his head, but this is not the case. The lack of ruffs around the face can also be appreciated with Sundarbans tigers, female and male for comparison:



To further expand on the interspecific fights among jaguars and how they compare with other felids, jaguars in areas where resources are scarcer such as the Cerrado have shown to be particularly aggressive with each other. Last year we documented the case of a very large melanistic male named Tiago that was killed in a territorial dispute with a different male, and his adversary managed to get a grip of his nape which allowed him to tore it apart, killing the huge 117 kg jaguar. 
Jaguars in the Pantanal too have been recorded killing each other through the perforation of the skull, although in some areas jaguars may be more tolerant of each other and males may share territories in relative peace since the prey abundance of the area allows them to share resources, but this is not the universal case for jaguars.

With all of this being said, it's very clear that the idea that jaguars are somehow outliers among its cousin in terms of sexual dimorphism is a lie, there is no hard science to back up those assertions, just the conjectures of people with an agenda who need to hype up their favorite cat by spreading misinformation about another one they dislike. It's important to show hard data when participating in these discussions because otherwise the uninformed opinions of certain people may be confused for facts and quickly spread around among more easily impressionable minds.

I don't know where this statement comes from (i.e. having the least sexual dimorphism resulting in being worse fighters) nor do I believe it, but skull-wise jaguars do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Compared to females, adult male skulls from Central America were 13.2% larger, from the Amazon 10.8% larger, from the Pantanal 12.8% larger, and from the Llanos 19.3% larger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


The following tables from Pocock and Allen show skull measurements for leopards from the Congo Basin forest and the adjacent forest/savanna mosaic habitat. The average skull length for 22 adult males was 254.2mm and for 18 females 193.4mm, a difference of 31.4%.


*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


For lions, we have average skull length for a total of 130 adult male and 126 adult female lion skulls from all over Africa, with male skulls being 21.2% larger. 


*This image is copyright of its original author


From the same paper, skull lengths of Kruger lions specifically and Bengal tigers. Kruger lions show a difference of 21% while Bengal tigers show 19.8%.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Again from the same paper, skull lengths of adult tigers from Southeast Asia, both Javan and Sumatran tigers show a difference of around 15.5%.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Skull measurements of Bengal, Caspian, and Amur tigers. A difference of 18.9% for Bengal tigers, 19.2% for Caspian tigers, and 23% for Amur tigers.


*This image is copyright of its original author

I didn't mention you in this post but if the shoe fits, oh well.

Here's the quoted study that you clearly didn't read and instead opted for taking the tables without the full context, I presume from a Tapatalk forum, for lion and tiger skull length measurements Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): Implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity, Yamaguchi et al.:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Wild male tigers had a skull length 17.5% larger than females, which is lesser than Llanos jaguars, wild male lions were 21.4% longer than females, only slightly above Llanos jaguar measurements in skull length only.

Lions separated into two different populations, interesting how you didn't put the Asiatic lion's skull length difference, I wonder why:


Melanochaita wild male lions had skull lengths larger consistently with the value above at 21.2%, whereas leo leo had skulls longer by 12.92%. The first population had males with skulls proportionally longer than females only 2% greater than Llanos jaguars, whereas in the second one the size difference between them and Llanos jaguars was 6.3% in favor of the jaguar, and very close to the skull size difference between Pantanal jaguars of 12.77%.

Let's go over the Sunda ad Malay tigers:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Bali tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.3%
Javan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 15.4%
Sumatran tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.5%
Malayan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 16.6%

Not only did you inflate the value of Sumatran tigers, but you purposely left out Bali tigers because the size difference in skull length between them is in fact lesser than Llanos jaguars and very close to Pantanal jaguars. In fact, Llanos jaguars had the largest size difference in skull length than all the tigers on the table above.

In my post, I mentioned skull length because I didn't feel like going by each measurement in skull size which also involves skull width, which is something you always conveniently leave out. Let's go over the skull width comparisons between Sunda tigers and jaguars. Again data from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:




Bali tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 19.6%
Javan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17.2%
Sumatran tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 18.2%
Malayan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 14%

Pantanal jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.6%
Llanos jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17%
Amazonian jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 9.8%
Central American jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.7%


Llanos jaguars had skull size differences greater than Malayan tigers and statistically equal to Javan tigers, the other jaguar populations had values lower but Pantanal and CA jaguars had values similar to Malayan tigers off by less than 2%.

For Central African leopards according to the tables you posted: males had an average skull width of 150.1 mm, females had an average skull width of 122.7 mm.

The tables you posted have the skull length of measurements of 28 adult male leopards, why did you say 22? Did you purposely discard the 5 young adult males from the sample of the Northeast Congo table? Seems like you did, do you know what this is called? Sample bias, you are ignoring the values of young adult males because they lower the average of the entire population as you're trying to inflate their value to make them seem bigger than what they truly are. Guess what? For all other felids, the age ranges used to determine average include very young to very old adults. This is no different than your attempt at trying to inflate the average weight of Natal leopard by only including the age class of prime individuals. Nice try.

The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%

Conclusion: the size differences in craniometric values for floodplain jaguars in fact overlap greatly with the values of lions and tigers across different populations, with the jaguars being lesser or higher depending on the population. The claim that jaguars show less sexual dimorphism in both body mass and skull size is false.

And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:


Persian leopards 245mm/162mm, 1.51:1
Central-West African leopards 244.7mm/150.1, 1.63:1

Therefore rainforest leopards have skulls that are about 12% longer in comparison to their width than Persian leopards. And since you like to use skull width to compare Central African leopard to jaguars to substantiate your claims that they supposedly overlap in size, then: 

1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.

2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7). Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author

And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.


Quote:The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%.
 
So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
Quote:And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:

And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?
Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).
Quote:1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.
But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

271 mm x 191 mm or 18.19" compared to the average Amazonian male jaguar (17.26"), female Pantanal jaguar (16.93"). The average Pantanal male jaguar has a score of 19.08" and the average Llanos male 19.04". I don't know about you but that is literally called an overlapping.

Quote:2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7).

How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:

The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.
What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.
Quote:So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Quote:Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

Quote:Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.

Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.

Quote:So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
 
Correct, I never questioned that, once again read my previous reply slowly.

Quote:And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?

Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. 

I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity.
Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Quote:For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).

It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Quote:But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

Quote:How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

I'm sorry are you serious right now? Weren't you using that same data from the table in your initial reply to me when comparing the sexually dimorphic traits of jaguars against other felids, including the data from jaguars in Central America? And you're calling me hypocritical? I'm at a loss for words, you should really take a moment to think about what you're going to say before you write it.

The data for Central American jaguars comes from the one scientifically publicized paper on jaguar morphology from this population, excluding Mexico. The sample size is small but it's what is available and thus what is to be used. You don't shy away from this data when it's time for you to underestimate jaguars in other sites, so why now?

Quote:The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.

No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Quote:What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards. 

Quote:Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.

The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

Quote:Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Quote:So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

How and where did you correct me? There are few big cat populations where the jaguar is comparable when talking about sexual dimorphism skull-wise. It's namely the tiger with some populations but overall they possess the least sexual dimorphism and that was my initial reaction. I never brought up their body weights because all (big) cats show sexual dimorphism, some more than others.

Quote:Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.
 
It didn't affect the outcome anyway, skull-wise leopards show the most extreme sexual dimorphism and I personally think overall they are no.1 at this. Re-read Jo Taylor's article and you'll see why they're no.1 when it comes to sexual dimorphism traits.
Quote:I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity. Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Well this is still a forum so you can do whatever you want but I fail to see how relevant this is to my initial post? 
I have always said that Central African leopards are no.1 with Persian leopards being the only ones able to match them. Here's a recent response of mine to someone who asked which African population produced the biggest leopards: https://carnivora.net/big-territorial-male-leopards-only-territorial-mal-t86-s555.html#p154527 . You'll see I still mention Iranian leopards.
Quote:You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.
Quote:It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


*This image is copyright of its original author

I added the + mark because, well that's how long the longest ones are bar the estimated one. I explicitly did not write 290+ because it's an estimated number. It doesn't matter how much above 280 mm it is. The + means it's above the mark and notice there's more than one from Central African (and one from Iran, where leopards roam who are able to best these leopards remember).
Quote:Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Did you even bother to look at the table for more than one second? There are leopards included from other area's than Central Africa or Iran such as Egypt, Sudan and Uganda. You already know I did not make this list; Chui decided to include leopards from scientific sources only. Thus it's not my fault that Central African leopards dominate the list, followed by Iranian leopards.

Quote:You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

I'm not deducting size differences among different species; I'm showing you the overlap between the two species. It doesn't matter if it's an outlier or a whole population; when they overlap, they overlap. Just deal with it.

Here's a great chart for you, take your time and analyse it, from Variation in Craniomandibular Morphology and Sexual Dimorphism in Pantherines and the Sabercat Smilodon fatalis. Note that the largest leopard skulls overlap in size with adult lioness and tigress skulls.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Quote:No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Central Africa and West Africa are not the same and the best example is wildlife protection. Even in well protected countries like Gabon, leopards face bushmeat hunter competition and in some area's they live under pristine circumstances. West Africa is much worse and the sample of those leopards originate from an area with different prey abundance compared to the ones we're discussing.

Quote:Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards.

I said the leopard was more impressive, does that automatically mean it's not small?? The leopard was measured in the same way as those jaguars.

Quote:The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

This was your claim:

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.
And now you suddenly want to add 20% to their body weight? Why 20%? Those leopards could've been near death you can't tell.
Quote:Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Check the chart I posted so you understand what overlapping is all about.

You said a lot in this post that didn't really contradict what I said before, jaguars depending on the population present as much sexual dimorphism as the other pantherines both in body mass and craniometric values. There's not much else to discuss here. Yes, leopards present perhaps one of the most drastic sexual differentiation among felids, baring perhaps the lion, but jaguars are not too far off (see Llanos jaguars and Persian leopards)

Out of all of your post, I'm only interested in going over this claim:

Quote:At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.

They simply do not, you need to understand that the correlation between skull values such as length is not equal among felids of different species, so you cannot assume that a leopard with a particularly long skull that could be said to be close to the average skull of a Pantanal jaguar will grow to the same dimensions, because jaguars having a relatively shorter but wider skull will always be larger if both cats were compared at skull length parity.

According to Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi's data, the average skull length of Pantanal jaguars was 290.5 mm, one of the longest leopard skulls comes from Population status of the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock, 1927) in Iran, here's the skull in question:


*This image is copyright of its original author

The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

So what do we know from looking at the data above? The two males whose weights were provided had a very similar body length of 213 and 212 cm, which suggests they were similar in size. The male with the 288 mm skull was gorged at the moment of his death, which likely elevated his weight in comparison to the other male whose was average in size but likely empty bellied. Even if we were to take the value that included the stomachal content for the skull bearing leopard, it still would not approach the values of 100 and 105 kg of average found for Pantanal and Llanos jaguars by Hoogesteijn and Moldolfi, despite that in paper the leopard skull approached similar dimensions in length.

What's more, is the width of the leopard skull of 182 mm falls short compared to the average for the jaguar population which is around 195 mm. So the Persian leopard, who you claim has the widest skull of the leopard proportionally, still falls short in comparison to the jaguar skulls. 

So once again, you need to understand that skull size goes beyond the scopes of skull length and you cannot utilize the skull length which proportionally varies across different species to assume their body mass correlations would be the same. This is why you have the skull of a leopard that was well below the average of Pantanal jaguar even while gorged, whilst having a very large skull that nearly approached a jaguar's dimensions in length. The same could be said for Central African leopards, IMO they have very long skulls in proportion to their bodies in comparison to other leopard populations, but the available data simply does not substantiate any claims of them being significantly larger than other leopards, let alone "Pantanal jaguar-sized" as you've claimed before. You can like and appreciate leopards without exaggerating their sizes, like them for what they are.

Quote:The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*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

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Where is it indicated that the skull belongs to the 86kg male? The paper references to figure 2 (the carcass of the leopard) and figure 7 (the skull itself). I never mentioned any of the two body weights of table 2.

So your whole analysis is based on a misconception of yours.
Reply

Canada Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****

(03-12-2021, 09:39 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:33 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:03 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 02:11 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:14 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 08:27 PM)Balam Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 02:23 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-07-2021, 10:41 AM)Balam Wrote: I wanted to make this post to clear up some misconceptions I've seen spread regarding the sexual dimorphism on jaguars and how it compares to other felids of the genus Panthera. There is an idea I've seen that claims jaguars have the least pronounced sexual dimorphism among the pantherine felids and this somehow translates to them being the worst fighters (??). I find this claim to be, to put it mildly, ridiculous and speaks to how easy it is for people to spread misinformation about a species they dislike when the data used is skewed and the public it is being presented to might not be the most versed on the subject to push back against it.


In terms of body size, jaguars present sexual size differentiations that fall in line with what is seen with other pantherine cats, with males being usually 30% larger than females, while the largest individuals of each sex having a very drastic sexual demarcation, with the heaviest male being almost 50% larger than the heaviest female on record (100-110 kg vs 148 kg, Troncha/Lopez). Sexual size differences and therefore dimorphism also varies across different jaguars populations, as described by Hoogestijn and Mondolfi in their paper BODY MASS AND SKULL MEASUREMENTS IN FOUR JAGUAR POPULATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR PREY BASE (1996). Here, by comparing the size differences among the two largest populations, Llanos and Pantanal, it became clear that Llanos jaguars showed more pronounced size differences among the sexes:


The aspect ratio in weight differences between Llanos jaguars was 1.1:0.67, for Pantanal jaguars it was 1:0.77. In the Llanos, according to this study, the females were 36%, whereas in the Pantanal the gap between the sexes was 23%. By contrast, if we compare these ratios to Persian leopards, as an example, from Patterns of sexual dimorphism in the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor) and implications for sex differentiation by Farhadinia et al. we get the following:


Aspect ratio 0.66:0.45, with males being roughly 32% larger than females. Therefore, jaguars from the Llanos would show an even greater gap in size than Persian leopards, while Pantanal jaguars would remain with the smaller gap size among the three populations.

These size gaps remain constant with skull measurements as well:


In skull length, the Pantanal male jaguars had a longer skull by 11,3%, whereas with Llanos jaguars the skulls of the males were longer by 16.2%.
When we compare the ratio differences between floodplain jaguars and their immediate interspecific size counterparts, the Sunda tigers, we get the following results from the tigers, using the data on the greatest skull length of Mazak and Grove from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:


For the extant population of Sumatran tigers, male skulls were 12,51% longer than females, putting the size difference only slightly higher than Pantanal jaguars, but substantially lower than Llanos jaguars. So far, Llanos jaguars have shown the most drastic sexual dimorphism on weight craniometric measurements compared to three other populations of pantherines.

Here's 130 kg Ruxu mating with Jagua female, the size difference between these two could not be more obvious:



This discussion of marked sexual dimorphism is derived from a claim that jaguars having the least prominent secondary sexual differentiating traits somehow means that male jaguars are less equipped to fight in comparison to other pantherines, and the ones pushing for this idea focus on the dewlap in the leopard to make their points. What do actual scientists and biologists from reputable organizations have to say about the function of dewlaps in leopards? Johanna Taylor from Panthera released the following article on the subject:

"Mature male leopards are at least 60% larger than females, and broader, with larger chest girths and longer, bulkier heads. But there’s something else you may notice that sets males apart: Their thick necks can be adorned with a loose flap of skin hanging underneath. These skin folds are called dewlaps.

Dewlaps are observed in a variety of species throughout the animal kingdom, most notably in certain birds, lizards, and hoofed mammals. In mature male leopards, a well-developed dewlap is prominent and one of the best ways to determine age.
However, the function of leopard dewlaps remains unknown and largely unexplored. Since they are a sexually-dimorphic feature—meaning only one sex exhibits the trait—scientists speculate that this enigmatic ornament is linked to sexual selection or male fitness. 

Of another conspicuous, sexually-dimorphic feature among cats—the mane of a male lion—Charles Darwin postulated: “[It] forms a good defense against the one danger to which he is liable, namely the attacks of rival lions.”
The idea behind this hypothesis is that adaptations such as body armor or weaponry, like antlers on male deer, increase the ability of males competing against other males. Most often the winner is the lucky male who gets to mate with the female and pass on his genetics.

On the other hand, results of more contemporary research indicate that injuries sustained during fights between lions don’t appear to differ between maned and non-maned sub-adult males or even females. This outcome suggests that the mane/neck area is not a high-target region during fights. Instead, observations find that the back and hindquarters seem to be the targeted areas during confrontations.

