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.
Quote:OK, so again you're not looking closely. It has nothing to do with "size''
I'll point out a few easy ones.... First is the mandible shape-The Jaguar has a concaved mandible while the Leopard has a flat/almost convcexed one.
The Nasal Projection and bone above the orbital is raised on the Jaguar and not the Leopard.
The height of the extreme distance of the mandible is more exaggerated on the Jaguar as well.
The zygomatic arch is also more arched in the Jaguar as well as a more exaggerated sagital crest.
The distance from the auditory bullae to the back of the mandible is much closer in the Jaguar than the leopard due to its massive size and slope of the crest.
Again, it's exaggerated because of the difference in size. It would be less exaggerated if the skulls would be somewhat equal in size. The most prominent difference between the skulls is the forehead and the jaguar skull being proportionally wider whereas the leopard skull will be proportionally longer.
Quote:You and I both know where you posted it, that's why you knew exactly which study I was referring to despite not giving much information about it at all. Shortridge isn't your only alternate alias. They overlap to an extent in that study, not completely, but I'll go over that later on.
I'm sorry but I'm only active on Wildfact as Luipaard and on Carnivora as Shortridge. Whoever else you think I am, it's not the case.
Yes they completely overlap as is seen in this study as well:
Quote:So is the leopard not another cat? If the skull of jaguars is completely different from other cats not only does that support my previous statements but directly contradicts your wrongful assumptions of both species having identical skulls. Being from the same genus means nothing when they are wired for different lifestyles and their morphology is a reflection of those lifestyles. Irbises are also Panthera cats, yet you're one of the people that gets triggered whenever they are compared to leopards.
Your initial post was focusing on the leopard and jaguars having 'completely different' skulls. I pointed out that the book simply used the leopard to compare as they are the two cats that can have similar skull dimensions. Still the book only implied that jaguars have wider skulls proportionally. Not that the skull is completely different compared to a leopard skull.
When was I triggered and when did someone compared a snow leopard to a common leopard? Have I missed something or are you again bringing up debates on a different forum - Carnivora.net?
Quote:The skull of the Indian tigress was never fully recognized as a leopard skull, the confusion had been derived from verbal descriptions of the fur of the animal killed which was dark. Because the dimensions of the skull were significantly above the threshold for what leopards achieve, it was later concluded to belong to a sub-adult tigress. Not to mention that this has little to nothing to do with what I initially stated, jaguars aren't tigresses so you're reasoning behind bringing this up is once again, bizarre.
The tigress skull was actually first acknowledged to be a leopard skull, a record one that is. Also it had nothing to do with the fur but simply because of the fact that the size of the animal and its skull layed in the overlapping of large male leopards and small tigresses. Here's another case where they made a mistake in identifying the animal; alleged tiger pug marks turned out to be leopard ones:
"Vishal Thakor, who has worked on human wildlife conflict mitigation said that people often mistake pug marks of leopards for that of a tiger. "This is because sometimes leopards can also grow to a huge size. Unless the pugmarks are in wet earth, it is also difficult to get its dimensions from a mere picture. Several measurements need to be taken before one can be sure whom the pug marks belong to," said Thakor." - https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-gujarat-tiger-pug-marks-turns-out-to-leopard-s-2729925
Second the skull its measurements were in the range of the largeest male leopard skulls (287,02 mm x 200,66 mm).
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:The word "completely" implies a total overlap in dimensions, which is false.
Yes they completely overlap in all dimensions I can assure you that unless you believe each and every jaguar skull will be taller or heavier?
Quote:The overlap in skull sizes between jaguars and leopards only occurs between specific populations, the largest jaguars outclass leopards by a very large margin (both averages and maximums). And the proportions of skull widths and lengths between populations of the two species is very different as well.
Wait so first it's false and now you do admit that they overlap although between specific populations? Not all jaguar skulls are the size of a Pantanal jaguar skull. Jaguar skulls smaller than a leopard skull can perfectly belong to an adult male jaguar. Hence why they overlap.
Quote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The skull length of the largest male is 288 mm, the same as the length of the largest Persian leopard skull, yet its width of 196 is much greater than the width of 181 of the leopard and at par with averages of jaguars from floodplain areas of South America.
Still shorter than the largest leopard skull which was estimated at 297 mm long. Quite believable given the condylobasal length of 264 mm. It's narrower (186 mm) but that's understandable as jaguars have proportionally wider skulls.
Quote:Hold on, you're using the 200 mm skull that came from that hunting book from the Tanzanian specimen that had a length of 11 inches? So you're now comparing hunting records that cannot be verified to scientifically gathered measurements in peer-review papers and think this somehow makes your point more valid? There are hunting records of jaguars at 180 kg, according to your reasoning we should be using that weight as the new standard for maximums for the species.
I explicitly said it depends which source you consider reliable. Those are the two widest skulls each from a different source. We can stick to scientific sources only, that's fine as I prefer those as well. A skull width 191 mm is marginally narrower than the average skull width for Pantanal male jaguars. So a Pantanal male below-average shall have a narrower skull than that Persian leopard skull. That's what one would call an overlap in size.
Quote:You haven't proven a single thing nor do you understand how the morphological adaptations of felids work. Irbises have similar skulls to cougars despite belonging to a different genus. Phylogenetic proximity is pointless when evolutionary traits are developed by different species through similar ecological constraints. Your study did not support any single claim you've made so far because it directly speaks of the skull differentiations between cats of the same genus (especially the irbis), the complete opposite of what you're claiming. The rest of your claims are purely subjective "Again I'm not seeing two entirely different skulls". What you're seeing =/= what things really are.
You're right; snow leopards do have similar skulls to cougars (cheetahs as well). Same thing like leopards who have similar skulls to jaguars. I have trouble with your big claim (i.e. jaguars having completely different skulls) that's all. Another comparison between a Persian male leopard skull and a male jaguar:
So where are you seeing these major differences? They're very similar in structure and build and this isn't subjective.
Quote:Sample size: 3, leopards from one specific location. If you think that this study trumps Sunquist's which has not only a larger sample size but likely leopards from different parts of Indian I don't know what to tell you. I could just as easily post scientific tables of jaguars from the Pantanal averaging 110 kg or cougars from Patagonia averaging 76 kg, but you've been hellbent on the 100 kg value based on Hoogesteijn's larger sample size for jaguars, so it's either one or the other, you cannot magically choose the highest averages for leopards because it suits you, but that's your MO so nobody is surprised here.
This was just an example of leopards who vary in size regionally, like most animals. Just because one sample turned out to be smaller doesn't mean every Indian male leopard will automatically average 56kg in weight. Just like every jaguar in Brazil does't weigh 100kg as can be seen when looking at Caatinga jaguars.
Quote:And I will wait on an answer for Shazam's weight, direct data is much better than guesses based on photographs.
You should've done that in the first place rather than giving a clear overestimation to back up your claim.
Quote:OK, so again you're not looking closely. It has nothing to do with "size''
I'll point out a few easy ones.... First is the mandible shape-The Jaguar has a concaved mandible while the Leopard has a flat/almost convcexed one.
The Nasal Projection and bone above the orbital is raised on the Jaguar and not the Leopard.
The height of the extreme distance of the mandible is more exaggerated on the Jaguar as well.
The zygomatic arch is also more arched in the Jaguar as well as a more exaggerated sagital crest.
The distance from the auditory bullae to the back of the mandible is much closer in the Jaguar than the leopard due to its massive size and slope of the crest.
Again, it's exaggerated because of the difference in size. It would be less exaggerated if the skulls would be somewhat equal in size. The most prominent difference between the skulls is the forehead and the jaguar skull being proportionally wider whereas the leopard skull will be proportionally longer.
Quote:You and I both know where you posted it, that's why you knew exactly which study I was referring to despite not giving much information about it at all. Shortridge isn't your only alternate alias. They overlap to an extent in that study, not completely, but I'll go over that later on.
I'm sorry but I'm only active on Wildfact as Luipaard and on Carnivora as Shortridge. Whoever else you think I am, it's not the case.
Yes they completely overlap as is seen in this study as well:
Quote:So is the leopard not another cat? If the skull of jaguars is completely different from other cats not only does that support my previous statements but directly contradicts your wrongful assumptions of both species having identical skulls. Being from the same genus means nothing when they are wired for different lifestyles and their morphology is a reflection of those lifestyles. Irbises are also Panthera cats, yet you're one of the people that gets triggered whenever they are compared to leopards.