Many biologists believe that a male lion’s mane serves as an indicator of sexual fitness. Studies using life-sized toy lions sporting contrasting mane colors and lengths found that male lions were more likely to approach the imposters with lighter, shorter manes, while female lions were drawn more to models with darker manes. These results suggest that males with shorter, blonder manes are less intimidating to rival males, and thus perceived to have lower overall fitness.

We can apply this theory to hypothesize about the functions of a dewlap on a male leopard. However, fights between elusive male leopards are rarely observed and documented by scientists. This makes it difficult to confirm if the leopard’s dewlap has any defensive functions. Likewise, it’s hard to determine if it serves a similar purpose to that of a large, dark mane in sexual selection, as an indicator of fitness and longevity.

Another speculation about the dewlap is that it simply makes mature leopard males appear larger and more intimidating to rivals. Typically, as a male leopard ages, his dewlap enlarges. Mature males hold wider territories and have more opportunity to mate with females.


This also means that there are more opportunities to come into conflict with other males seeking the same territory and females. It would be ideal to avoid physical confrontation, and potential injury, by being able to display fighting capability and fitness, thus deterring potential rivals without physically engaging them. Fighting with other males has potential to lead to injury or death. Even the smallest injuries can fester and inhibit hunting abilities, leading to a decline in body condition that could result in death.

Younger and smaller males may be dissuaded from engaging in a fight with a larger male sporting a more pronounced dewlap. Alternatively, estrous females may select a male with a larger dewlap, perceiving him to have greater fitness than his peers. As of yet, no studies have been conducted to determine if dewlap size correlates with testosterone levels or is linked to reproductive success as an indicator of longevity."

The claims stated above by Dr. Taylor are very clear in that the function of the dewlap in leopards as a sort of protection for males during territorial fights has little to no scientific standing and is not widely supported by biologists and researchers. Instead, much like many other species of animals, by making the neck of the leopard appears larger, males are able to avoid direct confrontation by intimidating smaller males who might not want to risk injury in the case of a fight that could prove fatal down the line.

It is also claimed that among 4 of the 5 pantherines in this discussion the jaguar shows the lesser external dimorphic traits and that besides the dewlap in leopards and the manes in lions, male tigers have ruffs around their heads which females, according to them, do not, and therefore that trait symbolizes that tigers have more frequent confrontations than jaguars. How exactly is a short patch of hair around the jaws supposed to defend a tiger from 10 cm canines is beyond me, but that is their claim.

This is of course not true, the ruff in tigers is present in both sexes and it not always consistent in size or occurrence at all. Here's a captive Sumatran couple mating, the female just like the male possesses a large ruff of hair around her head:


Here's a wild female displaying a small ruff as well:


By contrast, the very famous Umarpani male who is renowned for defending his territory and even going as far as to kill larger opponents in fights does not have ay ruff around his head:

According to the "hypothesis" of the external sexual dimorphic traits and their link to fighting abilities, one would expect a dominant male tiger such as Umarpai to show a very marked and distinct ruff around his head, but this is not the case. The lack of ruffs around the face can also be appreciated with Sundarbans tigers, female and male for comparison:



To further expand on the interspecific fights among jaguars and how they compare with other felids, jaguars in areas where resources are scarcer such as the Cerrado have shown to be particularly aggressive with each other. Last year we documented the case of a very large melanistic male named Tiago that was killed in a territorial dispute with a different male, and his adversary managed to get a grip of his nape which allowed him to tore it apart, killing the huge 117 kg jaguar. 
Jaguars in the Pantanal too have been recorded killing each other through the perforation of the skull, although in some areas jaguars may be more tolerant of each other and males may share territories in relative peace since the prey abundance of the area allows them to share resources, but this is not the universal case for jaguars.

With all of this being said, it's very clear that the idea that jaguars are somehow outliers among its cousin in terms of sexual dimorphism is a lie, there is no hard science to back up those assertions, just the conjectures of people with an agenda who need to hype up their favorite cat by spreading misinformation about another one they dislike. It's important to show hard data when participating in these discussions because otherwise the uninformed opinions of certain people may be confused for facts and quickly spread around among more easily impressionable minds.

I don't know where this statement comes from (i.e. having the least sexual dimorphism resulting in being worse fighters) nor do I believe it, but skull-wise jaguars do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Compared to females, adult male skulls from Central America were 13.2% larger, from the Amazon 10.8% larger, from the Pantanal 12.8% larger, and from the Llanos 19.3% larger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


The following tables from Pocock and Allen show skull measurements for leopards from the Congo Basin forest and the adjacent forest/savanna mosaic habitat. The average skull length for 22 adult males was 254.2mm and for 18 females 193.4mm, a difference of 31.4%.


*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


For lions, we have average skull length for a total of 130 adult male and 126 adult female lion skulls from all over Africa, with male skulls being 21.2% larger. 


*This image is copyright of its original author


From the same paper, skull lengths of Kruger lions specifically and Bengal tigers. Kruger lions show a difference of 21% while Bengal tigers show 19.8%.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Again from the same paper, skull lengths of adult tigers from Southeast Asia, both Javan and Sumatran tigers show a difference of around 15.5%.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Skull measurements of Bengal, Caspian, and Amur tigers. A difference of 18.9% for Bengal tigers, 19.2% for Caspian tigers, and 23% for Amur tigers.


*This image is copyright of its original author

I didn't mention you in this post but if the shoe fits, oh well.

Here's the quoted study that you clearly didn't read and instead opted for taking the tables without the full context, I presume from a Tapatalk forum, for lion and tiger skull length measurements Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): Implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity, Yamaguchi et al.:


Wild male tigers had a skull length 17.5% larger than females, which is lesser than Llanos jaguars, wild male lions were 21.4% longer than females, only slightly above Llanos jaguar measurements in skull length only.

Lions separated into two different populations, interesting how you didn't put the Asiatic lion's skull length difference, I wonder why:


Melanochaita wild male lions had skull lengths larger consistently with the value above at 21.2%, whereas leo leo had skulls longer by 12.92%. The first population had males with skulls proportionally longer than females only 2% greater than Llanos jaguars, whereas in the second one the size difference between them and Llanos jaguars was 6.3% in favor of the jaguar, and very close to the skull size difference between Pantanal jaguars of 12.77%.

Let's go over the Sunda ad Malay tigers:


Bali tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.3%
Javan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 15.4%
Sumatran tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.5%
Malayan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 16.6%

Not only did you inflate the value of Sumatran tigers, but you purposely left out Bali tigers because the size difference in skull length between them is in fact lesser than Llanos jaguars and very close to Pantanal jaguars. In fact, Llanos jaguars had the largest size difference in skull length than all the tigers on the table above.

In my post, I mentioned skull length because I didn't feel like going by each measurement in skull size which also involves skull width, which is something you always conveniently leave out. Let's go over the skull width comparisons between Sunda tigers and jaguars. Again data from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:




Bali tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 19.6%
Javan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17.2%
Sumatran tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 18.2%
Malayan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 14%

Pantanal jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.6%
Llanos jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17%
Amazonian jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 9.8%
Central American jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.7%


Llanos jaguars had skull size differences greater than Malayan tigers and statistically equal to Javan tigers, the other jaguar populations had values lower but Pantanal and CA jaguars had values similar to Malayan tigers off by less than 2%.

For Central African leopards according to the tables you posted: males had an average skull width of 150.1 mm, females had an average skull width of 122.7 mm.

The tables you posted have the skull length of measurements of 28 adult male leopards, why did you say 22? Did you purposely discard the 5 young adult males from the sample of the Northeast Congo table? Seems like you did, do you know what this is called? Sample bias, you are ignoring the values of young adult males because they lower the average of the entire population as you're trying to inflate their value to make them seem bigger than what they truly are. Guess what? For all other felids, the age ranges used to determine average include very young to very old adults. This is no different than your attempt at trying to inflate the average weight of Natal leopard by only including the age class of prime individuals. Nice try.

The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%

Conclusion: the size differences in craniometric values for floodplain jaguars in fact overlap greatly with the values of lions and tigers across different populations, with the jaguars being lesser or higher depending on the population. The claim that jaguars show less sexual dimorphism in both body mass and skull size is false.

And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:


Persian leopards 245mm/162mm, 1.51:1
Central-West African leopards 244.7mm/150.1, 1.63:1

Therefore rainforest leopards have skulls that are about 12% longer in comparison to their width than Persian leopards. And since you like to use skull width to compare Central African leopard to jaguars to substantiate your claims that they supposedly overlap in size, then: 

1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.

2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7). Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author

And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.


Quote:The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%.
 
So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
Quote:And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:

And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?
Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).
Quote:1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.
But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

271 mm x 191 mm or 18.19" compared to the average Amazonian male jaguar (17.26"), female Pantanal jaguar (16.93"). The average Pantanal male jaguar has a score of 19.08" and the average Llanos male 19.04". I don't know about you but that is literally called an overlapping.

Quote:2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7).

How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:

The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.
What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.
Quote:So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Quote:Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

Quote:Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.

Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.

Quote:So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
 
Correct, I never questioned that, once again read my previous reply slowly.

Quote:And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?

Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. 

I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity.
Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Quote:For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).

It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Quote:But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

Quote:How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

I'm sorry are you serious right now? Weren't you using that same data from the table in your initial reply to me when comparing the sexually dimorphic traits of jaguars against other felids, including the data from jaguars in Central America? And you're calling me hypocritical? I'm at a loss for words, you should really take a moment to think about what you're going to say before you write it.

The data for Central American jaguars comes from the one scientifically publicized paper on jaguar morphology from this population, excluding Mexico. The sample size is small but it's what is available and thus what is to be used. You don't shy away from this data when it's time for you to underestimate jaguars in other sites, so why now?

Quote:The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.

No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Quote:What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards. 

Quote:Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.

The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

Quote:Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Quote:So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

How and where did you correct me? There are few big cat populations where the jaguar is comparable when talking about sexual dimorphism skull-wise. It's namely the tiger with some populations but overall they possess the least sexual dimorphism and that was my initial reaction. I never brought up their body weights because all (big) cats show sexual dimorphism, some more than others.

Quote:Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.
 
It didn't affect the outcome anyway, skull-wise leopards show the most extreme sexual dimorphism and I personally think overall they are no.1 at this. Re-read Jo Taylor's article and you'll see why they're no.1 when it comes to sexual dimorphism traits.
Quote:I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity. Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Well this is still a forum so you can do whatever you want but I fail to see how relevant this is to my initial post? 
I have always said that Central African leopards are no.1 with Persian leopards being the only ones able to match them. Here's a recent response of mine to someone who asked which African population produced the biggest leopards: https://carnivora.net/big-territorial-male-leopards-only-territorial-mal-t86-s555.html#p154527 . You'll see I still mention Iranian leopards.
Quote:You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.
Quote:It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


*This image is copyright of its original author

I added the + mark because, well that's how long the longest ones are bar the estimated one. I explicitly did not write 290+ because it's an estimated number. It doesn't matter how much above 280 mm it is. The + means it's above the mark and notice there's more than one from Central African (and one from Iran, where leopards roam who are able to best these leopards remember).
Quote:Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Did you even bother to look at the table for more than one second? There are leopards included from other area's than Central Africa or Iran such as Egypt, Sudan and Uganda. You already know I did not make this list; Chui decided to include leopards from scientific sources only. Thus it's not my fault that Central African leopards dominate the list, followed by Iranian leopards.

Quote:You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

I'm not deducting size differences among different species; I'm showing you the overlap between the two species. It doesn't matter if it's an outlier or a whole population; when they overlap, they overlap. Just deal with it.

Here's a great chart for you, take your time and analyse it, from Variation in Craniomandibular Morphology and Sexual Dimorphism in Pantherines and the Sabercat Smilodon fatalis. Note that the largest leopard skulls overlap in size with adult lioness and tigress skulls.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Quote:No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Central Africa and West Africa are not the same and the best example is wildlife protection. Even in well protected countries like Gabon, leopards face bushmeat hunter competition and in some area's they live under pristine circumstances. West Africa is much worse and the sample of those leopards originate from an area with different prey abundance compared to the ones we're discussing.

Quote:Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards.

I said the leopard was more impressive, does that automatically mean it's not small?? The leopard was measured in the same way as those jaguars.

Quote:The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

This was your claim:

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.
And now you suddenly want to add 20% to their body weight? Why 20%? Those leopards could've been near death you can't tell.
Quote:Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Check the chart I posted so you understand what overlapping is all about.

You said a lot in this post that didn't really contradict what I said before, jaguars depending on the population present as much sexual dimorphism as the other pantherines both in body mass and craniometric values. There's not much else to discuss here. Yes, leopards present perhaps one of the most drastic sexual differentiation among felids, baring perhaps the lion, but jaguars are not too far off (see Llanos jaguars and Persian leopards)

Out of all of your post, I'm only interested in going over this claim:

Quote:At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.

They simply do not, you need to understand that the correlation between skull values such as length is not equal among felids of different species, so you cannot assume that a leopard with a particularly long skull that could be said to be close to the average skull of a Pantanal jaguar will grow to the same dimensions, because jaguars having a relatively shorter but wider skull will always be larger if both cats were compared at skull length parity.

According to Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi's data, the average skull length of Pantanal jaguars was 290.5 mm, one of the longest leopard skulls comes from Population status of the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock, 1927) in Iran, here's the skull in question:


*This image is copyright of its original author

The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

So what do we know from looking at the data above? The two males whose weights were provided had a very similar body length of 213 and 212 cm, which suggests they were similar in size. The male with the 288 mm skull was gorged at the moment of his death, which likely elevated his weight in comparison to the other male whose was average in size but likely empty bellied. Even if we were to take the value that included the stomachal content for the skull bearing leopard, it still would not approach the values of 100 and 105 kg of average found for Pantanal and Llanos jaguars by Hoogesteijn and Moldolfi, despite that in paper the leopard skull approached similar dimensions in length.

What's more, is the width of the leopard skull of 182 mm falls short compared to the average for the jaguar population which is around 195 mm. So the Persian leopard, who you claim has the widest skull of the leopard proportionally, still falls short in comparison to the jaguar skulls. 

So once again, you need to understand that skull size goes beyond the scopes of skull length and you cannot utilize the skull length which proportionally varies across different species to assume their body mass correlations would be the same. This is why you have the skull of a leopard that was well below the average of Pantanal jaguar even while gorged, whilst having a very large skull that nearly approached a jaguar's dimensions in length. The same could be said for Central African leopards, IMO they have very long skulls in proportion to their bodies in comparison to other leopard populations, but the available data simply does not substantiate any claims of them being significantly larger than other leopards, let alone "Pantanal jaguar-sized" as you've claimed before. You can like and appreciate leopards without exaggerating their sizes, like them for what they are.

Quote:The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*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

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Where is it indicated that the skull belongs to the 86kg male? The paper references to figure 2 (the carcass of the leopard) and figure 7 (the skull itself). I never mentioned any of the two body weights of table 2.

So your whole analysis is based on a misconception of yours.

Don't confuse your lack of critical thinking for others' misconceptions:



*This image is copyright of its original author

Figures 2 and 7 are referenced here:

Figure 2:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Figure 7


*This image is copyright of its original author

The paper doesn't say they are different leopards either, but even if that was the case the leopard with the skull of 288mm in length would not approach the dimensions of a Pantanal jaguar considering its skull width is significantly lower and so would be his skull height. Another paper Status Assessment of the Persian Leopard in Iran actually details the maximum weight recorded by them for Persian leopards:



*This image is copyright of its original author

The heaviest leopard in this sample did not reach 80 kg. So for someone like you who likes to formulate extraordinary claims for leopard sizes the extraordinary data you need to substantiate your claim is completely lacking. There's no such a thing as "videographic" and "photographic evidence" as you like to call it when it comes to solid data on body mass. What we do have are hundreds of records of leopard weights, skulls, and body dimensions and neither of them reaches the proportions of an average-sized Pantanal jaguar.

You either learn to come to terms with reality or continue to spew the same nonsensical claims not based on hard science over and over again, either way, it will not make leopards magically reach the exaggerated proportions you wished they had.
Reply

Luipaard Offline
Leopard enthusiast
****

(03-12-2021, 10:02 PM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 09:39 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:33 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:03 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 02:11 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:14 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 08:27 PM)Balam Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 02:23 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-07-2021, 10:41 AM)Balam Wrote: I wanted to make this post to clear up some misconceptions I've seen spread regarding the sexual dimorphism on jaguars and how it compares to other felids of the genus Panthera. There is an idea I've seen that claims jaguars have the least pronounced sexual dimorphism among the pantherine felids and this somehow translates to them being the worst fighters (??). I find this claim to be, to put it mildly, ridiculous and speaks to how easy it is for people to spread misinformation about a species they dislike when the data used is skewed and the public it is being presented to might not be the most versed on the subject to push back against it.


In terms of body size, jaguars present sexual size differentiations that fall in line with what is seen with other pantherine cats, with males being usually 30% larger than females, while the largest individuals of each sex having a very drastic sexual demarcation, with the heaviest male being almost 50% larger than the heaviest female on record (100-110 kg vs 148 kg, Troncha/Lopez). Sexual size differences and therefore dimorphism also varies across different jaguars populations, as described by Hoogestijn and Mondolfi in their paper BODY MASS AND SKULL MEASUREMENTS IN FOUR JAGUAR POPULATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR PREY BASE (1996). Here, by comparing the size differences among the two largest populations, Llanos and Pantanal, it became clear that Llanos jaguars showed more pronounced size differences among the sexes:


The aspect ratio in weight differences between Llanos jaguars was 1.1:0.67, for Pantanal jaguars it was 1:0.77. In the Llanos, according to this study, the females were 36%, whereas in the Pantanal the gap between the sexes was 23%. By contrast, if we compare these ratios to Persian leopards, as an example, from Patterns of sexual dimorphism in the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor) and implications for sex differentiation by Farhadinia et al. we get the following:


Aspect ratio 0.66:0.45, with males being roughly 32% larger than females. Therefore, jaguars from the Llanos would show an even greater gap in size than Persian leopards, while Pantanal jaguars would remain with the smaller gap size among the three populations.

These size gaps remain constant with skull measurements as well:


In skull length, the Pantanal male jaguars had a longer skull by 11,3%, whereas with Llanos jaguars the skulls of the males were longer by 16.2%.
When we compare the ratio differences between floodplain jaguars and their immediate interspecific size counterparts, the Sunda tigers, we get the following results from the tigers, using the data on the greatest skull length of Mazak and Grove from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:


For the extant population of Sumatran tigers, male skulls were 12,51% longer than females, putting the size difference only slightly higher than Pantanal jaguars, but substantially lower than Llanos jaguars. So far, Llanos jaguars have shown the most drastic sexual dimorphism on weight craniometric measurements compared to three other populations of pantherines.

Here's 130 kg Ruxu mating with Jagua female, the size difference between these two could not be more obvious:



This discussion of marked sexual dimorphism is derived from a claim that jaguars having the least prominent secondary sexual differentiating traits somehow means that male jaguars are less equipped to fight in comparison to other pantherines, and the ones pushing for this idea focus on the dewlap in the leopard to make their points. What do actual scientists and biologists from reputable organizations have to say about the function of dewlaps in leopards? Johanna Taylor from Panthera released the following article on the subject:

"Mature male leopards are at least 60% larger than females, and broader, with larger chest girths and longer, bulkier heads. But there’s something else you may notice that sets males apart: Their thick necks can be adorned with a loose flap of skin hanging underneath. These skin folds are called dewlaps.

Dewlaps are observed in a variety of species throughout the animal kingdom, most notably in certain birds, lizards, and hoofed mammals. In mature male leopards, a well-developed dewlap is prominent and one of the best ways to determine age.
However, the function of leopard dewlaps remains unknown and largely unexplored. Since they are a sexually-dimorphic feature—meaning only one sex exhibits the trait—scientists speculate that this enigmatic ornament is linked to sexual selection or male fitness. 

Of another conspicuous, sexually-dimorphic feature among cats—the mane of a male lion—Charles Darwin postulated: “[It] forms a good defense against the one danger to which he is liable, namely the attacks of rival lions.”
The idea behind this hypothesis is that adaptations such as body armor or weaponry, like antlers on male deer, increase the ability of males competing against other males. Most often the winner is the lucky male who gets to mate with the female and pass on his genetics.

On the other hand, results of more contemporary research indicate that injuries sustained during fights between lions don’t appear to differ between maned and non-maned sub-adult males or even females. This outcome suggests that the mane/neck area is not a high-target region during fights. Instead, observations find that the back and hindquarters seem to be the targeted areas during confrontations.

Many biologists believe that a male lion’s mane serves as an indicator of sexual fitness. Studies using life-sized toy lions sporting contrasting mane colors and lengths found that male lions were more likely to approach the imposters with lighter, shorter manes, while female lions were drawn more to models with darker manes. These results suggest that males with shorter, blonder manes are less intimidating to rival males, and thus perceived to have lower overall fitness.

We can apply this theory to hypothesize about the functions of a dewlap on a male leopard. However, fights between elusive male leopards are rarely observed and documented by scientists. This makes it difficult to confirm if the leopard’s dewlap has any defensive functions. Likewise, it’s hard to determine if it serves a similar purpose to that of a large, dark mane in sexual selection, as an indicator of fitness and longevity.

Another speculation about the dewlap is that it simply makes mature leopard males appear larger and more intimidating to rivals. Typically, as a male leopard ages, his dewlap enlarges. Mature males hold wider territories and have more opportunity to mate with females.


This also means that there are more opportunities to come into conflict with other males seeking the same territory and females. It would be ideal to avoid physical confrontation, and potential injury, by being able to display fighting capability and fitness, thus deterring potential rivals without physically engaging them. Fighting with other males has potential to lead to injury or death. Even the smallest injuries can fester and inhibit hunting abilities, leading to a decline in body condition that could result in death.

Younger and smaller males may be dissuaded from engaging in a fight with a larger male sporting a more pronounced dewlap. Alternatively, estrous females may select a male with a larger dewlap, perceiving him to have greater fitness than his peers. As of yet, no studies have been conducted to determine if dewlap size correlates with testosterone levels or is linked to reproductive success as an indicator of longevity."

The claims stated above by Dr. Taylor are very clear in that the function of the dewlap in leopards as a sort of protection for males during territorial fights has little to no scientific standing and is not widely supported by biologists and researchers. Instead, much like many other species of animals, by making the neck of the leopard appears larger, males are able to avoid direct confrontation by intimidating smaller males who might not want to risk injury in the case of a fight that could prove fatal down the line.

It is also claimed that among 4 of the 5 pantherines in this discussion the jaguar shows the lesser external dimorphic traits and that besides the dewlap in leopards and the manes in lions, male tigers have ruffs around their heads which females, according to them, do not, and therefore that trait symbolizes that tigers have more frequent confrontations than jaguars. How exactly is a short patch of hair around the jaws supposed to defend a tiger from 10 cm canines is beyond me, but that is their claim.

This is of course not true, the ruff in tigers is present in both sexes and it not always consistent in size or occurrence at all. Here's a captive Sumatran couple mating, the female just like the male possesses a large ruff of hair around her head:


Here's a wild female displaying a small ruff as well:


By contrast, the very famous Umarpani male who is renowned for defending his territory and even going as far as to kill larger opponents in fights does not have ay ruff around his head:

According to the "hypothesis" of the external sexual dimorphic traits and their link to fighting abilities, one would expect a dominant male tiger such as Umarpai to show a very marked and distinct ruff around his head, but this is not the case. The lack of ruffs around the face can also be appreciated with Sundarbans tigers, female and male for comparison:



To further expand on the interspecific fights among jaguars and how they compare with other felids, jaguars in areas where resources are scarcer such as the Cerrado have shown to be particularly aggressive with each other. Last year we documented the case of a very large melanistic male named Tiago that was killed in a territorial dispute with a different male, and his adversary managed to get a grip of his nape which allowed him to tore it apart, killing the huge 117 kg jaguar. 
Jaguars in the Pantanal too have been recorded killing each other through the perforation of the skull, although in some areas jaguars may be more tolerant of each other and males may share territories in relative peace since the prey abundance of the area allows them to share resources, but this is not the universal case for jaguars.

With all of this being said, it's very clear that the idea that jaguars are somehow outliers among its cousin in terms of sexual dimorphism is a lie, there is no hard science to back up those assertions, just the conjectures of people with an agenda who need to hype up their favorite cat by spreading misinformation about another one they dislike. It's important to show hard data when participating in these discussions because otherwise the uninformed opinions of certain people may be confused for facts and quickly spread around among more easily impressionable minds.

I don't know where this statement comes from (i.e. having the least sexual dimorphism resulting in being worse fighters) nor do I believe it, but skull-wise jaguars do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Compared to females, adult male skulls from Central America were 13.2% larger, from the Amazon 10.8% larger, from the Pantanal 12.8% larger, and from the Llanos 19.3% larger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


The following tables from Pocock and Allen show skull measurements for leopards from the Congo Basin forest and the adjacent forest/savanna mosaic habitat. The average skull length for 22 adult males was 254.2mm and for 18 females 193.4mm, a difference of 31.4%.


*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


For lions, we have average skull length for a total of 130 adult male and 126 adult female lion skulls from all over Africa, with male skulls being 21.2% larger. 


*This image is copyright of its original author


From the same paper, skull lengths of Kruger lions specifically and Bengal tigers. Kruger lions show a difference of 21% while Bengal tigers show 19.8%.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Again from the same paper, skull lengths of adult tigers from Southeast Asia, both Javan and Sumatran tigers show a difference of around 15.5%.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Skull measurements of Bengal, Caspian, and Amur tigers. A difference of 18.9% for Bengal tigers, 19.2% for Caspian tigers, and 23% for Amur tigers.


*This image is copyright of its original author

I didn't mention you in this post but if the shoe fits, oh well.

Here's the quoted study that you clearly didn't read and instead opted for taking the tables without the full context, I presume from a Tapatalk forum, for lion and tiger skull length measurements Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): Implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity, Yamaguchi et al.:


Wild male tigers had a skull length 17.5% larger than females, which is lesser than Llanos jaguars, wild male lions were 21.4% longer than females, only slightly above Llanos jaguar measurements in skull length only.

Lions separated into two different populations, interesting how you didn't put the Asiatic lion's skull length difference, I wonder why:


Melanochaita wild male lions had skull lengths larger consistently with the value above at 21.2%, whereas leo leo had skulls longer by 12.92%. The first population had males with skulls proportionally longer than females only 2% greater than Llanos jaguars, whereas in the second one the size difference between them and Llanos jaguars was 6.3% in favor of the jaguar, and very close to the skull size difference between Pantanal jaguars of 12.77%.

Let's go over the Sunda ad Malay tigers:


Bali tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.3%
Javan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 15.4%
Sumatran tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.5%
Malayan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 16.6%

Not only did you inflate the value of Sumatran tigers, but you purposely left out Bali tigers because the size difference in skull length between them is in fact lesser than Llanos jaguars and very close to Pantanal jaguars. In fact, Llanos jaguars had the largest size difference in skull length than all the tigers on the table above.

In my post, I mentioned skull length because I didn't feel like going by each measurement in skull size which also involves skull width, which is something you always conveniently leave out. Let's go over the skull width comparisons between Sunda tigers and jaguars. Again data from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:




Bali tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 19.6%
Javan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17.2%
Sumatran tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 18.2%
Malayan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 14%

Pantanal jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.6%
Llanos jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17%
Amazonian jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 9.8%
Central American jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.7%


Llanos jaguars had skull size differences greater than Malayan tigers and statistically equal to Javan tigers, the other jaguar populations had values lower but Pantanal and CA jaguars had values similar to Malayan tigers off by less than 2%.

For Central African leopards according to the tables you posted: males had an average skull width of 150.1 mm, females had an average skull width of 122.7 mm.

The tables you posted have the skull length of measurements of 28 adult male leopards, why did you say 22? Did you purposely discard the 5 young adult males from the sample of the Northeast Congo table? Seems like you did, do you know what this is called? Sample bias, you are ignoring the values of young adult males because they lower the average of the entire population as you're trying to inflate their value to make them seem bigger than what they truly are. Guess what? For all other felids, the age ranges used to determine average include very young to very old adults. This is no different than your attempt at trying to inflate the average weight of Natal leopard by only including the age class of prime individuals. Nice try.

The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%

Conclusion: the size differences in craniometric values for floodplain jaguars in fact overlap greatly with the values of lions and tigers across different populations, with the jaguars being lesser or higher depending on the population. The claim that jaguars show less sexual dimorphism in both body mass and skull size is false.

And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:


Persian leopards 245mm/162mm, 1.51:1
Central-West African leopards 244.7mm/150.1, 1.63:1

Therefore rainforest leopards have skulls that are about 12% longer in comparison to their width than Persian leopards. And since you like to use skull width to compare Central African leopard to jaguars to substantiate your claims that they supposedly overlap in size, then: 

1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.

2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7). Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author

And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.


Quote:The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%.
 
So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
Quote:And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:

And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?
Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).
Quote:1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.
But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

271 mm x 191 mm or 18.19" compared to the average Amazonian male jaguar (17.26"), female Pantanal jaguar (16.93"). The average Pantanal male jaguar has a score of 19.08" and the average Llanos male 19.04". I don't know about you but that is literally called an overlapping.

Quote:2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7).

How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:

The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.
What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.
Quote:So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Quote:Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

Quote:Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.

Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.

Quote:So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
 
Correct, I never questioned that, once again read my previous reply slowly.

Quote:And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?

Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. 

I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity.
Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Quote:For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).

It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Quote:But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

Quote:How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

I'm sorry are you serious right now? Weren't you using that same data from the table in your initial reply to me when comparing the sexually dimorphic traits of jaguars against other felids, including the data from jaguars in Central America? And you're calling me hypocritical? I'm at a loss for words, you should really take a moment to think about what you're going to say before you write it.

The data for Central American jaguars comes from the one scientifically publicized paper on jaguar morphology from this population, excluding Mexico. The sample size is small but it's what is available and thus what is to be used. You don't shy away from this data when it's time for you to underestimate jaguars in other sites, so why now?

Quote:The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.

No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Quote:What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards. 

Quote:Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.

The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

Quote:Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Quote:So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

How and where did you correct me? There are few big cat populations where the jaguar is comparable when talking about sexual dimorphism skull-wise. It's namely the tiger with some populations but overall they possess the least sexual dimorphism and that was my initial reaction. I never brought up their body weights because all (big) cats show sexual dimorphism, some more than others.

Quote:Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.
 
It didn't affect the outcome anyway, skull-wise leopards show the most extreme sexual dimorphism and I personally think overall they are no.1 at this. Re-read Jo Taylor's article and you'll see why they're no.1 when it comes to sexual dimorphism traits.
Quote:I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity. Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Well this is still a forum so you can do whatever you want but I fail to see how relevant this is to my initial post? 
I have always said that Central African leopards are no.1 with Persian leopards being the only ones able to match them. Here's a recent response of mine to someone who asked which African population produced the biggest leopards: https://carnivora.net/big-territorial-male-leopards-only-territorial-mal-t86-s555.html#p154527 . You'll see I still mention Iranian leopards.
Quote:You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.
Quote:It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


*This image is copyright of its original author

I added the + mark because, well that's how long the longest ones are bar the estimated one. I explicitly did not write 290+ because it's an estimated number. It doesn't matter how much above 280 mm it is. The + means it's above the mark and notice there's more than one from Central African (and one from Iran, where leopards roam who are able to best these leopards remember).
Quote:Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Did you even bother to look at the table for more than one second? There are leopards included from other area's than Central Africa or Iran such as Egypt, Sudan and Uganda. You already know I did not make this list; Chui decided to include leopards from scientific sources only. Thus it's not my fault that Central African leopards dominate the list, followed by Iranian leopards.

Quote:You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

I'm not deducting size differences among different species; I'm showing you the overlap between the two species. It doesn't matter if it's an outlier or a whole population; when they overlap, they overlap. Just deal with it.

Here's a great chart for you, take your time and analyse it, from Variation in Craniomandibular Morphology and Sexual Dimorphism in Pantherines and the Sabercat Smilodon fatalis. Note that the largest leopard skulls overlap in size with adult lioness and tigress skulls.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Quote:No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Central Africa and West Africa are not the same and the best example is wildlife protection. Even in well protected countries like Gabon, leopards face bushmeat hunter competition and in some area's they live under pristine circumstances. West Africa is much worse and the sample of those leopards originate from an area with different prey abundance compared to the ones we're discussing.

Quote:Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards.

I said the leopard was more impressive, does that automatically mean it's not small?? The leopard was measured in the same way as those jaguars.

Quote:The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

This was your claim:

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.
And now you suddenly want to add 20% to their body weight? Why 20%? Those leopards could've been near death you can't tell.
Quote:Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Check the chart I posted so you understand what overlapping is all about.