Your initial post was focusing on the leopard and jaguars having 'completely different' skulls. I pointed out that the book simply used the leopard to compare as they are the two cats that can have similar skull dimensions. Still the book only implied that jaguars have wider skulls proportionally. Not that the skull is completely different compared to a leopard skull.
When was I triggered and when did someone compared a snow leopard to a common leopard? Have I missed something or are you again bringing up debates on a different forum - Carnivora.net?
Quote:The skull of the Indian tigress was never fully recognized as a leopard skull, the confusion had been derived from verbal descriptions of the fur of the animal killed which was dark. Because the dimensions of the skull were significantly above the threshold for what leopards achieve, it was later concluded to belong to a sub-adult tigress. Not to mention that this has little to nothing to do with what I initially stated, jaguars aren't tigresses so you're reasoning behind bringing this up is once again, bizarre.
The tigress skull was actually first acknowledged to be a leopard skull, a record one that is. Also it had nothing to do with the fur but simply because of the fact that the size of the animal and its skull layed in the overlapping of large male leopards and small tigresses. Here's another case where they made a mistake in identifying the animal; alleged tiger pug marks turned out to be leopard ones:
"Vishal Thakor, who has worked on human wildlife conflict mitigation said that people often mistake pug marks of leopards for that of a tiger. "This is because sometimes leopards can also grow to a huge size. Unless the pugmarks are in wet earth, it is also difficult to get its dimensions from a mere picture. Several measurements need to be taken before one can be sure whom the pug marks belong to," said Thakor." - https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-gujarat-tiger-pug-marks-turns-out-to-leopard-s-2729925
Second the skull its measurements were in the range of the largeest male leopard skulls (287,02 mm x 200,66 mm).
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:The word "completely" implies a total overlap in dimensions, which is false.
Yes they completely overlap in all dimensions I can assure you that unless you believe each and every jaguar skull will be taller or heavier?
Quote:The overlap in skull sizes between jaguars and leopards only occurs between specific populations, the largest jaguars outclass leopards by a very large margin (both averages and maximums). And the proportions of skull widths and lengths between populations of the two species is very different as well.
Wait so first it's false and now you do admit that they overlap although between specific populations? Not all jaguar skulls are the size of a Pantanal jaguar skull. Jaguar skulls smaller than a leopard skull can perfectly belong to an adult male jaguar. Hence why they overlap.
Quote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The skull length of the largest male is 288 mm, the same as the length of the largest Persian leopard skull, yet its width of 196 is much greater than the width of 181 of the leopard and at par with averages of jaguars from floodplain areas of South America.
Still shorter than the largest leopard skull which was estimated at 297 mm long. Quite believable given the condylobasal length of 264 mm. It's narrower (186 mm) but that's understandable as jaguars have proportionally wider skulls.
Quote:Hold on, you're using the 200 mm skull that came from that hunting book from the Tanzanian specimen that had a length of 11 inches? So you're now comparing hunting records that cannot be verified to scientifically gathered measurements in peer-review papers and think this somehow makes your point more valid? There are hunting records of jaguars at 180 kg, according to your reasoning we should be using that weight as the new standard for maximums for the species.
I explicitly said it depends which source you consider reliable. Those are the two widest skulls each from a different source. We can stick to scientific sources only, that's fine as I prefer those as well. A skull width 191 mm is marginally narrower than the average skull width for Pantanal male jaguars. So a Pantanal male below-average shall have a narrower skull than that Persian leopard skull. That's what one would call an overlap in size.
Quote:You haven't proven a single thing nor do you understand how the morphological adaptations of felids work. Irbises have similar skulls to cougars despite belonging to a different genus. Phylogenetic proximity is pointless when evolutionary traits are developed by different species through similar ecological constraints. Your study did not support any single claim you've made so far because it directly speaks of the skull differentiations between cats of the same genus (especially the irbis), the complete opposite of what you're claiming. The rest of your claims are purely subjective "Again I'm not seeing two entirely different skulls". What you're seeing =/= what things really are.
You're right; snow leopards do have similar skulls to cougars (cheetahs as well). Same thing like leopards who have similar skulls to jaguars. I have trouble with your big claim (i.e. jaguars having completely different skulls) that's all. Another comparison between a Persian male leopard skull and a male jaguar:
So where are you seeing these major differences? They're very similar in structure and build and this isn't subjective.
Quote:Sample size: 3, leopards from one specific location. If you think that this study trumps Sunquist's which has not only a larger sample size but likely leopards from different parts of Indian I don't know what to tell you. I could just as easily post scientific tables of jaguars from the Pantanal averaging 110 kg or cougars from Patagonia averaging 76 kg, but you've been hellbent on the 100 kg value based on Hoogesteijn's larger sample size for jaguars, so it's either one or the other, you cannot magically choose the highest averages for leopards because it suits you, but that's your MO so nobody is surprised here.
This was just an example of leopards who vary in size regionally, like most animals. Just because one sample turned out to be smaller doesn't mean every Indian male leopard will automatically average 56kg in weight. Just like every jaguar in Brazil does't weigh 100kg as can be seen when looking at Caatinga jaguars.
Quote:And I will wait on an answer for Shazam's weight, direct data is much better than guesses based on photographs.
You should've done that in the first place rather than giving a clear overestimation to back up your claim.
Quote:Yes they completely overlap as is seen in this study as well:
How do the graphs you show tally with tge data that is being discussed? Here's a dictionary definition of the word completely:
*This image is copyright of its original author
The graph you posted clearly showed that the dimensions in size of jaguar skulls far surpass that of leopards, why would you even think posting that study was going to help your case? But we don't need a graph to tell us that when we know that the skulls of jaguars from the medium to large populations grow much larger on average and maximum dimensions because we have data from multiple studies already attesting to this.
There is no complete, total, or whole overlap in size when one species dwarfs another one at the extremes.
Having a partial overlap between the smallest populations of the larger species and the largest populations of the smallest species is not "total overlap" if we used that reasoning the tigers and jaguars would "completely overlap" as well. From the forum's revised policies:
1. Intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting data continuously to prove their point.
2. Completely ignoring data presented if it contradicted their assertion. 3. Circular arguments and insatiable desire to have the last word, no matter how empty.
Right now you are engaging in all of those things.
Quote:Your initial post was focusing on the leopard and jaguars having 'completely different' skulls. I pointed out that the book simply used the leopard to compare as they are the two cats that can have similar skull dimensions.
No, the book did not remotely say anything about comparing them because they had "similar skull dimensions" (1. Intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting data), because compared to any leopard. Anton's excerpt used the skull of the leopard to symbolize how different it is from the jaguar because both species showcase opposite trends in length and width.
Quote:The tigress skull was actually first acknowledged to be a leopard skull, a record one that is. Also it had nothing to do with the fur but simply because of the fact that the size of the animal and its skull layed in the overlapping of large male leopards and small tigresses.
The width of 200 mm is well beyond anything recorded for any leopard under reputable sources, there is no overlapping there because not even the most extreme outlier in leopard skull breadth approaches these dimensions.
Quote:Yes they completely overlap in all dimensions I can assure you that unless you believe each and every jaguar skull will be taller or heavier?
2. Completely ignoring data presented if it contradicted their assertion.
Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. The word "overlap" is being repeatedly used by this person as if that claim wasn't objectively wrong.
3. Circular arguments and insatiable desire to have the last word, no matter how empty.
The last portion of that response is a clear example of a strawman fallacy. Stating that jaguars and leopards do not completely overlap in skull dimensions doesn't mean they do not overlap in some levels. The premise here is that they do not "completely" overlap and their proportions in terms of skull structure are completely different even when comparing animals of similar sizes.
Quote:Wait so first it's false and now you do admit that they overlap although between specific populations? Not all jaguar skulls are the size of a Pantanal jaguar skull. Jaguar skulls smaller than a leopard skull can perfectly belong to an adult male jaguar. Hence why they overlap.
1. Intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting data continuously to prove their point.
Quote:Still shorter than the largest leopard skull which was estimated at 297 mm long. Quite believable given the condylobasal length of 264 mm. It's narrower (186 mm) but that's understandable as jaguars have proportionally wider skulls.
Keyword: estimated. Not only is that skull useless for this comparison because its total length is impossible to ascertain with full accuracy, but the statement above has absolutely nothing to do with my initial claim. I said that even at length parity the jaguar will show significantly wider zygomatic arches, and you responded with a supposedly longer-skulled leopard which has an even narrower breadth.
Quote:A skull width 191 mm is marginally narrower than the average skull width for Pantanal male jaguars. So a Pantanal male below-average shall have a narrower skull than that Persian leopard skull. That's what one would call an overlap in size.