You said a lot in this post that didn't really contradict what I said before, jaguars depending on the population present as much sexual dimorphism as the other pantherines both in body mass and craniometric values. There's not much else to discuss here. Yes, leopards present perhaps one of the most drastic sexual differentiation among felids, baring perhaps the lion, but jaguars are not too far off (see Llanos jaguars and Persian leopards)

Out of all of your post, I'm only interested in going over this claim:

Quote:At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.

They simply do not, you need to understand that the correlation between skull values such as length is not equal among felids of different species, so you cannot assume that a leopard with a particularly long skull that could be said to be close to the average skull of a Pantanal jaguar will grow to the same dimensions, because jaguars having a relatively shorter but wider skull will always be larger if both cats were compared at skull length parity.

According to Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi's data, the average skull length of Pantanal jaguars was 290.5 mm, one of the longest leopard skulls comes from Population status of the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock, 1927) in Iran, here's the skull in question:


*This image is copyright of its original author

The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

So what do we know from looking at the data above? The two males whose weights were provided had a very similar body length of 213 and 212 cm, which suggests they were similar in size. The male with the 288 mm skull was gorged at the moment of his death, which likely elevated his weight in comparison to the other male whose was average in size but likely empty bellied. Even if we were to take the value that included the stomachal content for the skull bearing leopard, it still would not approach the values of 100 and 105 kg of average found for Pantanal and Llanos jaguars by Hoogesteijn and Moldolfi, despite that in paper the leopard skull approached similar dimensions in length.

What's more, is the width of the leopard skull of 182 mm falls short compared to the average for the jaguar population which is around 195 mm. So the Persian leopard, who you claim has the widest skull of the leopard proportionally, still falls short in comparison to the jaguar skulls. 

So once again, you need to understand that skull size goes beyond the scopes of skull length and you cannot utilize the skull length which proportionally varies across different species to assume their body mass correlations would be the same. This is why you have the skull of a leopard that was well below the average of Pantanal jaguar even while gorged, whilst having a very large skull that nearly approached a jaguar's dimensions in length. The same could be said for Central African leopards, IMO they have very long skulls in proportion to their bodies in comparison to other leopard populations, but the available data simply does not substantiate any claims of them being significantly larger than other leopards, let alone "Pantanal jaguar-sized" as you've claimed before. You can like and appreciate leopards without exaggerating their sizes, like them for what they are.

Quote:The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*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

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Where is it indicated that the skull belongs to the 86kg male? The paper references to figure 2 (the carcass of the leopard) and figure 7 (the skull itself). I never mentioned any of the two body weights of table 2.

So your whole analysis is based on a misconception of yours.

Don't confuse your lack of critical thinking for others' misconceptions:



*This image is copyright of its original author

Figures 2 and 7 are referenced here:

Figure 2:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Figure 7


*This image is copyright of its original author

The paper doesn't say they are different leopards either, but even if that was the case the leopard with the skull of 288mm in length would not approach the dimensions of a Pantanal jaguar considering its skull width is significantly lower and so would be his skull height. Another paper Status Assessment of the Persian Leopard in Iran actually details the maximum weight recorded by them for Persian leopards:



*This image is copyright of its original author

The heaviest leopard in this sample did not reach 80 kg. So for someone like you who likes to formulate extraordinary claims for leopard sizes the extraordinary data you need to substantiate your claim is completely lacking. There's no such a thing as "videographic" and "photographic evidence" as you like to call it when it comes to solid data on body mass. What we do have are hundreds of records of leopard weights, skulls, and body dimensions and neither of them reaches the proportions of an average-sized Pantanal jaguar.

You either learn to come to terms with reality or continue to spew the same nonsensical claims not based on hard science over and over again, either way, it will not make leopards magically reach the exaggerated proportions you wished they had.

Quote:The paper doesn't say they are different leopards either

If it was, they would've obviously mentioned it, that's called common sense.

Quote:but even if that was the case the leopard with the skull of 288mm in length would not approach the dimensions of a Pantanal jaguar considering its skull width is significantly lower and so would be his skull height.

Significantly lower... A Pantanal one is 7.65" wide whereas this Persian was 7.13". That's one exaggeration to say the least.

Quote:Another paper Status Assessment of the Persian Leopard in Iran actually details the maximum weight recorded by them for Persian leopards:

The heaviest leopard in this sample did not reach 80 kg. So for someone like you who likes to formulate extraordinary claims for leopard sizes the extraordinary data you need to substantiate your claim is completely lacking

A sample of 9 leopards and we don't know their gender. The sample could consist mainly of female leopards we don't know this. This chart is the most accurate because they seperated males from females:


*This image is copyright of its original author


Here 7 males weighed more than 80kg including 3 in the 90kg-95kg weight range which is close to an average-sized Pantanal male based on the data you yourself posted:


*This image is copyright of its original author


Quote:What we do have are hundreds of records of leopard weights, skulls, and body dimensions and neither of them reaches the proportions of an average-sized Pantanal jaguar.

I can actually post an individual with similar body proportions of a Pantanal male jaguar but his weight is lacking.
Reply

Canada Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****
( This post was last modified: 03-13-2021, 12:24 AM by Balam )

(03-12-2021, 11:40 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 10:02 PM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 09:39 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:33 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:03 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 02:11 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:14 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 08:27 PM)Balam Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 02:23 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-07-2021, 10:41 AM)Balam Wrote: I wanted to make this post to clear up some misconceptions I've seen spread regarding the sexual dimorphism on jaguars and how it compares to other felids of the genus Panthera. There is an idea I've seen that claims jaguars have the least pronounced sexual dimorphism among the pantherine felids and this somehow translates to them being the worst fighters (??). I find this claim to be, to put it mildly, ridiculous and speaks to how easy it is for people to spread misinformation about a species they dislike when the data used is skewed and the public it is being presented to might not be the most versed on the subject to push back against it.


In terms of body size, jaguars present sexual size differentiations that fall in line with what is seen with other pantherine cats, with males being usually 30% larger than females, while the largest individuals of each sex having a very drastic sexual demarcation, with the heaviest male being almost 50% larger than the heaviest female on record (100-110 kg vs 148 kg, Troncha/Lopez). Sexual size differences and therefore dimorphism also varies across different jaguars populations, as described by Hoogestijn and Mondolfi in their paper BODY MASS AND SKULL MEASUREMENTS IN FOUR JAGUAR POPULATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR PREY BASE (1996). Here, by comparing the size differences among the two largest populations, Llanos and Pantanal, it became clear that Llanos jaguars showed more pronounced size differences among the sexes:


The aspect ratio in weight differences between Llanos jaguars was 1.1:0.67, for Pantanal jaguars it was 1:0.77. In the Llanos, according to this study, the females were 36%, whereas in the Pantanal the gap between the sexes was 23%. By contrast, if we compare these ratios to Persian leopards, as an example, from Patterns of sexual dimorphism in the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor) and implications for sex differentiation by Farhadinia et al. we get the following:


Aspect ratio 0.66:0.45, with males being roughly 32% larger than females. Therefore, jaguars from the Llanos would show an even greater gap in size than Persian leopards, while Pantanal jaguars would remain with the smaller gap size among the three populations.

These size gaps remain constant with skull measurements as well:


In skull length, the Pantanal male jaguars had a longer skull by 11,3%, whereas with Llanos jaguars the skulls of the males were longer by 16.2%.
When we compare the ratio differences between floodplain jaguars and their immediate interspecific size counterparts, the Sunda tigers, we get the following results from the tigers, using the data on the greatest skull length of Mazak and Grove from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:


For the extant population of Sumatran tigers, male skulls were 12,51% longer than females, putting the size difference only slightly higher than Pantanal jaguars, but substantially lower than Llanos jaguars. So far, Llanos jaguars have shown the most drastic sexual dimorphism on weight craniometric measurements compared to three other populations of pantherines.

Here's 130 kg Ruxu mating with Jagua female, the size difference between these two could not be more obvious:



This discussion of marked sexual dimorphism is derived from a claim that jaguars having the least prominent secondary sexual differentiating traits somehow means that male jaguars are less equipped to fight in comparison to other pantherines, and the ones pushing for this idea focus on the dewlap in the leopard to make their points. What do actual scientists and biologists from reputable organizations have to say about the function of dewlaps in leopards? Johanna Taylor from Panthera released the following article on the subject:

"Mature male leopards are at least 60% larger than females, and broader, with larger chest girths and longer, bulkier heads. But there’s something else you may notice that sets males apart: Their thick necks can be adorned with a loose flap of skin hanging underneath. These skin folds are called dewlaps.

Dewlaps are observed in a variety of species throughout the animal kingdom, most notably in certain birds, lizards, and hoofed mammals. In mature male leopards, a well-developed dewlap is prominent and one of the best ways to determine age.
However, the function of leopard dewlaps remains unknown and largely unexplored. Since they are a sexually-dimorphic feature—meaning only one sex exhibits the trait—scientists speculate that this enigmatic ornament is linked to sexual selection or male fitness. 

Of another conspicuous, sexually-dimorphic feature among cats—the mane of a male lion—Charles Darwin postulated: “[It] forms a good defense against the one danger to which he is liable, namely the attacks of rival lions.”
The idea behind this hypothesis is that adaptations such as body armor or weaponry, like antlers on male deer, increase the ability of males competing against other males. Most often the winner is the lucky male who gets to mate with the female and pass on his genetics.

On the other hand, results of more contemporary research indicate that injuries sustained during fights between lions don’t appear to differ between maned and non-maned sub-adult males or even females. This outcome suggests that the mane/neck area is not a high-target region during fights. Instead, observations find that the back and hindquarters seem to be the targeted areas during confrontations.

Many biologists believe that a male lion’s mane serves as an indicator of sexual fitness. Studies using life-sized toy lions sporting contrasting mane colors and lengths found that male lions were more likely to approach the imposters with lighter, shorter manes, while female lions were drawn more to models with darker manes. These results suggest that males with shorter, blonder manes are less intimidating to rival males, and thus perceived to have lower overall fitness.

We can apply this theory to hypothesize about the functions of a dewlap on a male leopard. However, fights between elusive male leopards are rarely observed and documented by scientists. This makes it difficult to confirm if the leopard’s dewlap has any defensive functions. Likewise, it’s hard to determine if it serves a similar purpose to that of a large, dark mane in sexual selection, as an indicator of fitness and longevity.

Another speculation about the dewlap is that it simply makes mature leopard males appear larger and more intimidating to rivals. Typically, as a male leopard ages, his dewlap enlarges. Mature males hold wider territories and have more opportunity to mate with females.


This also means that there are more opportunities to come into conflict with other males seeking the same territory and females. It would be ideal to avoid physical confrontation, and potential injury, by being able to display fighting capability and fitness, thus deterring potential rivals without physically engaging them. Fighting with other males has potential to lead to injury or death. Even the smallest injuries can fester and inhibit hunting abilities, leading to a decline in body condition that could result in death.

Younger and smaller males may be dissuaded from engaging in a fight with a larger male sporting a more pronounced dewlap. Alternatively, estrous females may select a male with a larger dewlap, perceiving him to have greater fitness than his peers. As of yet, no studies have been conducted to determine if dewlap size correlates with testosterone levels or is linked to reproductive success as an indicator of longevity."

The claims stated above by Dr. Taylor are very clear in that the function of the dewlap in leopards as a sort of protection for males during territorial fights has little to no scientific standing and is not widely supported by biologists and researchers. Instead, much like many other species of animals, by making the neck of the leopard appears larger, males are able to avoid direct confrontation by intimidating smaller males who might not want to risk injury in the case of a fight that could prove fatal down the line.

It is also claimed that among 4 of the 5 pantherines in this discussion the jaguar shows the lesser external dimorphic traits and that besides the dewlap in leopards and the manes in lions, male tigers have ruffs around their heads which females, according to them, do not, and therefore that trait symbolizes that tigers have more frequent confrontations than jaguars. How exactly is a short patch of hair around the jaws supposed to defend a tiger from 10 cm canines is beyond me, but that is their claim.

This is of course not true, the ruff in tigers is present in both sexes and it not always consistent in size or occurrence at all. Here's a captive Sumatran couple mating, the female just like the male possesses a large ruff of hair around her head:


Here's a wild female displaying a small ruff as well:


By contrast, the very famous Umarpani male who is renowned for defending his territory and even going as far as to kill larger opponents in fights does not have ay ruff around his head:

According to the "hypothesis" of the external sexual dimorphic traits and their link to fighting abilities, one would expect a dominant male tiger such as Umarpai to show a very marked and distinct ruff around his head, but this is not the case. The lack of ruffs around the face can also be appreciated with Sundarbans tigers, female and male for comparison:



To further expand on the interspecific fights among jaguars and how they compare with other felids, jaguars in areas where resources are scarcer such as the Cerrado have shown to be particularly aggressive with each other. Last year we documented the case of a very large melanistic male named Tiago that was killed in a territorial dispute with a different male, and his adversary managed to get a grip of his nape which allowed him to tore it apart, killing the huge 117 kg jaguar. 
Jaguars in the Pantanal too have been recorded killing each other through the perforation of the skull, although in some areas jaguars may be more tolerant of each other and males may share territories in relative peace since the prey abundance of the area allows them to share resources, but this is not the universal case for jaguars.

With all of this being said, it's very clear that the idea that jaguars are somehow outliers among its cousin in terms of sexual dimorphism is a lie, there is no hard science to back up those assertions, just the conjectures of people with an agenda who need to hype up their favorite cat by spreading misinformation about another one they dislike. It's important to show hard data when participating in these discussions because otherwise the uninformed opinions of certain people may be confused for facts and quickly spread around among more easily impressionable minds.

I don't know where this statement comes from (i.e. having the least sexual dimorphism resulting in being worse fighters) nor do I believe it, but skull-wise jaguars do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Compared to females, adult male skulls from Central America were 13.2% larger, from the Amazon 10.8% larger, from the Pantanal 12.8% larger, and from the Llanos 19.3% larger:


*This image is copyright of its original author


The following tables from Pocock and Allen show skull measurements for leopards from the Congo Basin forest and the adjacent forest/savanna mosaic habitat. The average skull length for 22 adult males was 254.2mm and for 18 females 193.4mm, a difference of 31.4%.




*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author


For lions, we have average skull length for a total of 130 adult male and 126 adult female lion skulls from all over Africa, with male skulls being 21.2% larger. 


*This image is copyright of its original author


From the same paper, skull lengths of Kruger lions specifically and Bengal tigers. Kruger lions show a difference of 21% while Bengal tigers show 19.8%.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Again from the same paper, skull lengths of adult tigers from Southeast Asia, both Javan and Sumatran tigers show a difference of around 15.5%.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Skull measurements of Bengal, Caspian, and Amur tigers. A difference of 18.9% for Bengal tigers, 19.2% for Caspian tigers, and 23% for Amur tigers.


*This image is copyright of its original author

I didn't mention you in this post but if the shoe fits, oh well.

Here's the quoted study that you clearly didn't read and instead opted for taking the tables without the full context, I presume from a Tapatalk forum, for lion and tiger skull length measurements Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): Implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity, Yamaguchi et al.:


Wild male tigers had a skull length 17.5% larger than females, which is lesser than Llanos jaguars, wild male lions were 21.4% longer than females, only slightly above Llanos jaguar measurements in skull length only.

Lions separated into two different populations, interesting how you didn't put the Asiatic lion's skull length difference, I wonder why:


Melanochaita wild male lions had skull lengths larger consistently with the value above at 21.2%, whereas leo leo had skulls longer by 12.92%. The first population had males with skulls proportionally longer than females only 2% greater than Llanos jaguars, whereas in the second one the size difference between them and Llanos jaguars was 6.3% in favor of the jaguar, and very close to the skull size difference between Pantanal jaguars of 12.77%.

Let's go over the Sunda ad Malay tigers:


Bali tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.3%
Javan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 15.4%
Sumatran tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.5%
Malayan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 16.6%

Not only did you inflate the value of Sumatran tigers, but you purposely left out Bali tigers because the size difference in skull length between them is in fact lesser than Llanos jaguars and very close to Pantanal jaguars. In fact, Llanos jaguars had the largest size difference in skull length than all the tigers on the table above.

In my post, I mentioned skull length because I didn't feel like going by each measurement in skull size which also involves skull width, which is something you always conveniently leave out. Let's go over the skull width comparisons between Sunda tigers and jaguars. Again data from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:




Bali tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 19.6%
Javan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17.2%
Sumatran tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 18.2%
Malayan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 14%

Pantanal jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.6%
Llanos jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17%
Amazonian jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 9.8%
Central American jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.7%


Llanos jaguars had skull size differences greater than Malayan tigers and statistically equal to Javan tigers, the other jaguar populations had values lower but Pantanal and CA jaguars had values similar to Malayan tigers off by less than 2%.

For Central African leopards according to the tables you posted: males had an average skull width of 150.1 mm, females had an average skull width of 122.7 mm.

The tables you posted have the skull length of measurements of 28 adult male leopards, why did you say 22? Did you purposely discard the 5 young adult males from the sample of the Northeast Congo table? Seems like you did, do you know what this is called? Sample bias, you are ignoring the values of young adult males because they lower the average of the entire population as you're trying to inflate their value to make them seem bigger than what they truly are. Guess what? For all other felids, the age ranges used to determine average include very young to very old adults. This is no different than your attempt at trying to inflate the average weight of Natal leopard by only including the age class of prime individuals. Nice try.

The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%

Conclusion: the size differences in craniometric values for floodplain jaguars in fact overlap greatly with the values of lions and tigers across different populations, with the jaguars being lesser or higher depending on the population. The claim that jaguars show less sexual dimorphism in both body mass and skull size is false.

And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:


Persian leopards 245mm/162mm, 1.51:1
Central-West African leopards 244.7mm/150.1, 1.63:1

Therefore rainforest leopards have skulls that are about 12% longer in comparison to their width than Persian leopards. And since you like to use skull width to compare Central African leopard to jaguars to substantiate your claims that they supposedly overlap in size, then: 

1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.

2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7). Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author

And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.


Quote:The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%.
 
So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
Quote:And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:

And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?
Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).
Quote:1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.
But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

271 mm x 191 mm or 18.19" compared to the average Amazonian male jaguar (17.26"), female Pantanal jaguar (16.93"). The average Pantanal male jaguar has a score of 19.08" and the average Llanos male 19.04". I don't know about you but that is literally called an overlapping.

Quote:2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7).

How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:

The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.
What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.
Quote:So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Quote:Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

Quote:Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.

Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.

Quote:So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
 
Correct, I never questioned that, once again read my previous reply slowly.

Quote:And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?

Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. 

I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity.
Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Quote:For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).

It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Quote:But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

Quote:How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

I'm sorry are you serious right now? Weren't you using that same data from the table in your initial reply to me when comparing the sexually dimorphic traits of jaguars against other felids, including the data from jaguars in Central America? And you're calling me hypocritical? I'm at a loss for words, you should really take a moment to think about what you're going to say before you write it.

The data for Central American jaguars comes from the one scientifically publicized paper on jaguar morphology from this population, excluding Mexico. The sample size is small but it's what is available and thus what is to be used. You don't shy away from this data when it's time for you to underestimate jaguars in other sites, so why now?

Quote:The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.

No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Quote:What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards. 

Quote:Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.

The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

Quote:Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Quote:So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

How and where did you correct me? There are few big cat populations where the jaguar is comparable when talking about sexual dimorphism skull-wise. It's namely the tiger with some populations but overall they possess the least sexual dimorphism and that was my initial reaction. I never brought up their body weights because all (big) cats show sexual dimorphism, some more than others.

Quote:Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.
 
It didn't affect the outcome anyway, skull-wise leopards show the most extreme sexual dimorphism and I personally think overall they are no.1 at this. Re-read Jo Taylor's article and you'll see why they're no.1 when it comes to sexual dimorphism traits.
Quote:I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity. Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Well this is still a forum so you can do whatever you want but I fail to see how relevant this is to my initial post? 
I have always said that Central African leopards are no.1 with Persian leopards being the only ones able to match them. Here's a recent response of mine to someone who asked which African population produced the biggest leopards: https://carnivora.net/big-territorial-male-leopards-only-territorial-mal-t86-s555.html#p154527 . You'll see I still mention Iranian leopards.
Quote:You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.
Quote:It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


*This image is copyright of its original author

I added the + mark because, well that's how long the longest ones are bar the estimated one. I explicitly did not write 290+ because it's an estimated number. It doesn't matter how much above 280 mm it is. The + means it's above the mark and notice there's more than one from Central African (and one from Iran, where leopards roam who are able to best these leopards remember).
Quote:Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Did you even bother to look at the table for more than one second? There are leopards included from other area's than Central Africa or Iran such as Egypt, Sudan and Uganda. You already know I did not make this list; Chui decided to include leopards from scientific sources only. Thus it's not my fault that Central African leopards dominate the list, followed by Iranian leopards.

Quote:You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

I'm not deducting size differences among different species; I'm showing you the overlap between the two species. It doesn't matter if it's an outlier or a whole population; when they overlap, they overlap. Just deal with it.

Here's a great chart for you, take your time and analyse it, from Variation in Craniomandibular Morphology and Sexual Dimorphism in Pantherines and the Sabercat Smilodon fatalis. Note that the largest leopard skulls overlap in size with adult lioness and tigress skulls.


*This image is copyright of its original author


Quote:No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Central Africa and West Africa are not the same and the best example is wildlife protection. Even in well protected countries like Gabon, leopards face bushmeat hunter competition and in some area's they live under pristine circumstances. West Africa is much worse and the sample of those leopards originate from an area with different prey abundance compared to the ones we're discussing.

Quote:Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards.

I said the leopard was more impressive, does that automatically mean it's not small?? The leopard was measured in the same way as those jaguars.

Quote:The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

This was your claim:

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.
And now you suddenly want to add 20% to their body weight? Why 20%? Those leopards could've been near death you can't tell.
Quote:Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Check the chart I posted so you understand what overlapping is all about.

You said a lot in this post that didn't really contradict what I said before, jaguars depending on the population present as much sexual dimorphism as the other pantherines both in body mass and craniometric values. There's not much else to discuss here. Yes, leopards present perhaps one of the most drastic sexual differentiation among felids, baring perhaps the lion, but jaguars are not too far off (see Llanos jaguars and Persian leopards)

Out of all of your post, I'm only interested in going over this claim:

Quote:At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.

They simply do not, you need to understand that the correlation between skull values such as length is not equal among felids of different species, so you cannot assume that a leopard with a particularly long skull that could be said to be close to the average skull of a Pantanal jaguar will grow to the same dimensions, because jaguars having a relatively shorter but wider skull will always be larger if both cats were compared at skull length parity.

According to Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi's data, the average skull length of Pantanal jaguars was 290.5 mm, one of the longest leopard skulls comes from Population status of the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock, 1927) in Iran, here's the skull in question:


*This image is copyright of its original author

The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

So what do we know from looking at the data above? The two males whose weights were provided had a very similar body length of 213 and 212 cm, which suggests they were similar in size. The male with the 288 mm skull was gorged at the moment of his death, which likely elevated his weight in comparison to the other male whose was average in size but likely empty bellied. Even if we were to take the value that included the stomachal content for the skull bearing leopard, it still would not approach the values of 100 and 105 kg of average found for Pantanal and Llanos jaguars by Hoogesteijn and Moldolfi, despite that in paper the leopard skull approached similar dimensions in length.

What's more, is the width of the leopard skull of 182 mm falls short compared to the average for the jaguar population which is around 195 mm. So the Persian leopard, who you claim has the widest skull of the leopard proportionally, still falls short in comparison to the jaguar skulls. 

So once again, you need to understand that skull size goes beyond the scopes of skull length and you cannot utilize the skull length which proportionally varies across different species to assume their body mass correlations would be the same. This is why you have the skull of a leopard that was well below the average of Pantanal jaguar even while gorged, whilst having a very large skull that nearly approached a jaguar's dimensions in length. The same could be said for Central African leopards, IMO they have very long skulls in proportion to their bodies in comparison to other leopard populations, but the available data simply does not substantiate any claims of them being significantly larger than other leopards, let alone "Pantanal jaguar-sized" as you've claimed before. You can like and appreciate leopards without exaggerating their sizes, like them for what they are.

Quote:The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*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

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Where is it indicated that the skull belongs to the 86kg male? The paper references to figure 2 (the carcass of the leopard) and figure 7 (the skull itself). I never mentioned any of the two body weights of table 2.

So your whole analysis is based on a misconception of yours.

Don't confuse your lack of critical thinking for others' misconceptions:



*This image is copyright of its original author

Figures 2 and 7 are referenced here:

Figure 2:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Figure 7


*This image is copyright of its original author

The paper doesn't say they are different leopards either, but even if that was the case the leopard with the skull of 288mm in length would not approach the dimensions of a Pantanal jaguar considering its skull width is significantly lower and so would be his skull height. Another paper Status Assessment of the Persian Leopard in Iran actually details the maximum weight recorded by them for Persian leopards:



*This image is copyright of its original author

The heaviest leopard in this sample did not reach 80 kg. So for someone like you who likes to formulate extraordinary claims for leopard sizes the extraordinary data you need to substantiate your claim is completely lacking. There's no such a thing as "videographic" and "photographic evidence" as you like to call it when it comes to solid data on body mass. What we do have are hundreds of records of leopard weights, skulls, and body dimensions and neither of them reaches the proportions of an average-sized Pantanal jaguar.

You either learn to come to terms with reality or continue to spew the same nonsensical claims not based on hard science over and over again, either way, it will not make leopards magically reach the exaggerated proportions you wished they had.

Quote:The paper doesn't say they are different leopards either

If it was, they would've obviously mentioned it, that's called common sense.

Quote:but even if that was the case the leopard with the skull of 288mm in length would not approach the dimensions of a Pantanal jaguar considering its skull width is significantly lower and so would be his skull height.

Significantly lower... A Pantanal one is 7.65" wide whereas this Persian was 7.13". That's one exaggeration to say the least.

Quote:Another paper Status Assessment of the Persian Leopard in Iran actually details the maximum weight recorded by them for Persian leopards:

The heaviest leopard in this sample did not reach 80 kg. So for someone like you who likes to formulate extraordinary claims for leopard sizes the extraordinary data you need to substantiate your claim is completely lacking

A sample of 9 leopards and we don't know their gender. The sample could consist mainly of female leopards we don't know this. This chart is the most accurate because they seperated males from females:


*This image is copyright of its original author


Here 7 males weighed more than 80kg including 3 in the 90kg-95kg weight range which is close to an average-sized Pantanal male based on the data you yourself posted:


*This image is copyright of its original author


Quote:What we do have are hundreds of records of leopard weights, skulls, and body dimensions and neither of them reaches the proportions of an average-sized Pantanal jaguar.

I can actually post an individual with similar body proportions of a Pantanal male jaguar but his weight is lacking.

Quote:Significantly lower... A Pantanal one is 7.65" wide whereas this Persian was 7.13". That's one exaggeration to say the least.

You tried to change their measuring system from metric to imperial to give the false impression that they were of similar proportions by both being within 7", this is a stretch even for you. 

Average skull width of a Pantanal jaguar population: 195 mm
Skull width of an outlier Persian leopard: 181 mm
Size difference: 14 mm

Not a small difference at all, especially since the skull lengths of the population average and the outlier leopard are supposed to be close in size (the skull length of the leopard is still lesser). The proportions of the skull values of leopards and jaguars are completely different and you cannot assume that a leopard with a similar skull length to a jaguar will weigh the same, read that over and over again until you're able to comprehend it.

Quote:A sample of 9 leopards and we don't know their gender. The sample could consist mainly of female leopards we don't know this. This chart is the most accurate because they seperated males from females:

My point was not to post an average but to show that even on independent samples for captured leopard the maximum weights recorded fall well below the supposed 100 kg value you like to throw around liberally. The chart you posted is the divided data of the average I posted before, according to which the heaviest accepted maximal weight was 91 kg considering that the supposed 95 kg male was never specified to have been directly weighed and could have been estimated instead.

The maximum size is 91 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Nonetheless, we have even more data to go over. From GPS collars reveal trans-boundary movements by Persian leopards in Iran, the heaviest male weighed 75 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author

This also contradicts the claims of leopards growing larger in northern Iran considering that adult males of 57, 66, and 52 kg have all been captured in the north, being around the average gathered for the entire population or below it. The average for Pantanal and Llanos jaguars from the data I posted is 100 and 105 kg, not 91 kg, so no, no leopard has been recorded reaching those measurements under scientifically reviewed methods. 

Quote:I can actually post an individual with similar body proportions of a Pantanal male jaguar but his weight is lacking.

Are you speaking of the leopard with the supposed shoulder height of 90+ cm? Post it so we can discuss how over curve measurements will greatly exaggerate the proportions of an animal.

All this data and still nothing substantial to solidify that leopards overlap in size with average Pantanal jaguars, not even the greatest outliers.
Reply

Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******


*This image is copyright of its original author
Reply

tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-13-2021, 03:34 AM by tigerluver )

The leopard and jaguar debate has brought some nice sources and information but please do not attack on another.

In trying to figure out if that large Persian leopard skull is of that weighed specimen, I noticed that can't be the case as the skull is from 1990 and the weighed specimen from 1997 going by the figure captions.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


The excerpt is written unclearly but the figure captions seem to clarify.


Interspecific comparison of skull lengths to estimate weights is also filled with error and should not be used to determine which species is heavier. For instance, lions have proportionately longer skulls for their weight. Here is some data from Mazak et al. (see attachment) we can look at nonetheless to compare the jaguar and leopard:

  BM     CBL      Species
  47.3   219.8   Panthera onca CN5659 (♀)
  67.4   229.7   Panthera onca CN5660 (♂)
  51.5   222.4   Panthera onca CN5707 (♀)
  71.0   246.6   Panthera onca CN6221 (♂)
  56.7   188.2   Panthera pardus CN5661 (♀)
  57.9   210.1   Panthera pardus CN5662 (♂)
  44.5   199.7   Panthera pardus CN8462 (♂)


We should probably compare male to male and female to female, separately.

Average male jaguar has CBL of 238.15 mm and weight of 69.2 kg. Average male leopard has CBL of 204.9 mm and weight of 51.2 kg. We can now test by isometry which animal has a longer skull for its weight. If the below equation overestimates the larger skull, the shorter skulled animal has a proportionately shorter skull for mass (higher mass to skull length ratio) and vice versa.:

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (238.15 mm/204.9 mm)^3 * 51.2 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 80.4 kg

Actual weight of the jaguars we had was 69.2 kg, so 16% overestimation. By this, the male leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the male jaguar. 

For females, this math isn't necessary as the female jaguars have an average CBL of 221.1 mm and average weight of 49.4 kg while the single female leopard has a CBL 188.2 mm with weight of 56.7 kg. 

Just because the sample is so small here is a calculation pooling both genders:
Avg. jaguar CBL: 229.63 mm; Avg. weight: 59.3 kg
Avg. leopard CBL: 199.33 mm; Avg. weight: 53.3 kg

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (229.63 mm/199.33 mm)^3 * 53.3 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 81.5 kg

The actual averaged weight of the jaguars we had was 59.3 kg, so 37% overestimation. By this extremely small sample size, the leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the jaguar by quite a bit. The oddly heavy female leopard is the reason why the discrepancy jumps so much here.

Again the sample is extremely small and the specimens are captive, so I'm not confident in the results. I'd love to see if people have more body dimension to skull length data.
2 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******

(03-13-2021, 03:33 AM)tigerluver Wrote: The leopard and jaguar debate has brought some nice sources and information but please do not attack on another.

In trying to figure out if that large Persian leopard skull is of that weighed specimen, I noticed that can't be the case as the skull is from 1990 and the weighed specimen from 1997 going by the figure captions.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


The excerpt is written unclearly but the figure captions seem to clarify.


Interspecific comparison of skull lengths to estimate weights is also filled with error and should not be used to determine which species is heavier. For instance, lions have proportionately longer skulls for their weight. Here is some data from Mazak et al. (see attachment) we can look at nonetheless to compare the jaguar and leopard:

  BM     CBL      Species
  47.3   219.8   Panthera onca CN5659 (♀)
  67.4   229.7   Panthera onca CN5660 (♂)
  51.5   222.4   Panthera onca CN5707 (♀)
  71.0   246.6   Panthera onca CN6221 (♂)
  56.7   188.2   Panthera pardus CN5661 (♀)
  57.9   210.1   Panthera pardus CN5662 (♂)
  44.5   199.7   Panthera pardus CN8462 (♂)


We should probably compare male to male and female to female, separately.