You have no way to prove that an adult male Pantanal jaguar would have a similar skull even if it was below average, a skull of those dimensions would likely belong to a sub-adult at best unless you can provide evidence to the contrary by showcasing specific skulls with their live ages dated. Good luck.
Quote:You're right; snow leopards do have similar skulls to cougars (cheetahs as well). Same thing like leopards who have similar skulls to jaguars.
So you admit that your phylogenetic analysis made no sense the moment we factored in the irbis and then doubled down on an objectively false statement you've yet to prove with sound and quantifiable data? From left to right: American lion, African lion, Siberian tiger, African leopard, jaguar, cougar, and clouded leopard:
*This image is copyright of its original author
As I've said numerous times on here before, when looking at these skulls from a top view it becomes evident how different jaguar and leopard skulls really are. The width of the rostrum is much more pronounced in the jaguar, the width of the zygoma is much more pronounced in the jaguar, the anterior fontanelle is wider and more indented in the jaguar, the sagittal crest is more protruded in the jaguar, etc. One could even go as far as to suggest that cougars have more similar skull anatomy in terms of proportions with the jaguar than the leopard when observed from this view.
Quote:I have trouble with your big claim (i.e. jaguars having completely different skulls) that's all. Another comparison between a Persian male leopard skull and a male jaguar
My "big claim" which is backed by scientific texts has already been addressed in the previous post. I'm sure it took you a long time to cherry-pick the two skulls that resembled each other the most, let's just pretend like this side-by-side comparison shown by Peter on here was never posted:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:So where are you seeing these major differences? They're very similar in structure and build and this isn't subjective.
2. Completely ignoring data presented if it contradicted their assertion. [i][b]3. Circular arguments and insatiable desire to have the last word, no matter how empty.[/i][/b]
Quote:This was just an example of leopards who vary in size regionally, like most animals. Just because one sample turned out to be smaller doesn't mean every Indian male leopard will automatically average 56kg in weight. Just like every jaguar in Brazil does't weigh 100kg as can be seen when looking at Caatinga jaguars.
The number of logical fallacies in this post...
You posted a table with three Indian males from one particular location while completely dismissing the study from Sunquist which has a larger sample size because the latter yielded an average that is not to your liking, not once did I make the claim that every Indian male will average 56 kg based on that study (strawman).
And you decided to divide jaguars by country of origin rather than population as if Pantanal and Caatinga jaguars weren't two completely different populations separated by vast amounts of land in completely different eco-regions with putative scientific recognition as different sub-species (false dilemma), your Pantanal/Caatinga analogy would be equivalent to me comparing a Persian with an Arabian leopard.
You chose to use the 100 kg benchmark to make your attempt at a point when I specifically noticed that depending on the scientific studies used Pantanal jaguars will average 110 kg or more, especially when divided by area, hence my comparison with your Indian leopard table.
@tigerluver I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with this individual who as I have shown keeps violating the rules that have been put in place for sane debate based on objective data. You can intercede if you want but the violations in his post are clear based on the revisions you posted and I've made my points.
The following 2 users Like Balam's post:2 users Like Balam's post • Pckts, Rishi
06-28-2021, 09:22 PM( This post was last modified: 06-28-2021, 09:32 PM by Rishi )
@Balam by overlap he probably meant shape-wise amongst the very diverse population in both & not implying that the largest leopards have the same skull size as the 150+ jaguars... Right @Luipaard?
Anyways I agree with some of his points. It's his interpretation that's different from yours, but not ignoring it. You're presenting you arguments properly, but try & avoid avoid this animosity.
Quote:The number of logical fallacies in this post is mind-blogging to the point where I don't even know where to begin.
I request both of you please be objective about this. Try less to "win the argument" & instead concentrate on presenting your case. Readers can make up their own minds.
The following 1 user Likes Rishi's post:1 user Likes Rishi's post • Luipaard
@Rishi he's repeatedly using the term "completely" which is completely false. While it's true that the smallest populations of jaguars overlap in dimensions with the largest populations of leopards in the skull or weight department, the overlap is still not total as the largest Mexican jaguar skull has a wider breadth than the largest leopard skull, despite being tied in length, hence having a greater overall score. This disparity becomes even larger when counting on South American populations, and of those not just the Pantanal. The largest skull on SCI records actually belongs to a Chacoan specimen.
So the use of the term "completely" is erroneous because the same could be said of jaguar skulls against lions and tigers and I doubt people here would agree on that, rightfully so. Furthermore, he is implying that the differences in skeletal proportions between both species are minor when that is also not the case. The difference in length/width ratio alone separates them by a long mile but the differences do not stop there. In short, I made a post highlighting these differences based on scientific analyses and then supplemented with a side-by-side comparison with two live specimens. He's decided to chime in to the discussion with logical fallacies, misunderstanding of data, and subjective points.
Quote:by overlap he probably meant shape-wise amongst the very diverse population in both & not implying that the largest leopards have the same skull size as the 150+ jaguars... Right @Luipaard?
Pretty much yes. I simply disagree with the claim of jaguar skulls being completely different to leopard skulls especially since this claim is nothing more than an opinion but stated like it's a fact. Never have I ever said that the largest leopard skulls are equal in size to the largest jaguar skulls. Isn't it obvious that they overlap in dimensions and overall size? I've posted scientific data to back this up plus added photographs which clearly shows how similar they can be. This isn't a rhino skull we're comparing to a giraffe's; we're comparing two skulls from the same genus who too overlap in body size. If they overlap in body size, they certainly will overlap in skull dimensions too.
I'm not trying to win this debate/argument FYI. I think Balam and I are black and white and we're looking for the grey part to settle this. I think it would be good if more members would chime in.
I asked you some questions which you can expect when you post a (in my opinion) controversial claim, and you decide to reply to me with the forum policies? Like, numerous times? A bit childish to be honest.
Quote:The graph you posted clearly showed that the dimensions in size of jaguar skulls far surpass that of leopards, why would you even think posting that study was going to help your case? But we don't need a graph to tell us that when we know that the skulls of jaguars from the medium to large populations grow much larger on average and maximum dimensions because we have data from multiple studies already attesting to this.
There is no complete, total, or whole overlap in size when one species dwarfs another one at the extremes.
The graph clearly shows they overlap. Even the lion overlaps with the jaguar but it's clear that it's mostly lions and tigers & leopards and jaguars who overlap.
It doesn't matter if they're dwarfed at extremes since an overlap can occur at minimums or averages as well. You're trying everything to dismiss their overlap. From the smallest populations to the maximums of the largest populations. Whatever suits you.
Quote:Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. The word "overlap" is being repeatedly used by this person as if that claim wasn't objectively wrong.
Why do you want me to specifically pick a population, especially ones that suit you? Don't you hate cherry-picking? What's wrong with populations that do completely overlap? Post skull data of Llanos and Chacoan jaguars and we'll see if they overlap. I cannot prove this when data is lacking.
Quote:You have no way to prove that an adult male Pantanal jaguar would have a similar skull even if it was below average, a skull of those dimensions would likely belong to a sub-adult at best unless you can provide evidence to the contrary by showcasing specific skulls with their live ages dated. Good luck.
And you have no prove that it would belong to a sub-adult. We're going in circles.
Quote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I've seen this comparison long before you were around here. This photograph is unfortunately being abused because everyone who posts this, decides to not mention the measurements. The leopard skull is circa 245 mm whereas the jaguar skull is circa 280 mm or in other words; they're everything but similar in size.
Quote:And you decided to divide jaguars by country of origin rather than population as if Pantanal and Caatinga jaguars weren't two completely different populations separated by vast amounts of land in completely different eco-regions with putative scientific recognition as different sub-species (false dilemma), your Pantanal/Caatinga analogy would be equivalent to me comparing a Persian with an Arabian leopard.
I've shown size variation in Indian leopards as one sample does not decide the size of a whole subspecies. This is the same case when comparing Pantanal jaguars to Caatinga jaguars who both live in the same country.
Persian and Arabian leopards are different subspecies unlike jaguars, who only have one subspecies. It's not exactly the equivalent. An equivalent would be Cape leopards and leopards from the provinces of Limpopo, Mpumalanga or KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.
Now show me the differences between those skulls I 'cherry-picked'. After all they're completely different right? Well prove it.
Quote:by overlap he probably meant shape-wise amongst the very diverse population in both & not implying that the largest leopards have the same skull size as the 150+ jaguars... Right @Luipaard?