Average male jaguar has CBL of 238.15 mm and weight of 69.2 kg. Average male leopard has CBL of 204.9 mm and weight of 51.2 kg. We can now test by isometry which animal has a longer skull for its weight. If the below equation overestimates the larger skull, the shorter skulled animal has a proportionately shorter skull for mass (higher mass to skull length ratio) and vice versa.:

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (238.15 mm/204.9 mm)^3 * 51.2 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 80.4 kg

Actual weight of the jaguars we had was 69.2 kg, so 16% overestimation. By this, the male leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the male jaguar. 

For females, this math isn't necessary as the female jaguars have an average CBL of 221.1 mm and average weight of 49.4 kg while the single female leopard has a CBL 188.2 mm with weight of 56.7 kg. 

Just because the sample is so small here is a calculation pooling both genders:
Avg. jaguar CBL: 229.63 mm; Avg. weight: 59.3 kg
Avg. leopard CBL: 199.33 mm; Avg. weight: 53.3 kg

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (229.63 mm/199.33 mm)^3 * 53.3 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 81.5 kg

The actual averaged weight of the jaguars we had was 59.3 kg, so 37% overestimation. By this extremely small sample size, the leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the jaguar by quite a bit. The oddly heavy female leopard is the reason why the discrepancy jumps so much here.

Again the sample is extremely small and the specimens are captive, so I'm not confident in the results. I'd love to see if people have more body dimension to skull length data.
Condylobasal Length can be inaccurate compared to Total Length. Sometimes larger or smaller skulls can have equal or different CBL's in comparison that you wouldn't expect. 
And like you said, such a limited sample size from captive cats isn't going to shed much light. Especially when no distinction between cats age, health or subspecies is specified. 
I can present plenty of Jaguars total skull length to body mass though if that helps?
1 user Likes Pckts's post
Reply

Canada Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****
( This post was last modified: 03-13-2021, 05:43 AM by Balam )

(03-13-2021, 03:33 AM)tigerluver Wrote: The leopard and jaguar debate has brought some nice sources and information but please do not attack on another.

In trying to figure out if that large Persian leopard skull is of that weighed specimen, I noticed that can't be the case as the skull is from 1990 and the weighed specimen from 1997 going by the figure captions.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


The excerpt is written unclearly but the figure captions seem to clarify.


Interspecific comparison of skull lengths to estimate weights is also filled with error and should not be used to determine which species is heavier. For instance, lions have proportionately longer skulls for their weight. Here is some data from Mazak et al. (see attachment) we can look at nonetheless to compare the jaguar and leopard:

  BM     CBL      Species
  47.3   219.8   Panthera onca CN5659 (♀)
  67.4   229.7   Panthera onca CN5660 (♂)
  51.5   222.4   Panthera onca CN5707 (♀)
  71.0   246.6   Panthera onca CN6221 (♂)
  56.7   188.2   Panthera pardus CN5661 (♀)
  57.9   210.1   Panthera pardus CN5662 (♂)
  44.5   199.7   Panthera pardus CN8462 (♂)


We should probably compare male to male and female to female, separately.

Average male jaguar has CBL of 238.15 mm and weight of 69.2 kg. Average male leopard has CBL of 204.9 mm and weight of 51.2 kg. We can now test by isometry which animal has a longer skull for its weight. If the below equation overestimates the larger skull, the shorter skulled animal has a proportionately shorter skull for mass (higher mass to skull length ratio) and vice versa.:

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (238.15 mm/204.9 mm)^3 * 51.2 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 80.4 kg

Actual weight of the jaguars we had was 69.2 kg, so 16% overestimation. By this, the male leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the male jaguar. 

For females, this math isn't necessary as the female jaguars have an average CBL of 221.1 mm and average weight of 49.4 kg while the single female leopard has a CBL 188.2 mm with weight of 56.7 kg. 

Just because the sample is so small here is a calculation pooling both genders:
Avg. jaguar CBL: 229.63 mm; Avg. weight: 59.3 kg
Avg. leopard CBL: 199.33 mm; Avg. weight: 53.3 kg

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (229.63 mm/199.33 mm)^3 * 53.3 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 81.5 kg

The actual averaged weight of the jaguars we had was 59.3 kg, so 37% overestimation. By this extremely small sample size, the leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the jaguar by quite a bit. The oddly heavy female leopard is the reason why the discrepancy jumps so much here.

Again the sample is extremely small and the specimens are captive, so I'm not confident in the results. I'd love to see if people have more body dimension to skull length data.

Interesting assessment, but as you mentioned the sample size is very small and may be prone to over/underestimations. These two samples are unrelated but may help us get a better idea of jaguar mass/skull correlation. I shared this table before from the skull measurements of Mexican jaguars from Cranial measurements of jaguars (Panthera onca) from the State of Oaxaca, Mexico



*This image is copyright of its original author
And we have the following weights for jaguars from adjacent regions in southern Mexico A morphological comparison of jaguars and pumas in southern Mexico:


*This image is copyright of its original author
 

Jaguars from southern Mexico are in theory smaller than the largest leopard population in record, the Persian leopard, but when you compare the data on skull width the smaller jaguars still average significantly larger than the leopard, Guate's data again:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Average weight:
Mexican jaguar (n:2) = 52.5 kg
Persian leopard (n: 21) = 65.8 kg

Average greatest skull length:
Mexican jaguar (n:5) = 262 mm
Persian leopard (n:30) = 245 mm

Average skull breadth:
Mexican jaguar (n:5) = 174.6 mm
Persian leopard (n:25) = 162 mm

Aspect ratio between skull length and width:
Mexican jaguar: 1.51:1, or 51% longer
Persian leopard: 1.51:1, the same ratio

In paper, this would suggest that both cats have similar proportions on skull size, but I posted this to highlight how deceptive comparing random samples between two animals can be when we then examined on an individual vs individual basis. The longest jaguar skull from the first sample was 288 mm, the same as the largest Persian leopard skull mentioned before, but their widths varied dramatically. The width of the jaguar was 196 (similar to the proportions on the Hoogestijn and Mondolfi data), while the leopard's was 181 mm. If we run the aspect ratio again:

Mexican jaguar: 1.47:1
Persian leopard: 1.59:1

Because both cats had the same skull length we can deduct the difference in percentages between the two, which results in the Persian leopard having a skull 12% longer proportionally than the jaguar's, while the jaguar is 8% wider proportionally. As you mentioned at the beginning of your post and as I said multiple times here before, lions and tigers display a similar disparity in skull dimensions with lions having proportionally longer skulls than tigers, tigers having wider skulls. A similar situation happens with jaguars and leopards, which is why we cannot assume that two very different species will yield the same body mass by going by skull length measurements when their proportions are considerably different.

Also notice how the Mexican jaguar had proportions consistent with the data for Pantanal/Llanos jaguars in length and width (290.5/194.2 - 289.6/194.1), while the leopard had a skull 8% longer in proportion to iwidth than the average on Guate's chart.

Finally, based on all the overwhelming data we have on the body mass of Persian leopards, the 4 different charts I posted here show maximal values of: 75, 78, 86, and 91 kg. Since the argument from the other side is that the largest leopards overlap in size with Pantanal jaguars per Hoogesteijn's data, then you would expect to see more leopards with weights of at least 100 kg, which are completely lacking from all this extensive sample.

My conclusion is that we cannot use specific skull measurements to try to gauge the size of an animal while using the proportions of animals of different species. There is simply no reason to believe that a leopard with a skull length of 288 mm will be the same size as an average Pantanal jaguar.
2 users Like Balam's post
Reply

tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
( This post was last modified: 03-13-2021, 11:22 AM by tigerluver )

(03-13-2021, 04:30 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-13-2021, 03:33 AM)tigerluver Wrote: The leopard and jaguar debate has brought some nice sources and information but please do not attack on another.

In trying to figure out if that large Persian leopard skull is of that weighed specimen, I noticed that can't be the case as the skull is from 1990 and the weighed specimen from 1997 going by the figure captions.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


The excerpt is written unclearly but the figure captions seem to clarify.


Interspecific comparison of skull lengths to estimate weights is also filled with error and should not be used to determine which species is heavier. For instance, lions have proportionately longer skulls for their weight. Here is some data from Mazak et al. (see attachment) we can look at nonetheless to compare the jaguar and leopard:

  BM     CBL      Species
  47.3   219.8   Panthera onca CN5659 (♀)
  67.4   229.7   Panthera onca CN5660 (♂)
  51.5   222.4   Panthera onca CN5707 (♀)
  71.0   246.6   Panthera onca CN6221 (♂)
  56.7   188.2   Panthera pardus CN5661 (♀)
  57.9   210.1   Panthera pardus CN5662 (♂)
  44.5   199.7   Panthera pardus CN8462 (♂)


We should probably compare male to male and female to female, separately.

Average male jaguar has CBL of 238.15 mm and weight of 69.2 kg. Average male leopard has CBL of 204.9 mm and weight of 51.2 kg. We can now test by isometry which animal has a longer skull for its weight. If the below equation overestimates the larger skull, the shorter skulled animal has a proportionately shorter skull for mass (higher mass to skull length ratio) and vice versa.:

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (238.15 mm/204.9 mm)^3 * 51.2 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 80.4 kg

Actual weight of the jaguars we had was 69.2 kg, so 16% overestimation. By this, the male leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the male jaguar. 

For females, this math isn't necessary as the female jaguars have an average CBL of 221.1 mm and average weight of 49.4 kg while the single female leopard has a CBL 188.2 mm with weight of 56.7 kg. 

Just because the sample is so small here is a calculation pooling both genders:
Avg. jaguar CBL: 229.63 mm; Avg. weight: 59.3 kg
Avg. leopard CBL: 199.33 mm; Avg. weight: 53.3 kg

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (229.63 mm/199.33 mm)^3 * 53.3 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 81.5 kg

The actual averaged weight of the jaguars we had was 59.3 kg, so 37% overestimation. By this extremely small sample size, the leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the jaguar by quite a bit. The oddly heavy female leopard is the reason why the discrepancy jumps so much here.

Again the sample is extremely small and the specimens are captive, so I'm not confident in the results. I'd love to see if people have more body dimension to skull length data.

Interesting assessment, but as you mentioned the sample size is very small and may be prone to over/underestimations. These two samples are unrelated but may help us get a better idea of jaguar mass/skull correlation. I shared this table before from the skull measurements of Mexican jaguars from Cranial measurements of jaguars (Panthera onca) from the State of Oaxaca, Mexico



*This image is copyright of its original author
And we have the following weights for jaguars from adjacent regions in southern Mexico A morphological comparison of jaguars and pumas in southern Mexico:


*This image is copyright of its original author
 

Jaguars from southern Mexico are in theory smaller than the largest leopard population in record, the Persian leopard, but when you compare the data on skull width the smaller jaguars still average significantly larger than the leopard, Guate's data again:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Average weight:
Mexican jaguar (n:2) = 52.5 kg
Persian leopard (n: 21) = 65.8 kg

Average greatest skull length:
Mexican jaguar (n:5) = 262 mm
Persian leopard (n:30) = 245 mm

Average skull breadth:
Mexican jaguar (n:5) = 174.6 mm
Persian leopard (n:25) = 162 mm

Aspect ratio between skull length and width:
Mexican jaguar: 1.51:1, or 51% longer
Persian leopard: 1.51:1, the same ratio

In paper, this would suggest that both cats have similar proportions on skull size, but I posted this to highlight how deceptive comparing random samples between two animals can be when we then examined on an individual vs individual basis. The longest jaguar skull from the first sample was 288 mm, the same as the largest Persian leopard skull mentioned before, but their widths varied dramatically. The width of the jaguar was 196 (similar to the proportions on the Hoogestijn and Mondolfi data), while the leopard's was 181 mm. If we run the aspect ratio again:

Mexican jaguar: 1.47:1
Persian leopard: 1.59:1

Because both cats had the same skull length we can deduct the difference in percentages between the two, which results in the Persian leopard having a skull 12% longer proportionally than the jaguar's, while the jaguar is 8% wider proportionally. As you mentioned at the beginning of your post and as I said multiple times here before, lions and tigers display a similar disparity in skull dimensions with lions having proportionally longer skulls than tigers, tigers having wider skulls. A similar situation happens with jaguars and leopards, which is why we cannot assume that two very different species will yield the same body mass by going by skull length measurements when their proportions are considerably different.

Also notice how the Mexican jaguar had proportions consistent with the data for Pantanal/Llanos jaguars in length and width (290.5/194.2 - 289.6/194.1), while the leopard had a skull 8% longer in proportion to iwidth than the average on Guate's chart.

Finally, based on all the overwhelming data we have on the body mass of Persian leopards, the 4 different charts I posted here show maximal values of: 75, 78, 86, and 91 kg. Since the argument from the other side is that the largest leopards overlap in size with Pantanal jaguars per Hoogesteijn's data, then you would expect to see more leopards with weights of at least 100 kg, which are completely lacking from all this extensive sample.

My conclusion is that we cannot use specific skull measurements to try to gauge the size of an animal while using the proportions of animals of different species. There is simply no reason to believe that a leopard with a skull length of 288 mm will be the same size as an average Pantanal jaguar.


Do you have data on the proportions of the larger jaguars? In the Mexican jaguars, it seems the trend of the leopard have more weight per skull length again holds true. 

In my opinion we can use skull measurements as data should never be discarded, but we have to be confident the mass estimation is robust, and for that, we need skull length to body mass data.

Running an estimate on the 288 mm Persian leopard skull using the Mazak et al. data, I get the following (estimated CBL with 0.9x correction for 288 mm * 0.9 = 259.2 mm:

288 mm skull mass = (259.2 mm/199.33 mm)^3 * 53.3 kg = 117 kg <-- Using all specimens

288 mm skull mass = (259.2 mm/204.99 mm)^3 * 51.2 kg = 104 kg <-- Using only male specimens

Neither value seems unreasonable given the other weights. Wasn't there a published 100+ kg exceptional Persian leopard specimen as well?
3 users Like tigerluver's post
Reply

Luipaard Offline
Leopard enthusiast
****

(03-13-2021, 12:23 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 11:40 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 10:02 PM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 09:39 PM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:33 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-12-2021, 01:03 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 02:11 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:14 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 08:27 PM)Balam Wrote:
(03-10-2021, 02:23 PM)Luipaard Wrote: I don't know where this statement comes from (i.e. having the least sexual dimorphism resulting in being worse fighters) nor do I believe it, but skull-wise jaguars do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Compared to females, adult male skulls from Central America were 13.2% larger, from the Amazon 10.8% larger, from the Pantanal 12.8% larger, and from the Llanos 19.3% larger:



The following tables from Pocock and Allen show skull measurements for leopards from the Congo Basin forest and the adjacent forest/savanna mosaic habitat. The average skull length for 22 adult males was 254.2mm and for 18 females 193.4mm, a difference of 31.4%.






For lions, we have average skull length for a total of 130 adult male and 126 adult female lion skulls from all over Africa, with male skulls being 21.2% larger. 



From the same paper, skull lengths of Kruger lions specifically and Bengal tigers. Kruger lions show a difference of 21% while Bengal tigers show 19.8%.



Again from the same paper, skull lengths of adult tigers from Southeast Asia, both Javan and Sumatran tigers show a difference of around 15.5%.



Skull measurements of Bengal, Caspian, and Amur tigers. A difference of 18.9% for Bengal tigers, 19.2% for Caspian tigers, and 23% for Amur tigers.

I didn't mention you in this post but if the shoe fits, oh well.

Here's the quoted study that you clearly didn't read and instead opted for taking the tables without the full context, I presume from a Tapatalk forum, for lion and tiger skull length measurements Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): Implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity, Yamaguchi et al.:


Wild male tigers had a skull length 17.5% larger than females, which is lesser than Llanos jaguars, wild male lions were 21.4% longer than females, only slightly above Llanos jaguar measurements in skull length only.

Lions separated into two different populations, interesting how you didn't put the Asiatic lion's skull length difference, I wonder why:


Melanochaita wild male lions had skull lengths larger consistently with the value above at 21.2%, whereas leo leo had skulls longer by 12.92%. The first population had males with skulls proportionally longer than females only 2% greater than Llanos jaguars, whereas in the second one the size difference between them and Llanos jaguars was 6.3% in favor of the jaguar, and very close to the skull size difference between Pantanal jaguars of 12.77%.

Let's go over the Sunda ad Malay tigers:


Bali tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.3%
Javan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 15.4%
Sumatran tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 13.5%
Malayan tigers, skull length dimorphic difference: 16.6%

Not only did you inflate the value of Sumatran tigers, but you purposely left out Bali tigers because the size difference in skull length between them is in fact lesser than Llanos jaguars and very close to Pantanal jaguars. In fact, Llanos jaguars had the largest size difference in skull length than all the tigers on the table above.

In my post, I mentioned skull length because I didn't feel like going by each measurement in skull size which also involves skull width, which is something you always conveniently leave out. Let's go over the skull width comparisons between Sunda tigers and jaguars. Again data from A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia:




Bali tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 19.6%
Javan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17.2%
Sumatran tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 18.2%
Malayan tigers, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 14%

Pantanal jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.6%
Llanos jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 17%
Amazonian jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 9.8%
Central American jaguars, skull breadth dimorphic difference: 12.7%


Llanos jaguars had skull size differences greater than Malayan tigers and statistically equal to Javan tigers, the other jaguar populations had values lower but Pantanal and CA jaguars had values similar to Malayan tigers off by less than 2%.

For Central African leopards according to the tables you posted: males had an average skull width of 150.1 mm, females had an average skull width of 122.7 mm.

The tables you posted have the skull length of measurements of 28 adult male leopards, why did you say 22? Did you purposely discard the 5 young adult males from the sample of the Northeast Congo table? Seems like you did, do you know what this is called? Sample bias, you are ignoring the values of young adult males because they lower the average of the entire population as you're trying to inflate their value to make them seem bigger than what they truly are. Guess what? For all other felids, the age ranges used to determine average include very young to very old adults. This is no different than your attempt at trying to inflate the average weight of Natal leopard by only including the age class of prime individuals. Nice try.

The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%

Conclusion: the size differences in craniometric values for floodplain jaguars in fact overlap greatly with the values of lions and tigers across different populations, with the jaguars being lesser or higher depending on the population. The claim that jaguars show less sexual dimorphism in both body mass and skull size is false.

And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:


Persian leopards 245mm/162mm, 1.51:1
Central-West African leopards 244.7mm/150.1, 1.63:1

Therefore rainforest leopards have skulls that are about 12% longer in comparison to their width than Persian leopards. And since you like to use skull width to compare Central African leopard to jaguars to substantiate your claims that they supposedly overlap in size, then: 

1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.

2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7). Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:


And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.


Quote:The actual average for the length of leopards according to the table you posted is 244.7 mm not 254.2 for males. Therefore the size difference between both sexes is in fact 26.5% and not 31.4%.
 
So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
Quote:And since we're going over all this data, I'm going to take the chance to go over another myth that seems rampant online, that Central/West African leopards have wider skulls than other leopard populations and thus "compare to jaguars". I will use Guate's data compilation on Persian leopards to see how they compare to the rainforest leopards in question in terms of aspect ratio between the breadth and length of the skulls:

And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?
Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).
Quote:1) You cannot compare two species with different anatomical traits that show proportionally different measurements in different areas of their bodies to assume that one species will yield the same amount of mass as the other one based on one specific trait, such as skull length. If that was the case then lions would be significantly larger than tigers since in skull length they have proportionally longer skulls (see the Yamaguchi tables above), and yet we know this isn't true. Leopards too have proportionally longer skulls than jaguars by a long mile, so any measurement from a leopard that compares in skull length to a jaguar's skull length will mean that the leopard will be the smaller animal regardless.
But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

271 mm x 191 mm or 18.19" compared to the average Amazonian male jaguar (17.26"), female Pantanal jaguar (16.93"). The average Pantanal male jaguar has a score of 19.08" and the average Llanos male 19.04". I don't know about you but that is literally called an overlapping.

Quote:2) Based on the data that you posted, rainforest leopards have skull lengths similar to Central American jaguars (244.7-243.6), but in skull width rainforest leopards actually compare to Central American female jaguars and not the males (150.1-160.2/148.7).

How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

Quote:Not only would the Central American jaguars be larger according to this data, but this also substantiates the data on weights that we do have on Central and West African leopards, from Spatial organization of leopards Panthera pardus in Taï National Park, Ivory Coast: Is rainforest habitat a ‘tropical haven’, one healthy male from Ivory Coast weighed 56 kg:

The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.
What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?


Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.

Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.
Quote:So you can stop lying to people over at different forums about Central African leopard growing to the same size as Pantanal jaguars (I had issues writing that sentence with a straight face). Leopards also do not overlap in skull width with jaguars, another one of your lies.

Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Quote:Why so hostile when I just added data to support the claim that jaguars are least sexual dimorphism when it comes to the skull department whereas leopards have the highest sexual dimorphism? You tried to correct me, but in the end you failed to prove otherwise. Skull-wise they do have the least sexual dimorphism.

So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

Quote:Yes the young adult ones were not included (what a crime right?) and no it was never the intention to inflate their value.

Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.

Quote:So even when you add the young adult ones the leopard still remains on top regarding sexual dimorphism.
 
Correct, I never questioned that, once again read my previous reply slowly.

Quote:And why are you bringing this up? I never said a word about this in my previous post?

Oh well, first of all I've always claimed them to be wider than other populations/subspecies bar the Persian leopard. The fact that you have to bring up said subspecies proves me right. 

I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity.
Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Quote:For your information; Central African leopards have at maximums the longest skulls (+280 mm), Persian leopards the widest (191 mm).

It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:


Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Quote:But leopards too overlap in skull width! I've told you this numerous times. Go back and check GuateGojira's data compilation and you'll see there are leopards with skull widths of 191 mm which is wider than the average Amazonian male jaguar, female Pantanal jaguar and only marginally narrower than the average Pantanal and Llanos male jaguar. This is the one I'm talking about, the one from the Mazandaran province. 

You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

Quote:How hypocritical of you; you're the first to whine about different sample sizes (read: small) and yet you're keen to compare a sample of 7 to one of 28. Here's more data although we're not sure of the gender, it's however most likely males only:

I'm sorry are you serious right now? Weren't you using that same data from the table in your initial reply to me when comparing the sexually dimorphic traits of jaguars against other felids, including the data from jaguars in Central America? And you're calling me hypocritical? I'm at a loss for words, you should really take a moment to think about what you're going to say before you write it.

The data for Central American jaguars comes from the one scientifically publicized paper on jaguar morphology from this population, excluding Mexico. The sample size is small but it's what is available and thus what is to be used. You don't shy away from this data when it's time for you to underestimate jaguars in other sites, so why now?

Quote:The discussion and the additional data posted is about Central African leopards only, you posting data of ONE West African leopard is irrelevant. That's what I call selective posting.

No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Quote:What's funny is that even this single West African leopard is more impressive than the following Central American jaguars because he belongs in the upper weight category and has a more impressive neck girth than any of the jaguars. But let me guess, fat dewlap?

Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards. 

Quote:Those are reported weights from poachers, those animals where starving and in poor condition. Plus they already were close to 50kg so this is nonsens.

The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

Quote:Trust me, you have more issues than writing something with a straight face. And first they are similar to a particular jaguar population and now all of a sudden they do not overlap? Make up your mind for once.

Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Quote:So here you go again trying to use language to appear passive when you know exactly what you've been doing for a while on these threads. Btw, I did correct you and no, jaguars don't have less sexually dimorphic traits than other cats, which was my initial assertion, not just with leopards. Read the data in my above reply slowly before you come back doubling down on your ignorance.

How and where did you correct me? There are few big cat populations where the jaguar is comparable when talking about sexual dimorphism skull-wise. It's namely the tiger with some populations but overall they possess the least sexual dimorphism and that was my initial reaction. I never brought up their body weights because all (big) cats show sexual dimorphism, some more than others.

Quote:Yes, what a crime you were trying to be purposely deceptive in order to push a false narrative and thought you wouldn't get caught in the process. Again, if for the other species different age classes are used to determine averages, whether they be skull sizes or bodyweight, then leopards don't get preferential treatment when they are to be compared to said species just because you like them more. The same standard is to be applied all across.
 
It didn't affect the outcome anyway, skull-wise leopards show the most extreme sexual dimorphism and I personally think overall they are no.1 at this. Re-read Jo Taylor's article and you'll see why they're no.1 when it comes to sexual dimorphism traits.
Quote:I thought it'd be nice to discuss this too since you keep going on and on about this despite your claims being completely false. It was you who quoted me, I just took the opportunity. Btw, not once have you said that Central African leopards had wider skulls bar Persian ones unless you can perhaps link here a previous post of yours stating so. You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

Well this is still a forum so you can do whatever you want but I fail to see how relevant this is to my initial post? 
I have always said that Central African leopards are no.1 with Persian leopards being the only ones able to match them. Here's a recent response of mine to someone who asked which African population produced the biggest leopards: https://carnivora.net/big-territorial-male-leopards-only-territorial-mal-t86-s555.html#p154527 . You'll see I still mention Iranian leopards.
Quote:You've been claiming for years now that Central African leopards have the proportions of jaguars (and Pantanal ones at that), alluding that their craniometric values in width are also similar to them.

At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.
Quote:It's funny how you added that "+" to make it seem like the residual measurements above 280mm would be great when you and I both know the skull measured one 1 to 2 mm more. You're going by chui's table so let's go over it:

I added the + mark because, well that's how long the longest ones are bar the estimated one. I explicitly did not write 290+ because it's an estimated number. It doesn't matter how much above 280 mm it is. The + means it's above the mark and notice there's more than one from Central African (and one from Iran, where leopards roam who are able to best these leopards remember).
Quote:Central African leopards only have the longest skulls when the data from hunters from SCI records that include leopards from other localities in Africa and Asia are discarded. Central African leopards are therefore overrepresented on the table above which gives the impression of them having skulls superior to other African populations when the latter are not included. And don't come to me saying "hunter records are not reliable" when you like to use claims of hunters from decades ago that include the estimates of weight and body sizes of leopards from places like Cameroon and Gabon of supposed monster leopards when it aligns with your views.

Did you even bother to look at the table for more than one second? There are leopards included from other area's than Central Africa or Iran such as Egypt, Sudan and Uganda. You already know I did not make this list; Chui decided to include leopards from scientific sources only. Thus it's not my fault that Central African leopards dominate the list, followed by Iranian leopards.

Quote:You can repeat a lie multiple times, that won't make it become any less true. For the 100th time, you are cherry-picking outlier leopards to compare against the average of different jaguar populations, this is not how you accurately deduct size differences among different species because individuals might present values that are significantly higher or lower than the total average and produce a less reliable view of the population as a whole. So I really don't care if one leopard had a skull width of 191 mm, jaguars from the Amazon, Pantanal females, and let alone Pantanal and Llanos males will always proportionally produce skulls that wider than anything produced by leopards, as well as in the absolutes.

I'm not deducting size differences among different species; I'm showing you the overlap between the two species. It doesn't matter if it's an outlier or a whole population; when they overlap, they overlap. Just deal with it.

Here's a great chart for you, take your time and analyse it, from Variation in Craniomandibular Morphology and Sexual Dimorphism in Pantherines and the Sabercat Smilodon fatalis. Note that the largest leopard skulls overlap in size with adult lioness and tigress skulls.



Quote:No, read my previous paragraph. Weight data for leopards in West and Central Africa is greatly missing, so I mentioned the weights that were in fact available which happened to be those. Who would've thought that leopards that live in environments where certain areas are poached out of large prey wouldn't be much larger than leopards from other populations with similar external factors?

Central Africa and West Africa are not the same and the best example is wildlife protection. Even in well protected countries like Gabon, leopards face bushmeat hunter competition and in some area's they live under pristine circumstances. West Africa is much worse and the sample of those leopards originate from an area with different prey abundance compared to the ones we're discussing.

Quote:Great, so you do agree was not a small leopard for this particular population. And you are also correct in that dewlap increases the measurements of leopards by a few mms. The one area where this leopard excels over the jaguar is in the body length, but even then we do not know the method used to measure their bodies, was it over the curves or on a straight line? Furthermore, the comparison between Central/West African leopards and CA jaguars doesn't particularly bother me since unlike Pantanal jaguars, I do agree they overlap in size with leopards.

I said the leopard was more impressive, does that automatically mean it's not small?? The leopard was measured in the same way as those jaguars.

Quote:The weights were 43 and 48 kg respectively, only one got close to 50 kg. It's not nonsense, if we give these leopards are a percentage of grace of let's say them being 20% larger in good condition, that would make the 48 kg male 57.6 kg, and the 43 kg one 51.6. All this to say, that the weights are in line with what is seen with the West African specimen and nothing out of the ordinary for a leopard.

This was your claim:

Quote:And of course, we know that two males found on a snare in Central Africa did not surpass 50 kg in weight, even if healthy they wouldn't have been much heavier.
And now you suddenly want to add 20% to their body weight? Why 20%? Those leopards could've been near death you can't tell.
Quote:Sorry but this was a really bad attempt at sounding snarky, especially when it was you who quoted me unprovoked and has been on a tangent about this for God knows how long, and I stand correct, when comparing population with population and not carefully selected individuals against populations, leopards and jaguars do not overlap in skull width. If we use individual outlier animals we could also compare jaguars to lions and tigers, but of course, in your worldview, it's the leopard the one that must be treated with special treatment.

Check the chart I posted so you understand what overlapping is all about.

You said a lot in this post that didn't really contradict what I said before, jaguars depending on the population present as much sexual dimorphism as the other pantherines both in body mass and craniometric values. There's not much else to discuss here. Yes, leopards present perhaps one of the most drastic sexual differentiation among felids, baring perhaps the lion, but jaguars are not too far off (see Llanos jaguars and Persian leopards)

Out of all of your post, I'm only interested in going over this claim:

Quote:At some degrees (read: maximum) they actually do. A very large male leopard approaches the dimensions of an average Pantanal male jaguar both skull-wise and in body terms.

They simply do not, you need to understand that the correlation between skull values such as length is not equal among felids of different species, so you cannot assume that a leopard with a particularly long skull that could be said to be close to the average skull of a Pantanal jaguar will grow to the same dimensions, because jaguars having a relatively shorter but wider skull will always be larger if both cats were compared at skull length parity.

According to Hoogesteijn and Mondolfi's data, the average skull length of Pantanal jaguars was 290.5 mm, one of the longest leopard skulls comes from Population status of the Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock, 1927) in Iran, here's the skull in question:


The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


So what do we know from looking at the data above? The two males whose weights were provided had a very similar body length of 213 and 212 cm, which suggests they were similar in size. The male with the 288 mm skull was gorged at the moment of his death, which likely elevated his weight in comparison to the other male whose was average in size but likely empty bellied. Even if we were to take the value that included the stomachal content for the skull bearing leopard, it still would not approach the values of 100 and 105 kg of average found for Pantanal and Llanos jaguars by Hoogesteijn and Moldolfi, despite that in paper the leopard skull approached similar dimensions in length.

What's more, is the width of the leopard skull of 182 mm falls short compared to the average for the jaguar population which is around 195 mm. So the Persian leopard, who you claim has the widest skull of the leopard proportionally, still falls short in comparison to the jaguar skulls. 

So once again, you need to understand that skull size goes beyond the scopes of skull length and you cannot utilize the skull length which proportionally varies across different species to assume their body mass correlations would be the same. This is why you have the skull of a leopard that was well below the average of Pantanal jaguar even while gorged, whilst having a very large skull that nearly approached a jaguar's dimensions in length. The same could be said for Central African leopards, IMO they have very long skulls in proportion to their bodies in comparison to other leopard populations, but the available data simply does not substantiate any claims of them being significantly larger than other leopards, let alone "Pantanal jaguar-sized" as you've claimed before. You can like and appreciate leopards without exaggerating their sizes, like them for what they are.

Quote:The leopard who packed this massive skull was also included in this paper, it weighed 86 kg and had a visible full belly (see the protuberance on his midsection)


*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

If you have doubts it is the same leopard, the paper specifically references the picture and author later on:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Where is it indicated that the skull belongs to the 86kg male? The paper references to figure 2 (the carcass of the leopard) and figure 7 (the skull itself). I never mentioned any of the two body weights of table 2.

So your whole analysis is based on a misconception of yours.

Don't confuse your lack of critical thinking for others' misconceptions:



*This image is copyright of its original author

Figures 2 and 7 are referenced here:

Figure 2:


Figure 7


The paper doesn't say they are different leopards either, but even if that was the case the leopard with the skull of 288mm in length would not approach the dimensions of a Pantanal jaguar considering its skull width is significantly lower and so would be his skull height. Another paper Status Assessment of the Persian Leopard in Iran actually details the maximum weight recorded by them for Persian leopards:

The heaviest leopard in this sample did not reach 80 kg. So for someone like you who likes to formulate extraordinary claims for leopard sizes the extraordinary data you need to substantiate your claim is completely lacking. There's no such a thing as "videographic" and "photographic evidence" as you like to call it when it comes to solid data on body mass. What we do have are hundreds of records of leopard weights, skulls, and body dimensions and neither of them reaches the proportions of an average-sized Pantanal jaguar.