Pretty much yes. I simply disagree with the claim of jaguar skulls being completely different to leopard skulls especially since this claim is nothing more than an opinion but stated like it's a fact. Never have I ever said that the largest leopard skulls are equal in size to the largest jaguar skulls. Isn't it obvious that they overlap in dimensions and overall size? I've posted scientific data to back this up plus added photographs which clearly shows how similar they can be. This isn't a rhino skull we're comparing to a giraffe's; we're comparing two skulls from the same genus who too overlap in body size. If they overlap in body size, they certainly will overlap in skull dimensions too.
I'm not trying to win this debate/argument FYI. I think Balam and I are black and white and we're looking for the grey part to settle this. I think it would be good if more members would chime in.
I asked you some questions which you can expect when you post a (in my opinion) controversial claim, and you decide to reply to me with the forum policies? Like, numerous times? A bit childish to be honest.
Quote:The graph you posted clearly showed that the dimensions in size of jaguar skulls far surpass that of leopards, why would you even think posting that study was going to help your case? But we don't need a graph to tell us that when we know that the skulls of jaguars from the medium to large populations grow much larger on average and maximum dimensions because we have data from multiple studies already attesting to this.
There is no complete, total, or whole overlap in size when one species dwarfs another one at the extremes.
The graph clearly shows they overlap. Even the lion overlaps with the jaguar but it's clear that it's mostly lions and tigers & leopards and jaguars who overlap.
It doesn't matter if they're dwarfed at extremes since an overlap can occur at minimums or averages as well. You're trying everything to dismiss their overlap. From the smallest populations to the maximums of the largest populations. Whatever suits you.
Quote:Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. The word "overlap" is being repeatedly used by this person as if that claim wasn't objectively wrong.
Why do you want me to specifically pick a population, especially ones that suit you? Don't you hate cherry-picking? What's wrong with populations that do completely overlap? Post skull data of Llanos and Chacoan jaguars and we'll see if they overlap. I cannot prove this when data is lacking.
Quote:You have no way to prove that an adult male Pantanal jaguar would have a similar skull even if it was below average, a skull of those dimensions would likely belong to a sub-adult at best unless you can provide evidence to the contrary by showcasing specific skulls with their live ages dated. Good luck.
And you have no prove that it would belong to a sub-adult. We're going in circles.
Quote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
I've seen this comparison long before you were around here. This photograph is unfortunately being abused because everyone who posts this, decides to not mention the measurements. The leopard skull is circa 245 mm whereas the jaguar skull is circa 280 mm or in other words; they're everything but similar in size.
Quote:And you decided to divide jaguars by country of origin rather than population as if Pantanal and Caatinga jaguars weren't two completely different populations separated by vast amounts of land in completely different eco-regions with putative scientific recognition as different sub-species (false dilemma), your Pantanal/Caatinga analogy would be equivalent to me comparing a Persian with an Arabian leopard.
I've shown size variation in Indian leopards as one sample does not decide the size of a whole subspecies. This is the same case when comparing Pantanal jaguars to Caatinga jaguars who both live in the same country.
Persian and Arabian leopards are different subspecies unlike jaguars, who only have one subspecies. It's not exactly the equivalent. An equivalent would be Cape leopards and leopards from the provinces of Limpopo, Mpumalanga or KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.
Now show me the differences between those skulls I 'cherry-picked'. After all they're completely different right? Well prove it.
Quote:Pretty much yes. I simply disagree with the claim of jaguar skulls being completely different to leopard skulls especially since this claim is nothing more than an opinion but stated like it's a fact. Never have I ever said that the largest leopard skulls are equal in size to the largest jaguar skulls.
You said that they overlapped "completely", now you are twisting Rishi's point to paint yourself as the misunderstood one. You were very clear from the beginning and very wrong. If they overlapped completely then the largest leopards would have to match the largest jaguars in dimensions and they do not. You made the claim, not mem and unsurprisingly you've failed to prove or back up any of these points.
Quote:This isn't a rhino skull we're comparing to a giraffe's; we're comparing two skulls from the same genus who too overlap in body size. If they overlap in body size, they certainly will overlap in skull dimensions too.
Let's see if we can keep count of the strawmen, here's the first one.
Quote:I asked you some questions which you can expect when you post a (in my opinion) controversial claim, and you decide to reply to me with the forum policies? Like, numerous times? A bit childish to be honest.
There is nothing childish about highlight forum violations when you repeatedly engage in poor reasoning based on preconceived notions and then double down on them repeatedly, even when they are verifiably false and when the data has been shown to you multiple times (deflection fallacy).
Quote:The graph clearly shows they overlap. Even the lion overlaps with the jaguar but it's clear that it's mostly lions and tigers & leopards and jaguars who overlap.
What part of the entire dataset available showcasing that the gap between jaguars and leopards is just as big are you not getting? The largest jaguar skulls (not even belonging to the heaviest specimens) on public record far surpass the largest leopard skulls and they do so in averages as well. Do you think that posting a graph and taking it out of context is going to all of a sudden offset the rest of the available data publicized?
Quote:It doesn't matter if they're dwarfed at extremes since an overlap can occur at minimums or averages as well. You're trying everything to dismiss their overlap. From the smallest populations to the maximums of the largest populations. Whatever suits you.
Strawman #2, I've never once said this and once again this breaks the forum rules. Mods?
Quote:Why do you want me to specifically pick a population, especially ones that suit you? Don't you hate cherry-picking? What's wrong with populations that do completely overlap? Post skull data of Llanos and Chacoan jaguars and we'll see if they overlap. I cannot prove this when data is lacking.
Read what my post says: Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. A range implies a distribution between the smallest to the largest, because it was you who made the claim that leopards and jaguars "completely overlapped" in dimensions, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that they match the largest measurements for jaguars from these populations (a complete overlap). Once again mods, this a circular argument in violation of the forum policies with the dismissal of crucial data.
Quote:I've seen this comparison long before you were around here. This photograph is unfortunately being abused because everyone who posts this, decides to not mention the measurements. The leopard skull is circa 245 mm whereas the jaguar skull is circa 280 mm or in other words; they're everything but similar in size.
Another fallacy, appeal to authority, what does you having had seen this before has anything to do with points being discussed? And how is it being "abused"? What do measurements have anything to do with this since we're comparing skull proportions?. If the jaguar skull were to be scaled down to the leopard's size based on length, the differences in anotomy would remain the same.
One more thing, the skull length of the Central African leopard almost perfectly matches the average for this population, while the skull of the Bolivian jaguar (likely a Chacoan or Yungas specimen) falls well short of the average size of a Pantanal or Llanos jaguar skulls and yet it still dwarfs the leopard skull. Interestingly how your claims of Central African leopards attainting the dimensions of Pantanal jaguars fall apart, especially when we take into consideration that an average-sized skull from the Pantanal of 290mm in length and 195 mm in width would be even larger against that average-sized Central African specimen. Comparing one to two outliers against a population average (and still failing to meet the dimensions of said average) doesn't symbolize an overlap, but I digress.
Quote:I've shown size variation in Indian leopards as one sample does not decide the size of a whole subspecies. This is the same case when comparing Pantanal jaguars to Caatinga jaguars who both live in the same country.
That is not how it works, jaguars are classified as a monophyletic species but that doesn't mean that genetic differences between populations do not exist. And your comparison is completely flawed because national boundaries have no relation to the things that matter in this context which are regional differences based on ecological factors.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey to the point that some of the studied specimens from this region have died from starvation @Dark Jaguar knows all about this. The Caatinga environment is completely different from the Pantanal and is separated by a vast savannah known as the Cerrado. These two populations are as different as the Arabian and Persian leopards or Sundarbans and Kaziranga tigers, and I don't know why all of a sudden you're such a puritan when it comes to taxonomical orders when you've complained in the past about how African leopards shouldn't all be lumped into one single subspecies.
Ultimately you still haven't proven that:
1. Jaguar and leopard skull completely overlap in size. (keyword that's being repeatedly ignored in this discussion: completely)
2. There are minor differences in their skull morphology. (I expect a dissection of the main skull parts from you in this regard and why they are similar)
As I said in the previous post I'm not going to continue going back and forth until this person brings forward sound data to back his claims up instead of lengthy word-salads that have nothing to do with what's being discussed and as shown multiple times are in violation of the forum policies.
Quote:OK, so again you're not looking closely. It has nothing to do with "size''
I'll point out a few easy ones.... First is the mandible shape-The Jaguar has a concaved mandible while the Leopard has a flat/almost convcexed one.
The Nasal Projection and bone above the orbital is raised on the Jaguar and not the Leopard.
The height of the extreme distance of the mandible is more exaggerated on the Jaguar as well.
The zygomatic arch is also more arched in the Jaguar as well as a more exaggerated sagital crest.
The distance from the auditory bullae to the back of the mandible is much closer in the Jaguar than the leopard due to its massive size and slope of the crest.
Again, it's exaggerated because of the difference in size. It would be less exaggerated if the skulls would be somewhat equal in size. The most prominent difference between the skulls is the forehead and the jaguar skull being proportionally wider whereas the leopard skull will be proportionally longer.
Quote:You and I both know where you posted it, that's why you knew exactly which study I was referring to despite not giving much information about it at all. Shortridge isn't your only alternate alias. They overlap to an extent in that study, not completely, but I'll go over that later on.
I'm sorry but I'm only active on Wildfact as Luipaard and on Carnivora as Shortridge. Whoever else you think I am, it's not the case.
Yes they completely overlap as is seen in this study as well:
Quote:So is the leopard not another cat? If the skull of jaguars is completely different from other cats not only does that support my previous statements but directly contradicts your wrongful assumptions of both species having identical skulls. Being from the same genus means nothing when they are wired for different lifestyles and their morphology is a reflection of those lifestyles. Irbises are also Panthera cats, yet you're one of the people that gets triggered whenever they are compared to leopards.
Your initial post was focusing on the leopard and jaguars having 'completely different' skulls. I pointed out that the book simply used the leopard to compare as they are the two cats that can have similar skull dimensions. Still the book only implied that jaguars have wider skulls proportionally. Not that the skull is completely different compared to a leopard skull.
When was I triggered and when did someone compared a snow leopard to a common leopard? Have I missed something or are you again bringing up debates on a different forum - Carnivora.net?
Quote:The skull of the Indian tigress was never fully recognized as a leopard skull, the confusion had been derived from verbal descriptions of the fur of the animal killed which was dark. Because the dimensions of the skull were significantly above the threshold for what leopards achieve, it was later concluded to belong to a sub-adult tigress. Not to mention that this has little to nothing to do with what I initially stated, jaguars aren't tigresses so you're reasoning behind bringing this up is once again, bizarre.
The tigress skull was actually first acknowledged to be a leopard skull, a record one that is. Also it had nothing to do with the fur but simply because of the fact that the size of the animal and its skull layed in the overlapping of large male leopards and small tigresses. Here's another case where they made a mistake in identifying the animal; alleged tiger pug marks turned out to be leopard ones:
"Vishal Thakor, who has worked on human wildlife conflict mitigation said that people often mistake pug marks of leopards for that of a tiger. "This is because sometimes leopards can also grow to a huge size. Unless the pugmarks are in wet earth, it is also difficult to get its dimensions from a mere picture. Several measurements need to be taken before one can be sure whom the pug marks belong to," said Thakor." - https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-gujarat-tiger-pug-marks-turns-out-to-leopard-s-2729925
Second the skull its measurements were in the range of the largeest male leopard skulls (287,02 mm x 200,66 mm).
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:The word "completely" implies a total overlap in dimensions, which is false.
Yes they completely overlap in all dimensions I can assure you that unless you believe each and every jaguar skull will be taller or heavier?
Quote:The overlap in skull sizes between jaguars and leopards only occurs between specific populations, the largest jaguars outclass leopards by a very large margin (both averages and maximums). And the proportions of skull widths and lengths between populations of the two species is very different as well.
Wait so first it's false and now you do admit that they overlap although between specific populations? Not all jaguar skulls are the size of a Pantanal jaguar skull. Jaguar skulls smaller than a leopard skull can perfectly belong to an adult male jaguar. Hence why they overlap.
Quote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The skull length of the largest male is 288 mm, the same as the length of the largest Persian leopard skull, yet its width of 196 is much greater than the width of 181 of the leopard and at par with averages of jaguars from floodplain areas of South America.
Still shorter than the largest leopard skull which was estimated at 297 mm long. Quite believable given the condylobasal length of 264 mm. It's narrower (186 mm) but that's understandable as jaguars have proportionally wider skulls.
Quote:Hold on, you're using the 200 mm skull that came from that hunting book from the Tanzanian specimen that had a length of 11 inches? So you're now comparing hunting records that cannot be verified to scientifically gathered measurements in peer-review papers and think this somehow makes your point more valid? There are hunting records of jaguars at 180 kg, according to your reasoning we should be using that weight as the new standard for maximums for the species.
I explicitly said it depends which source you consider reliable. Those are the two widest skulls each from a different source. We can stick to scientific sources only, that's fine as I prefer those as well. A skull width 191 mm is marginally narrower than the average skull width for Pantanal male jaguars. So a Pantanal male below-average shall have a narrower skull than that Persian leopard skull. That's what one would call an overlap in size.
Quote:You haven't proven a single thing nor do you understand how the morphological adaptations of felids work. Irbises have similar skulls to cougars despite belonging to a different genus. Phylogenetic proximity is pointless when evolutionary traits are developed by different species through similar ecological constraints. Your study did not support any single claim you've made so far because it directly speaks of the skull differentiations between cats of the same genus (especially the irbis), the complete opposite of what you're claiming. The rest of your claims are purely subjective "Again I'm not seeing two entirely different skulls". What you're seeing =/= what things really are.
You're right; snow leopards do have similar skulls to cougars (cheetahs as well). Same thing like leopards who have similar skulls to jaguars. I have trouble with your big claim (i.e. jaguars having completely different skulls) that's all. Another comparison between a Persian male leopard skull and a male jaguar:
So where are you seeing these major differences? They're very similar in structure and build and this isn't subjective.
Quote:Sample size: 3, leopards from one specific location. If you think that this study trumps Sunquist's which has not only a larger sample size but likely leopards from different parts of Indian I don't know what to tell you. I could just as easily post scientific tables of jaguars from the Pantanal averaging 110 kg or cougars from Patagonia averaging 76 kg, but you've been hellbent on the 100 kg value based on Hoogesteijn's larger sample size for jaguars, so it's either one or the other, you cannot magically choose the highest averages for leopards because it suits you, but that's your MO so nobody is surprised here.
This was just an example of leopards who vary in size regionally, like most animals. Just because one sample turned out to be smaller doesn't mean every Indian male leopard will automatically average 56kg in weight. Just like every jaguar in Brazil does't weigh 100kg as can be seen when looking at Caatinga jaguars.
Quote:And I will wait on an answer for Shazam's weight, direct data is much better than guesses based on photographs.
You should've done that in the first place rather than giving a clear overestimation to back up your claim.
Quote:Again, it's exaggerated because of the difference in size. It would be less exaggerated if the skulls would be somewhat equal in size. The most prominent difference between the skulls is the forehead and the jaguar skull being proportionally wider whereas the leopard skull will be proportionally longer.
How does a different shaped mandible, skull crown or sagital crest have to do with the size?
It doesn't matter if they are both the same size or completely different, these are morphological differences that separate one from the other.
Quote:Pretty much yes. I simply disagree with the claim of jaguar skulls being completely different to leopard skulls especially since this claim is nothing more than an opinion but stated like it's a fact. Never have I ever said that the largest leopard skulls are equal in size to the largest jaguar skulls. Isn't it obvious that they overlap in dimensions and overall size? I've posted scientific data to back this up plus added photographs which clearly shows how similar they can be. This isn't a rhino skull we're comparing to a giraffe's; we're comparing two skulls from the same genus who too overlap in body size. If they overlap in body size, they certainly will overlap in skull dimensions too.
The differences in Leopard and Jaguar skulls are akin to the differences in Lions and Tigers skulls. Of course these are all Panthera and they'll share many similar traits, that goes without saying. But you claimed this
Quote:Again I'm not seeing two entirely different skulls, just a bigger version of the other
And the whole point was that a Jaguar skull certainly isn't just a "bigger version of a Leopard skull."
Quote:I've seen this comparison long before you were around here. This photograph is unfortunately being abused because everyone who posts this, decides to not mention the measurements. The leopard skull is circa 245 mm whereas the jaguar skull is circa 280 mm or in other words; they're everything but similar in size.
Another perfect example, ignore the size and notice the morphological differences, it wouldn't matter if you scaled the Leopard up the Jaguar down, they will never look like two Skulls that came from the same species to anyone with knowledge on the subject.
*This image is copyright of its original author
The following 1 user Likes Pckts's post:1 user Likes Pckts's post • Balam
06-29-2021, 12:25 AM( This post was last modified: 06-29-2021, 12:57 AM by Luipaard )
Quote:You said that they overlapped "completely", now you are twisting Rishi's point to paint yourself as the misunderstood one. You were very clear from the beginning and very wrong. If they overlapped completely then the largest leopards would have to match the largest jaguars in dimensions and they do not. You made the claim, not mem and unsurprisingly you've failed to prove or back up any of these points.
They overlap completely since leopards have surpassed the length and width of jaguar skulls. You keep sticking with the extremes but that's not how it works. For example, the Persian leopard with a skull width of 191 mm has surpassed the width of adult male jaguar skulls from the Amazon (175,9 mm). It's once again evidence of the overlapping in skull dimensions. What's not to understand?
Quote:There is nothing childish about highlight forum violations when you repeatedly engage in poor reasoning based on preconceived notions and then double down on them repeatedly, even when they are verifiably false and when the data has been shown to you multiple times (deflection fallacy).
Lot's of 'difficult' words especially when it just means you didn't know what to do say so you spammed your response with the forum policies. At least I stayed on topic unlike you.
Quote:What part of the entire dataset available showcasing that the gap between jaguars and leopards is just as big are you not getting? The largest jaguar skulls (not even belonging to the heaviest specimens) on public record far surpass the largest leopard skulls and they do so in averages as well. Do you think that posting a graph and taking it out of context is going to all of a sudden offset the rest of the available data publicized?
Take a breath and look carefully at the objects (square = leopard, rhombus = jaguar). Now notice how the two figures overlap. Notice how there's a square (= leopard) ovelaps with the bigger jaguars (and even lionesses).
Quote:Strawman #2, I've never once said this and once again this breaks the forum rules. Mods?
You realise you made a moderator interrupt on of our debates right? You also realise you ignored this which resulted in another moderator locking the thread right?
Quote:Read what my post says: Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. A range implies a distribution between the smallest to the largest, because it was you who made the claim that leopards and jaguars "completely overlapped" in dimensions, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that they match the largest measurements for jaguars from these populations (a complete overlap). Once again mods, this a circular argument in violation of the forum policies with the dismissal of crucial data.
A range distribution between the smllest to the largest populations yet to stick with Llanos, Pantanal and Chacoan population - A.K.A. the largest ones. Why not those from Belize for example? right, because they overlap, in fact leopard surpass these meassurements. You obviously know this hence why you want the largest population for comparison.
Quote:Another fallacy, appeal to authority, what does you having had seen this before has anything to do with points being discussed? And how is it being "abused"? What do measurements have anything to do with this since we're comparing skull proportions?. If the jaguar skull were to be scaled down to the leopard's size based on length, the differences in anotomy would remain the same. One more thing, the skull length of the Central African leopard almost perfectly matches the average for this population, while the skull of the Bolivian jaguar (likely a Chacoan or Yungas specimen) falls well short of the average size of a Pantanal or Llanos jaguar skulls and yet it still dwarfs the leopard skull. Interestingly how your claims of Central African leopards attainting the dimensions of Pantanal jaguars fall apart, especially when we take into consideration that an average-sized skull from the Pantanal of 290mm in length and 195 mm in width would be even larger against that average-sized Central African specimen. Comparing one to two outliers against a population average (and still failing to meet the dimensions of said average) doesn't symbolize an overlap, but I digress.
First of all I am the one who wants to compare the skulls, but skulls that equal in dimensions. The comparison you posted is everything but equal or similar (245 mm vs 280 mm) whereas the skulls I posted looked close in size overal. Unfortunately you found this cherry-picking; not my problem. Still waiting for these major differences that makes these skulls completely different.
Quote:That is not how it works, jaguars are classified as a monophyletic species but that doesn't mean that genetic differences between populations do not exist. And your comparison is completely flawed because national boundaries have no relation to the things that matter in this context which are regional differences based on ecological factors.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey to the point that some of the studied specimens from this region have died from starvation @Dark Jaguar knows all about this. The Caatinga environment is completely different from the Pantanal and is separated by a vast savannah known as the Cerrado. These two populations are as different as the Arabian and Persian leopards or Sundarbans and Kaziranga tigers, and I don't know why all of a sudden you're such a puritan when it comes to taxonomical orders when you've complained in the past about how African leopards shouldn't all be lumped into one single subspecies.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey... What do you think Arabian leopards are? Or Cape leopards? You really think this rule applies to jaguars only do you? At least they're from the same species unlike Arabian and Persian leopards.
Quote:Ultimately you still haven't proven that:
1. Jaguar and leopard skull completely overlap in size. (keyword that's being repeatedly ignored in this discussion: completely) 2. There are minor differences in their skull morphology. (I expect a dissection of the main skull parts from you in this regard and why they are similar)
1. I've just shown you why they overlap completely. You sticking with the extremes won't change this.
2. You expect a dissection of the main skull parts? Seriously? I asked you twice to show me why a jaguar skull is 'completely different' than a leopard skull?
Quote:As I said in the previous post I'm not going to continue going back and forth until this person brings forward sound data to back his claims up instead of lengthy word-salads that have nothing to do with what's being discussed and as shown multiple times are in violation of the forum policies.
I've included scientific data alongside photographs of leopard and jaguar skulls. Remember that YOU claimed jaguar skulls to be completely different than leopard skulls. I've posted data of the skulls overlapping in size plus photographs being similar in build and structure.
So for the third time, please show me the major differences when the skulls are similar in size.
Quote:Another perfect example, ignore the size and notice the morphological differences, it wouldn't matter if you scaled the Leopard up the Jaguar down, they will never look like two Skulls that came from the same species to anyone with knowledge on the subject.
How about we don't ignore the size difference and look at the morphological differences:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now I'm waiting for two persons to tell me how 'completely' different they are.
06-29-2021, 12:47 AM( This post was last modified: 06-29-2021, 12:51 AM by Pckts )
(06-29-2021, 12:25 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
Quote:You said that they overlapped "completely", now you are twisting Rishi's point to paint yourself as the misunderstood one. You were very clear from the beginning and very wrong. If they overlapped completely then the largest leopards would have to match the largest jaguars in dimensions and they do not. You made the claim, not mem and unsurprisingly you've failed to prove or back up any of these points.
They overlap completely since leopards have surpassed the length and width of jaguar skulls. You keep sticking with the extremes but that's not how it works. For example, the Persian leopard with a skull width of 191 mm has surpassed the width of adult male jaguar skulls from the Amazon (175,9 mm). It's once again evidence of the overlapping in skull dimensions. What's not to understand?
Quote:There is nothing childish about highlight forum violations when you repeatedly engage in poor reasoning based on preconceived notions and then double down on them repeatedly, even when they are verifiably false and when the data has been shown to you multiple times (deflection fallacy).
Lot's of 'difficult' words especially when it just means you didn't know what to do say so you spammed your response with the forum policies. At least I stayed on topic unlike you.
Quote:What part of the entire dataset available showcasing that the gap between jaguars and leopards is just as big are you not getting? The largest jaguar skulls (not even belonging to the heaviest specimens) on public record far surpass the largest leopard skulls and they do so in averages as well. Do you think that posting a graph and taking it out of context is going to all of a sudden offset the rest of the available data publicized?
Take a breath and look carefully at the objects (square = leopard, rhombus = jaguar). Now notice how the two figures overlap. Notice how there's a square (= leopard) ovelaps with the bigger jaguars (and even lionesses).
Quote:Strawman #2, I've never once said this and once again this breaks the forum rules. Mods?
You realise you mae a moderator interrupt right? You also realise you ignored this which resulted in another moderator locking the thread right?
Quote:Read what my post says: Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. A range implies a distribution between the smallest to the largest, because it was you who made the claim that leopards and jaguars "completely overlapped" in dimensions, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that they match the largest measurements for jaguars from these populations (a complete overlap). Once again mods, this a circular argument in violation of the forum policies with the dismissal of crucial data.
A range distribution between the smllest to the largest populations yet to stick with Llanos, Pantanal and Chacoan population - A.K.A. the largest ones. Why not those from Belize for example? right, because they overlap, in fact leopard surpass these meassurements. You obviously know this hence why you want the largest population for comparison.
Quote:Another fallacy, appeal to authority, what does you having had seen this before has anything to do with points being discussed? And how is it being "abused"? What do measurements have anything to do with this since we're comparing skull proportions?. If the jaguar skull were to be scaled down to the leopard's size based on length, the differences in anotomy would remain the same. One more thing, the skull length of the Central African leopard almost perfectly matches the average for this population, while the skull of the Bolivian jaguar (likely a Chacoan or Yungas specimen) falls well short of the average size of a Pantanal or Llanos jaguar skulls and yet it still dwarfs the leopard skull. Interestingly how your claims of Central African leopards attainting the dimensions of Pantanal jaguars fall apart, especially when we take into consideration that an average-sized skull from the Pantanal of 290mm in length and 195 mm in width would be even larger against that average-sized Central African specimen. Comparing one to two outliers against a population average (and still failing to meet the dimensions of said average) doesn't symbolize an overlap, but I digress.
First of all I am the one who wants to compare the skulls, but skulls that equal in dimensions. The comparison you posted is everything but equal or similar (245 mm vs 280 mm) whereas the skulls I posted looked close in size overal. Unfortunately you found this cherry-picking; not my problem. Still waiting for these major differences that makes these skulls completely different.
Quote:That is not how it works, jaguars are classified as a monophyletic species but that doesn't mean that genetic differences between populations do not exist. And your comparison is completely flawed because national boundaries have no relation to the things that matter in this context which are regional differences based on ecological factors.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey to the point that some of the studied specimens from this region have died from starvation @Dark Jaguar knows all about this. The Caatinga environment is completely different from the Pantanal and is separated by a vast savannah known as the Cerrado. These two populations are as different as the Arabian and Persian leopards or Sundarbans and Kaziranga tigers, and I don't know why all of a sudden you're such a puritan when it comes to taxonomical orders when you've complained in the past about how African leopards shouldn't all be lumped into one single subspecies.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey... What do you think Arabian leopards are? Or Cape leopards? You really think this rule applies to jaguars only do you? At least they're from the same species unlike Arabian and Persian leopards.
Quote:Ultimately you still haven't proven that:
1. Jaguar and leopard skull completely overlap in size. (keyword that's being repeatedly ignored in this discussion: completely) 2. There are minor differences in their skull morphology. (I expect a dissection of the main skull parts from you in this regard and why they are similar)
1. I've just shown you why they overlap completely. You sticking with the extremes won't change this.
2. You expect a dissection of the main skull parts? Seriously? I asked you twice to show me why a jaguar skull is 'completely different' than a leopard skull?
Quote:As I said in the previous post I'm not going to continue going back and forth until this person brings forward sound data to back his claims up instead of lengthy word-salads that have nothing to do with what's being discussed and as shown multiple times are in violation of the forum policies.
I've included scientific data alongside photographs of leopard and jaguar skulls. Remember that YOU claimed jaguar skulls to be completely different than leopard skulls. I've posted data of the skulls overlapping in size plus photographs being similar in build and structure.
So for the third time, please show me the major differences when the skulls are similar in size.
Quote:Another perfect example, ignore the size and notice the morphological differences, it wouldn't matter if you scaled the Leopard up the Jaguar down, they will never look like two Skulls that came from the same species to anyone with knowledge on the subject.
How about we don't ignore the size difference and look at the morphological differences:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now I'm waiting for two persons to tell me how 'completely' different they are.
Oh good, a blurry black and white skull image and a Jaguar replica, a poorly done one at that as opposed to two real skulls sitting side by side in real life.
Which one do you think is a better comparison?
06-29-2021, 01:09 AM( This post was last modified: 06-29-2021, 01:09 AM by Luipaard )
(06-29-2021, 12:47 AM)Pckts Wrote:
(06-29-2021, 12:25 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
Quote:You said that they overlapped "completely", now you are twisting Rishi's point to paint yourself as the misunderstood one. You were very clear from the beginning and very wrong. If they overlapped completely then the largest leopards would have to match the largest jaguars in dimensions and they do not. You made the claim, not mem and unsurprisingly you've failed to prove or back up any of these points.
They overlap completely since leopards have surpassed the length and width of jaguar skulls. You keep sticking with the extremes but that's not how it works. For example, the Persian leopard with a skull width of 191 mm has surpassed the width of adult male jaguar skulls from the Amazon (175,9 mm). It's once again evidence of the overlapping in skull dimensions. What's not to understand?
Quote:There is nothing childish about highlight forum violations when you repeatedly engage in poor reasoning based on preconceived notions and then double down on them repeatedly, even when they are verifiably false and when the data has been shown to you multiple times (deflection fallacy).
Lot's of 'difficult' words especially when it just means you didn't know what to do say so you spammed your response with the forum policies. At least I stayed on topic unlike you.
Quote:What part of the entire dataset available showcasing that the gap between jaguars and leopards is just as big are you not getting? The largest jaguar skulls (not even belonging to the heaviest specimens) on public record far surpass the largest leopard skulls and they do so in averages as well. Do you think that posting a graph and taking it out of context is going to all of a sudden offset the rest of the available data publicized?
Take a breath and look carefully at the objects (square = leopard, rhombus = jaguar). Now notice how the two figures overlap. Notice how there's a square (= leopard) ovelaps with the bigger jaguars (and even lionesses).
Quote:Strawman #2, I've never once said this and once again this breaks the forum rules. Mods?
You realise you mae a moderator interrupt right? You also realise you ignored this which resulted in another moderator locking the thread right?
Quote:Read what my post says: Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. A range implies a distribution between the smallest to the largest, because it was you who made the claim that leopards and jaguars "completely overlapped" in dimensions, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that they match the largest measurements for jaguars from these populations (a complete overlap). Once again mods, this a circular argument in violation of the forum policies with the dismissal of crucial data.
A range distribution between the smllest to the largest populations yet to stick with Llanos, Pantanal and Chacoan population - A.K.A. the largest ones. Why not those from Belize for example? right, because they overlap, in fact leopard surpass these meassurements. You obviously know this hence why you want the largest population for comparison.
Quote:Another fallacy, appeal to authority, what does you having had seen this before has anything to do with points being discussed? And how is it being "abused"? What do measurements have anything to do with this since we're comparing skull proportions?. If the jaguar skull were to be scaled down to the leopard's size based on length, the differences in anotomy would remain the same. One more thing, the skull length of the Central African leopard almost perfectly matches the average for this population, while the skull of the Bolivian jaguar (likely a Chacoan or Yungas specimen) falls well short of the average size of a Pantanal or Llanos jaguar skulls and yet it still dwarfs the leopard skull. Interestingly how your claims of Central African leopards attainting the dimensions of Pantanal jaguars fall apart, especially when we take into consideration that an average-sized skull from the Pantanal of 290mm in length and 195 mm in width would be even larger against that average-sized Central African specimen. Comparing one to two outliers against a population average (and still failing to meet the dimensions of said average) doesn't symbolize an overlap, but I digress.
First of all I am the one who wants to compare the skulls, but skulls that equal in dimensions. The comparison you posted is everything but equal or similar (245 mm vs 280 mm) whereas the skulls I posted looked close in size overal. Unfortunately you found this cherry-picking; not my problem. Still waiting for these major differences that makes these skulls completely different.
Quote:That is not how it works, jaguars are classified as a monophyletic species but that doesn't mean that genetic differences between populations do not exist. And your comparison is completely flawed because national boundaries have no relation to the things that matter in this context which are regional differences based on ecological factors.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey to the point that some of the studied specimens from this region have died from starvation @Dark Jaguar knows all about this. The Caatinga environment is completely different from the Pantanal and is separated by a vast savannah known as the Cerrado. These two populations are as different as the Arabian and Persian leopards or Sundarbans and Kaziranga tigers, and I don't know why all of a sudden you're such a puritan when it comes to taxonomical orders when you've complained in the past about how African leopards shouldn't all be lumped into one single subspecies.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey... What do you think Arabian leopards are? Or Cape leopards? You really think this rule applies to jaguars only do you? At least they're from the same species unlike Arabian and Persian leopards.
Quote:Ultimately you still haven't proven that:
1. Jaguar and leopard skull completely overlap in size. (keyword that's being repeatedly ignored in this discussion: completely) 2. There are minor differences in their skull morphology. (I expect a dissection of the main skull parts from you in this regard and why they are similar)
1. I've just shown you why they overlap completely. You sticking with the extremes won't change this.
2. You expect a dissection of the main skull parts? Seriously? I asked you twice to show me why a jaguar skull is 'completely different' than a leopard skull?
Quote:As I said in the previous post I'm not going to continue going back and forth until this person brings forward sound data to back his claims up instead of lengthy word-salads that have nothing to do with what's being discussed and as shown multiple times are in violation of the forum policies.
I've included scientific data alongside photographs of leopard and jaguar skulls. Remember that YOU claimed jaguar skulls to be completely different than leopard skulls. I've posted data of the skulls overlapping in size plus photographs being similar in build and structure.
So for the third time, please show me the major differences when the skulls are similar in size.
Quote:Another perfect example, ignore the size and notice the morphological differences, it wouldn't matter if you scaled the Leopard up the Jaguar down, they will never look like two Skulls that came from the same species to anyone with knowledge on the subject.
How about we don't ignore the size difference and look at the morphological differences:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now I'm waiting for two persons to tell me how 'completely' different they are.
Oh good, a blurry black and white skull image and a Jaguar replica, a poorly done one at that as opposed to two real skulls sitting side by side in real life.
Which one do you think is a better comparison?
It's not a good comparison because it's black and white? Also based on what is the jaguar skull replicated poorly? It looks authentic to me.
At least both seem to be equal in size unlike the Bolivian jaguar skull and Central African leopard skull.
Still waiting for those major differences that make jaguar skulls completely different than leopard skulls.
Quote:You said that they overlapped "completely", now you are twisting Rishi's point to paint yourself as the misunderstood one. You were very clear from the beginning and very wrong. If they overlapped completely then the largest leopards would have to match the largest jaguars in dimensions and they do not. You made the claim, not mem and unsurprisingly you've failed to prove or back up any of these points.
They overlap completely since leopards have surpassed the length and width of jaguar skulls. You keep sticking with the extremes but that's not how it works. For example, the Persian leopard with a skull width of 191 mm has surpassed the width of adult male jaguar skulls from the Amazon (175,9 mm). It's once again evidence of the overlapping in skull dimensions. What's not to understand?
Quote:There is nothing childish about highlight forum violations when you repeatedly engage in poor reasoning based on preconceived notions and then double down on them repeatedly, even when they are verifiably false and when the data has been shown to you multiple times (deflection fallacy).
Lot's of 'difficult' words especially when it just means you didn't know what to do say so you spammed your response with the forum policies. At least I stayed on topic unlike you.
Quote:What part of the entire dataset available showcasing that the gap between jaguars and leopards is just as big are you not getting? The largest jaguar skulls (not even belonging to the heaviest specimens) on public record far surpass the largest leopard skulls and they do so in averages as well. Do you think that posting a graph and taking it out of context is going to all of a sudden offset the rest of the available data publicized?
Take a breath and look carefully at the objects (square = leopard, rhombus = jaguar). Now notice how the two figures overlap. Notice how there's a square (= leopard) ovelaps with the bigger jaguars (and even lionesses).
Quote:Strawman #2, I've never once said this and once again this breaks the forum rules. Mods?
You realise you mae a moderator interrupt right? You also realise you ignored this which resulted in another moderator locking the thread right?
Quote:Read what my post says: Prove now that leopard skulls attain the size ranges of jaguars from the Pantanal, Llanos, or Chaco. A range implies a distribution between the smallest to the largest, because it was you who made the claim that leopards and jaguars "completely overlapped" in dimensions, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that they match the largest measurements for jaguars from these populations (a complete overlap). Once again mods, this a circular argument in violation of the forum policies with the dismissal of crucial data.
A range distribution between the smllest to the largest populations yet to stick with Llanos, Pantanal and Chacoan population - A.K.A. the largest ones. Why not those from Belize for example? right, because they overlap, in fact leopard surpass these meassurements. You obviously know this hence why you want the largest population for comparison.
Quote:Another fallacy, appeal to authority, what does you having had seen this before has anything to do with points being discussed? And how is it being "abused"? What do measurements have anything to do with this since we're comparing skull proportions?. If the jaguar skull were to be scaled down to the leopard's size based on length, the differences in anotomy would remain the same. One more thing, the skull length of the Central African leopard almost perfectly matches the average for this population, while the skull of the Bolivian jaguar (likely a Chacoan or Yungas specimen) falls well short of the average size of a Pantanal or Llanos jaguar skulls and yet it still dwarfs the leopard skull. Interestingly how your claims of Central African leopards attainting the dimensions of Pantanal jaguars fall apart, especially when we take into consideration that an average-sized skull from the Pantanal of 290mm in length and 195 mm in width would be even larger against that average-sized Central African specimen. Comparing one to two outliers against a population average (and still failing to meet the dimensions of said average) doesn't symbolize an overlap, but I digress.
First of all I am the one who wants to compare the skulls, but skulls that equal in dimensions. The comparison you posted is everything but equal or similar (245 mm vs 280 mm) whereas the skulls I posted looked close in size overal. Unfortunately you found this cherry-picking; not my problem. Still waiting for these major differences that makes these skulls completely different.
Quote:That is not how it works, jaguars are classified as a monophyletic species but that doesn't mean that genetic differences between populations do not exist. And your comparison is completely flawed because national boundaries have no relation to the things that matter in this context which are regional differences based on ecological factors.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey to the point that some of the studied specimens from this region have died from starvation @Dark Jaguar knows all about this. The Caatinga environment is completely different from the Pantanal and is separated by a vast savannah known as the Cerrado. These two populations are as different as the Arabian and Persian leopards or Sundarbans and Kaziranga tigers, and I don't know why all of a sudden you're such a puritan when it comes to taxonomical orders when you've complained in the past about how African leopards shouldn't all be lumped into one single subspecies.
Caatinga jaguars are a dwarfed population because they live in environments with little to no prey... What do you think Arabian leopards are? Or Cape leopards? You really think this rule applies to jaguars only do you? At least they're from the same species unlike Arabian and Persian leopards.
Quote:Ultimately you still haven't proven that:
1. Jaguar and leopard skull completely overlap in size. (keyword that's being repeatedly ignored in this discussion: completely) 2. There are minor differences in their skull morphology. (I expect a dissection of the main skull parts from you in this regard and why they are similar)
1. I've just shown you why they overlap completely. You sticking with the extremes won't change this.
2. You expect a dissection of the main skull parts? Seriously? I asked you twice to show me why a jaguar skull is 'completely different' than a leopard skull?
Quote:As I said in the previous post I'm not going to continue going back and forth until this person brings forward sound data to back his claims up instead of lengthy word-salads that have nothing to do with what's being discussed and as shown multiple times are in violation of the forum policies.
I've included scientific data alongside photographs of leopard and jaguar skulls. Remember that YOU claimed jaguar skulls to be completely different than leopard skulls. I've posted data of the skulls overlapping in size plus photographs being similar in build and structure.
So for the third time, please show me the major differences when the skulls are similar in size.
Quote:Another perfect example, ignore the size and notice the morphological differences, it wouldn't matter if you scaled the Leopard up the Jaguar down, they will never look like two Skulls that came from the same species to anyone with knowledge on the subject.
How about we don't ignore the size difference and look at the morphological differences:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now I'm waiting for two persons to tell me how 'completely' different they are.
Oh good, a blurry black and white skull image and a Jaguar replica, a poorly done one at that as opposed to two real skulls sitting side by side in real life.
Which one do you think is a better comparison?
It's not a good comparison because it's black and white? Also based on what is the jaguar skull replicated poorly? It looks authentic to me.
You missed a key word there.... "blurry" and yes the Jaguar skull is replica in fact, they had two and were trying to decipher which cat they belonged to, both were from Peru and replicas so I'm not sure where you got "authentic" from. They were casts made from real skulls but he molding is too dense and details got lost in the process.
Here is a couple of more detailed replicas, a Leopard and Jaguar, tell me honestly that you cannot notice the difference?
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:At least both seem to be equal in size unlike the Bolivian jaguar skull and Central African leopard skull.
Still waiting for those major differences that make jaguar skulls completely different than leopard skulls.
And once again, what does the "size" have to do with the actual differences shown between them?
Everything I mentioned had nothing to do with size, if you fail to comprehend it that is on you but the shape of a mandible, angle of a crest or crown shape have nothing to do with size.
There are major differences, there is no denying it. How major is depending on the person looking at them but I can guarantee someone versed in Skulls like Almeida or Van Neer would look at you like you're crazy if you tried to convince them that a Jaguar and Leopard skull are the same only a Jaguars is just a bigger version.
The following 1 user Likes Pckts's post:1 user Likes Pckts's post • Balam
To avoid semantics and definitons errors, could we please use following format:
Species 1 GSL: 100-300
Species 2 GSL: 200-400
That way the reader can interpret the overlap as they want and we avoid the debate on meanings.
No more posts about each other as well. Please just post your data and evidence-based commentary.
In terms of morphology, the data shows P. pardus and P. onca overlap but are certainly not the same in skull morphology.
For instance, from Christian (2008):
*This image is copyright of its original author
These are rations so these should account for size differences.
Also pages 39-47 in this thesis show the two species have potential for morphological overlap and similarity but do not cluster together completely. This is why single skull comparisons could like alike, but on average, there will be clear differences.
Comparing Cats: A Discussion of Similarities & Differences