You either learn to come to terms with reality or continue to spew the same nonsensical claims not based on hard science over and over again, either way, it will not make leopards magically reach the exaggerated proportions you wished they had.

Quote:The paper doesn't say they are different leopards either

If it was, they would've obviously mentioned it, that's called common sense.

Quote:but even if that was the case the leopard with the skull of 288mm in length would not approach the dimensions of a Pantanal jaguar considering its skull width is significantly lower and so would be his skull height.

Significantly lower... A Pantanal one is 7.65" wide whereas this Persian was 7.13". That's one exaggeration to say the least.

Quote:Another paper Status Assessment of the Persian Leopard in Iran actually details the maximum weight recorded by them for Persian leopards:

The heaviest leopard in this sample did not reach 80 kg. So for someone like you who likes to formulate extraordinary claims for leopard sizes the extraordinary data you need to substantiate your claim is completely lacking

A sample of 9 leopards and we don't know their gender. The sample could consist mainly of female leopards we don't know this. This chart is the most accurate because they seperated males from females:



Here 7 males weighed more than 80kg including 3 in the 90kg-95kg weight range which is close to an average-sized Pantanal male based on the data you yourself posted:



Quote:What we do have are hundreds of records of leopard weights, skulls, and body dimensions and neither of them reaches the proportions of an average-sized Pantanal jaguar.

I can actually post an individual with similar body proportions of a Pantanal male jaguar but his weight is lacking.

Quote:Significantly lower... A Pantanal one is 7.65" wide whereas this Persian was 7.13". That's one exaggeration to say the least.

You tried to change their measuring system from metric to imperial to give the false impression that they were of similar proportions by both being within 7", this is a stretch even for you. 

Average skull width of a Pantanal jaguar population: 195 mm
Skull width of an outlier Persian leopard: 181 mm
Size difference: 14 mm

Not a small difference at all, especially since the skull lengths of the population average and the outlier leopard are supposed to be close in size (the skull length of the leopard is still lesser). The proportions of the skull values of leopards and jaguars are completely different and you cannot assume that a leopard with a similar skull length to a jaguar will weigh the same, read that over and over again until you're able to comprehend it.

Quote:A sample of 9 leopards and we don't know their gender. The sample could consist mainly of female leopards we don't know this. This chart is the most accurate because they seperated males from females:

My point was not to post an average but to show that even on independent samples for captured leopard the maximum weights recorded fall well below the supposed 100 kg value you like to throw around liberally. The chart you posted is the divided data of the average I posted before, according to which the heaviest accepted maximal weight was 91 kg considering that the supposed 95 kg male was never specified to have been directly weighed and could have been estimated instead.

The maximum size is 91 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Nonetheless, we have even more data to go over. From GPS collars reveal trans-boundary movements by Persian leopards in Iran, the heaviest male weighed 75 kg:


*This image is copyright of its original author

This also contradicts the claims of leopards growing larger in northern Iran considering that adult males of 57, 66, and 52 kg have all been captured in the north, being around the average gathered for the entire population or below it. The average for Pantanal and Llanos jaguars from the data I posted is 100 and 105 kg, not 91 kg, so no, no leopard has been recorded reaching those measurements under scientifically reviewed methods. 

Quote:I can actually post an individual with similar body proportions of a Pantanal male jaguar but his weight is lacking.

Are you speaking of the leopard with the supposed shoulder height of 90+ cm? Post it so we can discuss how over curve measurements will greatly exaggerate the proportions of an animal.

All this data and still nothing substantial to solidify that leopards overlap in size with average Pantanal jaguars, not even the greatest outliers.

Quote:Are you speaking of the leopard with the supposed shoulder height of 90+ cm? Post it so we can discuss how over curve measurements will greatly exaggerate the proportions of an animal.

All this data and still nothing substantial to solidify that leopards overlap in size with average Pantanal jaguars, not even the greatest outliers.

I'm talking about the following specimen from Golestan (Northern Iran):

*This image is copyright of its original author


Could you post some measurements of Pantanal male jaguars around the average weight (circa 100kg)? I'm pretty sure they'll be comparable as this leopard already has a neck girth similar to +120kg Pantanal male jaguars. It's a very impressive individual going by his measurements.

@tigerluver 

Quote:Neither value seems unreasonable given the other weights. Wasn't there a published 100+ kg exceptional Persian leopard specimen as well?

There is indeed a +100kg male from a published paper although some question its reliability:

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author

Iman Memarian is the wildlife veterinarian who was involved in sedating and capturing the male. He himself speaks of a "An 8 years old huge male Persian leopard (around 100kg)"

*This image is copyright of its original author

Then there's the Facebook post of the Persian Leopard Conservation which speaks of a 95kg male:

*This image is copyright of its original author

In my opinion your estimation is well within the realm of possibility.
1 user Likes Luipaard's post
Reply

Canada Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****
( This post was last modified: 03-13-2021, 04:07 PM by Balam )

(03-13-2021, 11:04 AM)tigerluver Wrote:
(03-13-2021, 04:30 AM)Balam Wrote:
(03-13-2021, 03:33 AM)tigerluver Wrote: The leopard and jaguar debate has brought some nice sources and information but please do not attack on another.

In trying to figure out if that large Persian leopard skull is of that weighed specimen, I noticed that can't be the case as the skull is from 1990 and the weighed specimen from 1997 going by the figure captions.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author


The excerpt is written unclearly but the figure captions seem to clarify.


Interspecific comparison of skull lengths to estimate weights is also filled with error and should not be used to determine which species is heavier. For instance, lions have proportionately longer skulls for their weight. Here is some data from Mazak et al. (see attachment) we can look at nonetheless to compare the jaguar and leopard:

  BM     CBL      Species
  47.3   219.8   Panthera onca CN5659 (♀)
  67.4   229.7   Panthera onca CN5660 (♂)
  51.5   222.4   Panthera onca CN5707 (♀)
  71.0   246.6   Panthera onca CN6221 (♂)
  56.7   188.2   Panthera pardus CN5661 (♀)
  57.9   210.1   Panthera pardus CN5662 (♂)
  44.5   199.7   Panthera pardus CN8462 (♂)


We should probably compare male to male and female to female, separately.

Average male jaguar has CBL of 238.15 mm and weight of 69.2 kg. Average male leopard has CBL of 204.9 mm and weight of 51.2 kg. We can now test by isometry which animal has a longer skull for its weight. If the below equation overestimates the larger skull, the shorter skulled animal has a proportionately shorter skull for mass (higher mass to skull length ratio) and vice versa.:

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (238.15 mm/204.9 mm)^3 * 51.2 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 80.4 kg

Actual weight of the jaguars we had was 69.2 kg, so 16% overestimation. By this, the male leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the male jaguar. 

For females, this math isn't necessary as the female jaguars have an average CBL of 221.1 mm and average weight of 49.4 kg while the single female leopard has a CBL 188.2 mm with weight of 56.7 kg. 

Just because the sample is so small here is a calculation pooling both genders:
Avg. jaguar CBL: 229.63 mm; Avg. weight: 59.3 kg
Avg. leopard CBL: 199.33 mm; Avg. weight: 53.3 kg

Jaguar predicted weight = (Jaguar skull length/Leopard skull length)^3 * Leopard weight
Jaguar predicted weight = (229.63 mm/199.33 mm)^3 * 53.3 kg
Jaguar predicted weight = 81.5 kg

The actual averaged weight of the jaguars we had was 59.3 kg, so 37% overestimation. By this extremely small sample size, the leopard actually has a smaller skull for its weight and thus at equal skull lengths would actually be heavier than the jaguar by quite a bit. The oddly heavy female leopard is the reason why the discrepancy jumps so much here.

Again the sample is extremely small and the specimens are captive, so I'm not confident in the results. I'd love to see if people have more body dimension to skull length data.

Interesting assessment, but as you mentioned the sample size is very small and may be prone to over/underestimations. These two samples are unrelated but may help us get a better idea of jaguar mass/skull correlation. I shared this table before from the skull measurements of Mexican jaguars from Cranial measurements of jaguars (Panthera onca) from the State of Oaxaca, Mexico



*This image is copyright of its original author
And we have the following weights for jaguars from adjacent regions in southern Mexico A morphological comparison of jaguars and pumas in southern Mexico:


*This image is copyright of its original author
 

Jaguars from southern Mexico are in theory smaller than the largest leopard population in record, the Persian leopard, but when you compare the data on skull width the smaller jaguars still average significantly larger than the leopard, Guate's data again:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Average weight:
Mexican jaguar (n:2) = 52.5 kg
Persian leopard (n: 21) = 65.8 kg

Average greatest skull length:
Mexican jaguar (n:5) = 262 mm
Persian leopard (n:30) = 245 mm

Average skull breadth:
Mexican jaguar (n:5) = 174.6 mm
Persian leopard (n:25) = 162 mm

Aspect ratio between skull length and width:
Mexican jaguar: 1.51:1, or 51% longer
Persian leopard: 1.51:1, the same ratio

In paper, this would suggest that both cats have similar proportions on skull size, but I posted this to highlight how deceptive comparing random samples between two animals can be when we then examined on an individual vs individual basis. The longest jaguar skull from the first sample was 288 mm, the same as the largest Persian leopard skull mentioned before, but their widths varied dramatically. The width of the jaguar was 196 (similar to the proportions on the Hoogestijn and Mondolfi data), while the leopard's was 181 mm. If we run the aspect ratio again:

Mexican jaguar: 1.47:1
Persian leopard: 1.59:1

Because both cats had the same skull length we can deduct the difference in percentages between the two, which results in the Persian leopard having a skull 12% longer proportionally than the jaguar's, while the jaguar is 8% wider proportionally. As you mentioned at the beginning of your post and as I said multiple times here before, lions and tigers display a similar disparity in skull dimensions with lions having proportionally longer skulls than tigers, tigers having wider skulls. A similar situation happens with jaguars and leopards, which is why we cannot assume that two very different species will yield the same body mass by going by skull length measurements when their proportions are considerably different.

Also notice how the Mexican jaguar had proportions consistent with the data for Pantanal/Llanos jaguars in length and width (290.5/194.2 - 289.6/194.1), while the leopard had a skull 8% longer in proportion to iwidth than the average on Guate's chart.

Finally, based on all the overwhelming data we have on the body mass of Persian leopards, the 4 different charts I posted here show maximal values of: 75, 78, 86, and 91 kg. Since the argument from the other side is that the largest leopards overlap in size with Pantanal jaguars per Hoogesteijn's data, then you would expect to see more leopards with weights of at least 100 kg, which are completely lacking from all this extensive sample.

My conclusion is that we cannot use specific skull measurements to try to gauge the size of an animal while using the proportions of animals of different species. There is simply no reason to believe that a leopard with a skull length of 288 mm will be the same size as an average Pantanal jaguar.


Do you have data on the proportions of the larger jaguars? In the Mexican jaguars, it seems the trend of the leopard have more weight per skull length again holds true. 

In my opinion we can use skull measurements as data should never be discarded, but we have to be confident the mass estimation is robust, and for that, we need skull length to body mass data.

Running an estimate on the 288 mm Persian leopard skull using the Mazak et al. data, I get the following (estimated CBL with 0.9x correction for 288 mm * 0.9 = 259.2 mm:

288 mm skull mass = (259.2 mm/199.33 mm)^3 * 53.3 kg = 117 kg  <-- Using all specimens

288 mm skull mass = (259.2 mm/204.99 mm)^3 * 51.2 kg = 104 kg  <-- Using only male specimens

Neither value seems unreasonable given the other weights. Wasn't there a published 100+ kg exceptional Persian leopard specimen as well?

I think @Dark Jaguar has more data on the measurements of of jaguars in relation to their weight, he may be able to post some here.

Do you think you can run a regression analysis but this time based on skull width rather than length? It would be interesting to see the results.

As for leopard weights, the heaviest specimen according to scientific records is one male captured in Namibia that yielded 96 kg, the 115 kg Persian leopard was discarded from the sample of the paper in which it was published and the weight of said leopard was also claimed at 95 kg, so it's considered unreliable.

There are some dubious hunter claims of leopards above 100 kg, but IMO those are usually estimates or exaggerations, similar to the 180 kg Holocene jaguar or the 125 kg cougar. When such high values vastly surpass the highest weights recorded by scientists through an immense sample size, the likelihood of them being realistic from an statistical point of view is almost none.

Keep in mind that we have hundreds of weights of leopards, none at or above 100 kg per scientific data, and only a ver small fraction (less than 1%) of the largest males reaching or slightly surpassing 90 kg.
1 user Likes Balam's post
Reply

Brazil Dark Jaguar Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****

5 Jaguars Measured ON STRAIGHT LINES.



2 average Pantanal males

104 kg male (source: Almeida)

Head Girth: 67.31 cm
Neck Girth: 63.5 cm
Chest Girth: 102.87 cm
Girth of middle of belly (full): 116,8 cm
Shoulder Height: 76.2 cm
Tail Length: 55.8 cm
Total Length: 201.93 cm


105 kg Empty male (source: Almeida)

Head Girth: 71.75 cm
Neck Girth: 64.77 cm
Chest Girth: 109.22 cm
Girth of middle of belly (empty): 113 cm
Shoulder Height: 73.66 cm
Tail Length: 59.69 cm
Total Length: 209.55 cm



1 Pantanal female

86 kg female (source: Almeida)

Chest Girth: 100 cm
Girth of middle of belly (partly filled with caiman remains): 109 cm
Tail Length: 60 cm
Total Length: 203.2 cm



2 Larger males measured on straight lines 1 from Pantanal and other from Porto Primavera.

119 kg empty male (source: Almeida) location: Pantanal

Head Girth: 73.66 cm
Neck Girth: 64.77 cm
Chest Girth: 109.22 cm
Girth of middle of belly (empty): 113 cm
Shoulder Height: 73.02 cm
Tail Length: 54.61 cm
Total Length: 212.09 cm



122 kg Pita (Source: Crawshaw) location: Porto Primavera

Head Girth: 71 cm
Neck Girth: 70 cm
Chest Girth: 114 cm
Shoulder Height: 70 cm
Body length: 151 cm
Tail Length: 56 cm
Total Length: 207 cm



NOTE: The 104 kg and the 119 kg males sourced by Almeida according to him they both had about 5 cm of their tails bitten off by Piranhas.
2 users Like Dark Jaguar's post
Reply

Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
( This post was last modified: 03-13-2021, 06:40 PM by Pckts )

Compared below is Almeidas 104kg and the 86 kg female to the leopard shown

*This image is copyright of its original author

104 kg Jag



*This image is copyright of its original author

86 kg female


First it must be understood that Almeida took the most conservative measurements of the bunch. *Straight line, food content and shoulder height to the heel only*
Compared to the Leopard which I’m unsure is straight line or over the curves.
So that being said, these Jags show a consistent girth advantage to the Leopard, the only category of girth the Leopard wins is the neck but we know the dewlap isn’t muscle and that number generally is inflated if we’re comparing actual muscle mass. The missing piece would be limb girth but generally a Jaguar is oversized in the limbs and Leopards are actually modest in that department so it’s safe to assume the Jaguar would have the advantage there as well. The total body length and height is where the leopard wins but Leopards have significantly longer tails *Jaguars have the shortest tails of the big cats,* and the actual hbl is the same more or less. The shoulder height shows an advantage for the leopard but again we don’t know how the shoulder was taken. But as we can see, it’s the Jaguar that is the more heavily built cat Lb for Lb. So we can assume that the leopard shown would be in the 75-85kg category unless it’s measured over the curves then it would be between 70-80kg most likely.
2 users Like Pckts's post
Reply

Canada Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****

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.
1 user Likes Balam's post
Reply

Canada Balam Offline
Jaguar Enthusiast
*****

Body measurements comparison between a modest-sized male lion, a large lioness, two large jaguars (M1/Joker, M2/Adriano), and a large male leopard. Measurements are taken from the chart:


*This image is copyright of its original author
Comparison:


*This image is copyright of its original author

Joker, probably the biggest jaguar captured by scientists had dimensions very similar to the lioness who had a similar weight (though we don't know how much Joker weighed in the absolutes). Measurement style for the jaguars were following the curves of the bodies, the same is assumed for the lions and leopard.
1 user Likes Balam's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB