WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Extinct Animals
›
Pleistocene Big Cats
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
|
Freak Felids - A Discussion of History's Largest Felines
|
 (05-15-2020, 11:08 PM)tigerluver Wrote: Wrong thread for modern cat discussion, folks. This is in the extinct felines section. It seems somewhere last year a few posts were misplaced here and since the original intention has been lost. I'll move some post over to more appropriate threads. That explains a lot, I was looking at this thread and many postings really didn´t look to be in right place. Same goes with other "freak felids" thread, many photos of tigers and lions, but "freaks"... mostly not. I understand with freak something really extra special, not just some quite normal sized animal or obese animal. Those should be posted in "normal threads" for wild and captive animals of different species. When I open posting with headline "freak", I am looking forward to see something extraordinary which also is explained, that in what way "freak". If all there is, is some photo showing "just" some random lion or tiger....it doesn´t make sense for me. Most postings in "freak" threads have been frankly speaking disappointing. In threads made for something extraordinary quality should be more valued than quantity. Not just some random photo or average specimen of some species. Then again maybe I´m a bit more cynical than average poster... But still something to think about, imo. Word "freak" loses meaning if it starts to look like it, that all tigers and lions are freaks. We have after all many threads for handsome/beautiful animals. I had to use this opportunity to write this now, I have often thought about this but kept silent. But I think, that some others would also like it more, if content would be really connected to headline of a thread. 
Velizar Simeonovski
Panthera gombaszoegensis - becoming a lion. "Panthera gombaszoegensis. The skull is based on the cranial remains from Vallparadís and Amblève valle but because of their fragmentary characters it is adjusted to fit the mandible- based on the Mosbach specimen. The pattern of the head is inferred from the the patterns of the cubs of lions and Panthera pardus orientalis ."  *This image is copyright of its original author Panthera gombaszoegensis - becoming a lion. Body pattern - reflects the process of increasing the size .- based on the pattern of lion cubs and Amur leopards. Increasing the size - from mid size (jaguar-sized) pantherine cat to a giant-lion size animal likely occurred in Africa - some time in the late Pliocene. Interestingly the same process somewhat "was attempted" in South America about 2 millions later but it did not get finalized Pocock, R.I., 1910. - The significance of the pattern of the cubs of lion (Felis leo) and pumas (Felis concolor) Ann. Mag. Nat Hist. London. (7) 20 -1910 pp 436 – 445 Schneider, K-M., 1953. –Von der Fleckung junger Löwen. D.Zool.Gart. NF.Bd. 20. H. 2/3.  *This image is copyright of its original author Panthera gombaszoegensis - becoming a lion. The mane - it is not clear when the ancestral lion began to grow mane . It is certainly connected with the size increasing, but the time line is unknown. It also likely happened in Africa. Here the "ancestral" mane is inferred by the mane that some lionesses grow due to hormonal disbalance or old age. It is similar, but not identical to the manes that lion/tiger and lion/leopard hybrids develop.  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (06-24-2020, 09:45 PM)Pckts Wrote: Velizar Simeonovski I'm guessing this reconstruction is based on a conceptual idea of P. gombaszoegensis being closer to the lion clade than the jaguar. As far as I'm aware there's no recent data to suggest they were lions. 
" The tiger may be more ancient and distinct than we thought ?
Tigers are less closely related to lions, leopards and jaguars than these other big cats are to each other, according to a new comprehensive study. The genetic analysis also reveals the tiger began evolving 3.2 million years ago, and its closest living relative is the equally endangered snow leopard. Despite the popularity and endangered status of tigers, much remains to be discovered about them, including how they evolved. It has long been known that the five species of big cat - the tiger, lion, leopard, jaguar and snow leopard, which belong to the Panthera genus - and the two species of clouded leopard are more closely related to each other than to other smaller cats. But it has been difficult to pin down the exact relationships between them. So to find out more, scientists Mr Brian Davis, Dr Gang Li and Professor William Murphy conducted an analysis of the DNA of all these species. Their data strongly suggests that lions, leopards and jaguars are most closely related to each other. Their ancestor split from other cats around 4.3 to 3.8 million years ago. About 3.6 to 2.5 million years ago, the jaguar began to evolve, while lions and leopards split from one other about 3.1 to 1.95 million years ago. But the tiger had already emerged by this point. The ancestor of tigers and snow leopards also branched off around 3.9 million years ago. The tiger then began to evolve into a unique species toward the end of the Pliocene epoch, about 3.2 mya. "  (09-13-2020, 02:16 AM)Spalea Wrote: " The tiger may be more ancient and distinct than we thought ? Is this really new? I feel like I've read this before right here on wildfact. (09-13-2020, 05:59 AM)Sully Wrote:(09-13-2020, 02:16 AM)Spalea Wrote: " The tiger may be more ancient and distinct than we thought ? The paleontologyworld post isn't perhaps a new one, but I don't remind having seen it before. I remember having read (and posted too) an other more detailed account about the recent tiger's history within a shorter interval of time (the last 100.000 years I believe). See link: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-bigcats...2#pid61330 At #1448 and #1451 
@Pckts @Balam @GrizzlyClaws
I don't know if you guys read the news but I got GREAT NEWS. A new BEAR SIZED cat was discovered, the Machairodus Lahayishupup ! Average of around 274 kg and a max of around 427 kg. Shoulder Height 140 cms Truly grizzly sized! It hunted Rhinos. *This image is copyright of its original author *This image is copyright of its original author Newly Identified Species of Saber-Toothed Cat Was So Big It Hunted Rhinos in America Machairodus lahayishupup (white background) http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/machairodus-lahayishupup-09619.html (05-09-2021, 01:59 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: @Pckts @Balam @GrizzlyClaws This was a really nice find on the part of the paleontologists involved. Machairodus has always always been one of my favorite extinct feliform lineages alongside Quercylurus, hopefully, we will get more research papers in the future as more skeletal remains of this species come to light. If this species was just as big as S. populator it would certainly change our beliefs on which were the largest felids of the past, it seems like Xenosmilus hodsonae was pushed to fifth position in the American machairodontine line, and S. fatalis to third place in North America specifically. 
Great year to have a new giant Machairodus. Here are the size takeaways:
Humerus length: 460.5 mm (longest felid humerus on record) Mediolateral width of distal end: 123.3 mm Anteroposterior diameter of midshaft: 46 mm Distal articular width: 88.2 mm The three mass estimates are as follows: From the Christiansen and Harris (2005) articular width equation: 348 kg - The scale factor in this equation is extremely negatively allometric (2.186). This probably is an underestimate, especially considering Machairodus had narrow bones. The same source, but the humerus length equation: 405 kg - One issue is the humerus length in Christiansen and Harris (2005) is articular. This gets missed often. In some animals this matters more than others. In this specimen, the greater tubercle is quite a bit higher than the head of the humerus, meaning the articular width would be significantly less. Using Peigne et al. (2005), the articular length is 95% of the total length in Machairodus. So the articular length is actually about 438 mm. Applying this to the same equation results in a mass of 351 kg. The final estimation is actually from an Anyonge (1993) circumference formula: 427 kg It's a bit confusing so I will first just quote it: "The body mass estimate for M. lahayishupup based on humerus circumference is very similar to the one calculated based on humerus length. A diameter of 42.4 mm yields an estimate of 427 kg." So they present a new diameter of 42.4 mm which they then either converted into the circumference of a circle or measured the circumference (not explicitly reported in the paper) and worked their way backwards. The circumference is 133.2 mm. The Anyongle scale factor is 3. Anyonge equation have been called into question after Christiansen and Harris (2005) for overestimating but this is also species dependent. (05-09-2021, 05:29 AM)Balam Wrote: If this species was just as big as S. populator it would certainly change our beliefs on which were the largest felids of the past, it seems like Xenosmilus hodsonae was pushed to fifth position in the American machairodontine line, and S. fatalis to third place in North America specifically.What truly impresses me about this Cat is its appearance, the size. Never seen a 140 cm tall cat, we are today all concentrated on 110 cm tall tigers and 120 cms lions lol. That Machairodus is a damn Horse! Might truly be as big as Smilodon populator despite not having the same bone density and therefore Smilodon populator will remain the heaviest felid to ever exist. Smilodon has basically the built of a jaguar that's why they are really heavy for their size, Barbourofelis is another example. The report says that it could reach 300 kgs despite being only 75 to 90 cm tall. That's why I say that Smilodon Lineage resembles Panthera Onca. Quite heavy despite the height To compare, cougars are 70-90 cm tall and weigh 53-105 kg and max around 120+kg and leopards (65-86 cm tall) weigh 62-96 kg and max probably up to 100 kgs. Jaguars on the other hand are 76-81 cm but they can weigh as much as an average lioness (I've seen in Carnivora many quarrels between Pantherinae and other leopard fans and as a Leopard fanboy myself I can't get how they can't accept that a panthanal jaguar of 120-140lg generally dwarfs an average 67-70kg African leopard. The largest 90-100kg leopards might rival the size of an average Jaguar but not the max sized ones. However, I hate leopard fanboys that understimate Jaguars, they are incredible cats and I wish we could find some 160 kg males) I never knew if the Machairodus in general had a bone structure similar to smilodon or to modern pantheras. If the bone density is similar to the one of lions and tigers I believe that Smilodon Populator will remain a bit heavier than this new cat despite being shorter, but if it is more similar to smilodon, I believe that on max size this monster could touch 470 and perhaps 500 kg. If it isn't anyway yea I put the average around 270/318 kgs and max up to 405/420 kgs. As big as Hercules the Liger. To compare, Hercules is 123 cm tall and weighs 418 kg. If we scale this weight up to 140 cm it seems reasonable that this Machairodus Lahayishupup could reach such bear weight. If we get any more news about this new predator, I'll post information on here. (05-09-2021, 12:34 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:(05-09-2021, 05:29 AM)Balam Wrote: If this species was just as big as S. populator it would certainly change our beliefs on which were the largest felids of the past, it seems like Xenosmilus hodsonae was pushed to fifth position in the American machairodontine line, and S. fatalis to third place in North America specifically.What truly impresses me about this Cat is its appearance, the size. Cougars and leopards aren't taller than jaguars, the height of jaguars quoted comes from a straight line and without counting the paw, whereas for leopards and cougars it usually counts the paw, cougars seem to have particularly long limbs so I wouldn't be surprised if the tallest males reach the 80 cm mark, but I'm highly skeptical of leopards reaching this threshold. Likewise, most claims of lions or tigers in the wild attaining shoulder heights of 110+ cm should be taken with a grain of salt unless the measuring protocol is specified (see the Hobatere lions). What is true is that for the discrepancy in mass between jaguars, cougars, and leopards at similar shoulder heights is very pronounced, with jaguars being significantly heavier, and as you said this trend of heavy-boned cats packing a lot of mass on a modest frame was something that was very commonly seen with machairodontines, particularly Xenosmilus sp. Leopards other than the Persian population rarely average 60+ kg in weight and they don't attain the sizes of average Pantanal jaguars, Pantanal male runts that weigh 80-90 kg overlap in size with the largest leopards but that's about it. The average of 100 kg for Pantanal jaguars is the lowest average baseline from them, they are heavier than that. The maximum recorded reliable weights for cougars and leopards are 103 kg and 96 kg respectively, claims of 120 kg or more are practically impossible and need solid verification to ascertain their veracity, akin to claims of 180 and 200 kg Holocene jaguars. Barboruofelis fricki is thought to have been similar in body mass to modern African lions or mainland tigers, the estimate of 300 kg is likely inflated, but you're correct in that the bone robusticity of this feliform was really high as well.
Giant Saber-Toothed Cat Roamed North America during Miocene
May 4, 2021 by Enrico de Lazaro Paleontologists from the Ohio State University at Marion and Gonzaga University have identified a new species of large machairodontine saber-toothed cat from the fossilized remains found in North America.  *This image is copyright of its original author An artist’s depiction of Machairodus lahayishupup eating Hemiauchenia, a camel relative. Image credit: Roger Witter.
The newly-identified cat lived in what is now North America between 5.5 and 9 million years ago (Miocene epoch). It belongs to Machairodus, a genus of large saber-toothed cat that lived in Africa, Eurasia and North America, and is an ancient relative of the best-known saber-toothed cat Smilodon. Named Machairodus lahayishupup, the new species had a mass up to 410 kg, making it one of the largest felids in Earth’s history. “We believe these were animals that were routinely taking down bison-sized animals. This was by far the largest cat alive at that time,” said Dr. Jonathan Calede, a researcher in the Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology at the Ohio State University at Marion. Dr. Calede and his colleague, Dr. John Orcutt from the Department of Biology at Gonzaga University, examined several humeri (upper arm bones) of Machairodus lahayishupup from museums in Oregon, Idaho, California and Texas. “One of the big stories of all of this is that we ended up uncovering specimen after specimen of this giant cat in museums in western North America,” Dr. Orcutt said. “They were clearly big cats. We started with a few assumptions based on their age, in the 5.5 to 9 million-year-old range, and based on their size, because these things were huge.” “What we didn’t have then, that we have now, is the test of whether the size and anatomy of those bones tells us anything — and it turns out that yes, they do.” “A discovery that this giant cat in North America existed at the same time similar animals lived around the world also raises another evolutionary question,” Dr. Calede said. “It’s been known that there were giant cats in Europe, Asia and Africa, and now we have our own giant saber-toothed cat in North America during this period as well.” “There’s a very interesting pattern of either repeated independent evolution on every continent of this giant body size in what remains a pretty hyperspecialized way of hunting, or we have this ancestral giant saber-toothed cat that dispersed to all of those continents. It’s an interesting paleontological question.” The discovery is reported in a paper published in the Journal of Mammalian Evolution. (05-09-2021, 09:13 PM)Balam Wrote: Cougars and leopards aren't taller than jaguars, the height of jaguars quoted comes from a straight line and without counting the paw, whereas for leopards and cougars it usually counts the paw, cougars seem to have particularly long limbs so I wouldn't be surprised if the tallest males reach the 80 cm mark, but I'm highly skeptical of leopards reaching this threshold.Wasn't the tallest cougar around 90 cm? That's basically as tall as a cheetah but the cougar is more proportioned about weight relative to its size. The tallest jaguar as you told me was 81 cm at the shoulder whereas on modern weights and measurements for wild leopards I have seen many leopards reaching the 80 cm mark with 2 of them topping at 86 cm. Maybe straight line? (05-09-2021, 09:13 PM)Balam Wrote: The maximum recorded reliable weights for cougars and leopards are 103 kg and 96 kg respectivelyWasn't the largest cougar 105 and not 103 kg? By the way every weight ranges for animals are based on modern captures, I always like to consider the animal since it evolved till today. I mean leopards exist since pléistocène, several thousand of years ago. We caught the 96 kg Namibian one when their numbers were already decreasing because of hunting and less prey were disponible. In a thousand years of history, with all the leopards that have walked on this planet, none of them gained those 4 kgs to reach 100 kg? To me it's 100%sure that's why I put 100 kgs as the generic limit of the leopards. We don't know about cougars but in my opinion 113 kg might me their limit. They are still larger than Leopards However this is my take, on scientific records the largest leopards and cougars are 96 and 105 kg, but in a thousand years of existence larger males have existed FOR SURE. (05-16-2021, 12:27 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:(05-09-2021, 09:13 PM)Balam Wrote: Cougars and leopards aren't taller than jaguars, the height of jaguars quoted comes from a straight line and without counting the paw, whereas for leopards and cougars it usually counts the paw, cougars seem to have particularly long limbs so I wouldn't be surprised if the tallest males reach the 80 cm mark, but I'm highly skeptical of leopards reaching this threshold.Wasn't the tallest cougar around 90 cm? That's basically as tall as a cheetah but the cougar is more proportioned about weight relative to its size. The tallest jaguar as you told me was 81 cm at the shoulder whereas on modern weights and measurements for wild leopards I have seen many leopards reaching the 80 cm mark with 2 of them topping at 86 cm. Maybe straight line? You have a lot of preconceived notions and make a lot of claims but show no hard data to back your statements, no offense but this is the kind of superficial, immature, and deceitful talking points we see from the posters/trolls of Carnivora you previously mentioned which is tried to be avoided here. Quote:Wasn't the tallest cougar around 90 cm? That's basically as tall as a cheetah but the cougar is more proportioned about weight relative to its size. The tallest jaguar as you told me was 81 cm at the shoulder whereas on modern weights and measurements for wild leopards I have seen many leopards reaching the 80 cm mark with 2 of them topping at 86 cm. Maybe straight line? Data on the measurements of cougar heights are not too extensive but nonetheless, we have some data from one of the largest populations in the Rocky Mountains to go by Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta published in 1992:  *This image is copyright of its original author Males from this vast area averaged 72 kg in weight and had an average shoulder height of 75 cm (measuring protocol not disclosed), a 90 cm shoulder height would be 20% higher than the average which seems highly unlikely unless the specimen in question is a freakish outlier. For leopards, the best data compilation for a very large population belonging to a protected area comes from Applicability of age-based hunting regulations for African leopards. by Balme et al.:  *This image is copyright of its original author Males from this protected area averaged 68 kg and if we combine the shoulder heights averages of the mature males from 4 to 7+ years we get a combined average of 69.98 cm. The mature males that averaged the same as the adult RM cougars (72 kg) had a shoulder height of 71.43 cm, and the measuring protocol is not specified here either. The tallest male from this sample measured 75 cm at the shoulder, matching the averages for the RM cougars, as well as the body mass in kg of the heaviest leopard from this study. Considering both species had a similar body mass in these studies, my previous claim that cougars grew taller is supported by these findings. In both cases, we do not know if the measurements included the length of the paw or the way in which the measuring tape was placed alongside their bodies. This is why you cannot take a value and compare it to another whose measuring standards are specified because you don't know if certain factors pertaining to measurements are inflating the values for one of the species. I can tell you right now that the shoulder heights claimed for leopard of Okonjima of 90+ cm are completely flawed and inflated, for example. Any claim of a leopard measuring 86 cm at the shoulder requires extraordinary evidence in suggesting they were taken on a straight, otherwise, it is prudent to infer that the measurements are not reliable. Quote:Wasn't the largest cougar 105 and not 103 kg? By the way every weight ranges for animals are based on modern captures, The heaviest reliable cougar was hunted in Colorado by President Roosevelt and weighed 227 lbs, its skull is to this day one of the largest in the world for cougars which give more reliability to the outlier body mass. You already know where the 96 kg leopard comes from. Quote:I always like to consider the animal since it evolved till today. I mean leopards exist since pléistocène, several thousand of years ago. We caught the 96 kg Namibian one when their numbers were already decreasing because of hunting and less prey were disponible. Evolution doesn't work that way, the genes of a cougar or leopard today are the exact same ones as those from last century, changes in body masses are dependant on the prey biomass and genetic diversity, but all of this falls within certain size barriers or ceilings which keep species from growing past certain thresholds, and in order for these genetic markers to change there needs to be a process of natural selection that takes hundreds of thousands of years. Leopards from many well-protected areas of Africa or Iran that have access to cattle-like prey in terms of BM (antelopes) and wide availability - like the KwaZulu-Natal leopards from the weight chart I posted above - showcase weights that are well within the ranges shown for leopards for centuries according to the hundreds of captures we have available. The average of 68 kg is in fact very high considering leopards in many areas of the world usually average between 50-60 kg. Furthermore, your asserstion that leopards from the Pleistocene were greater in size is completely unfounded, from the paper: Late Pleistocene leopards across Europe - northernmost European German population, highest elevated records in the Swiss Alps, complete skeletons in the Bosnia Herzegowina Dinarids and comparison to the Ice Age cave art by Diedrich.:  *This image is copyright of its original author As stated above the skeletal remains of the European cave leopard P. pardus spelaea show dimensions that are in accordance to those of extant leopards that inhabit similar environments with similar prey, more notably the Persian leopard and likely the extinct Barbary leopard. Because leopards have always fulfilled the niche of secondary carnivores in the environments they have inhabited for hundreds of thousands of years (even subordinates to early jaguars in Europe), they have developed morphological adaptations to become proficient as agile and arboreal felids with gracile bodies who tackle medium-sized prey and avoid open spaces. Leopards would not be able to be leopards if they had to pack a large amount of body mass because it is counterproductive to their survival as subordinate carnivores to larger cats who have taken that specific evolutionary route. So as I mentioned before, leopards (and cougars, their NW counterparts in terms of ecological analog) possess certain genetic markers that keep them from growing past a certain threshold, and in the case of leopards, it seems to be around 95 kg. Quote:However this is my take, on scientific records the largest leopards and cougars are 96 and 105 kg, but in a thousand years of existence larger males have existed FOR SURE. 100+ kg leopards may or may have not occurred throughout their evolutionary history, that is all nice speculation but it doesn't change or alters my point. The data that we have on them is clear for both extant and extinct forms, and 100+ kg in weight has yet to be achieved by a leopard and measured under reliable standards. My advice is to stop with this obsession of leopards being "the size of lionesses" which many leopard fanboys seem to obsess over in the other forum you mentioned, learn to appreciate leopards for what they are and the areas in which they excel as big cats. Trying to extrapolate characteristics of other cats into the one you claim to prefer shows that you don't really value that cat for what it is. (05-16-2021, 03:01 AM)Balam Wrote: You have a lot of preconceived notions and make a lot of claims but show no hard data to back your statements, no offense but this is the kind of superficial, immature, and deceitful talking points we see from the posters/trolls of Carnivora you previously mentioned which is tried to be avoided here.[quote pid='145007' dateline='1621116104'] However, when I have to explain scientifically a leopard or a cougar, I say " The weight range of male leopards is 37-96 kg and of male cougars is 53-103 kgs, larger males might have been recorded but that comes from unreliable hunting records and possible exaggerated assumptions made by hunters. So the limit for leopards and Cougars is 96 and 103 kg, could have been larger males but we need solid verification to confirm it" [/quote] [quote pid='145007' dateline='1621116104'] This is what I mean, I was not trying to be immature or superficial because Balam trust me I just joined to this thread but I have been reading on here and Carnivora since ages and I perfectly know to whom you are referring to about fanboying etc. I perfectly know. I was only trying to get your opinion from my personal (not scientific) considerations and after all you have my own opinion. "100 kg leopards may or not have occurred but we need solid evidence for it, unless it's useless to say it" [/quote] [quote pid='145007' dateline='1621116104'] I never said big male leopards are about the size of an average lioness. That's what they say on that site there, an average lioness is about 130-143 kg the largest leopards are 90-96 kg. How can they overlap? I say the only lioness a leopard can overlap in size is a juvenile lioness of 90 kg. Never an adult one. The only extant wild spotted cat that can rival the size of a lioness is the panthanal Jaguar. A tank of its own kind. [/quote] [quote pid='145007' dateline='1621116104'] Remember when I told you that leopards overlap the average size of the panthanal jaguar? That's because it was after I read this note on Wiki Jaguars from the Llanos in Venezuela, and the Pantanal region of southern Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay, are the largest of the species.[15] Pantanal jaguars have lengths of about 2.7 m (8.9 ft), and average weights of 94.8 kg (209 lb) for males and 77.7 kg (171 lb) for females.[16] Some individuals weighed more than 135 kg (298 lb).[17] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_jaguar As I read 94.8 kg average for male jaguars I say, the largest confirmed leopards are 90-96 kg, that's why I said the Overlap. But that was before I asked you a whole chart of all weights of panthanal Jaguars to get an average, and in that case the average was around 107 kg if I remember correctly, so after that I never said anymore that the largest leopards overlap the average Panthanal males. Leopards can only overlap Mexican and maybe Amazonian males in terms of max sized leopard - average Jaguar (05-16-2021, 03:01 AM)Balam Wrote: Furthermore, your asserstion that leopards from the Pleistocene were greater in size is completely unfounded, from the paper: I never said I was referring to Ice Age leopard, that cat went extinct so we can't have proof that it grew that large and as you said it's similar to the persian one. I was referring to African leopards where we have got most of the max sized males (i mean from the persian ones the largest is 91 kg, the 95 kg male who was mistaken to be 115 kg is not even confirmed) While for African leopards we have males of 92kg ,95 kg ,96 kg, 97 kg Vin Diesel is unconfirmed. I was referring to them. "the max seems around 95 kg". Nature never has specific and exact numbers given, it's not like God created the leopard and said "the exact limit is 95 kg it can't be surpassed". That's just a very wrong take. The largest verified leopard is 96.5 kg, just 3.5 kg far from 100 kg. And to note that this leopard is recorded in modern times whereas leopard numbers nowadays dramatically decreased and are always rarer, being endangered in Iran whereas the largest population roams in northern Iran. So If we are still able to find 90+ kg leopards these days that should be rare although their numbers already decreased a lot, what about when in historical times leopards had huge populations number all around the place in lauding northern Iran and weren't endangered? How many leopards have walked the earth? Over a billion? To compare now African leopard overall population is likely aorund 70+k individuals as estimated and we are still able to find 90+ kg specimens. With all the leopard population that has EVER existed, you're telling me no leopard was able to be just 3.5 kg more than that 96 kg specimen? XD if the largest leopard EVER recorded was just 75 kg then yes I'd agree that 100 kg is a too far to be reachable, but almost 97 kg? Anyone denying the possibility of a 100 kg leopard is either uneducated or just lacks common sense. Cougars are verified to be 100 kg, with 102.9 kg (103 kg) being the largest verified, but don't you consider that cougar numbers are far much more than leopards? Of course, humans just arrived in the Americas and yet barbaric hunters still didn't hunt enough cougars to make them "endangered", their population is still pretty healthy in numbers and pretty much the same as old times, whereas leopard populations were probably healthy in numbers during Roman era, because then human population started to increase rapidly and a lot of wild territories were stolen to the leopard. So to comparison cougar population is pretty healthy, especially in Patagonia and yet we have a leopard record just 6 kg lighter than the largest cougar, and leopards are FAR much less than cougars these days. Not to mention all the lacking data about aberdare leopards. We have just two hunting records from there, a 92.5 kg reliable male and an estimated 90-100 kg male which is indeed about that size so it's reliable and just the frequency of finding already two 90+ kg males by just two reported weights can easily tell us these leopard populations average something like 68-70+ kg. Kwa Zulu natal leopards are nowhere the size and bulk of aberdare or North Iranian leopards yet they average already 68 kg with mature males touching 72.5 kg on average, they also feed on cattle. If Kwa Zulu natal leopards can touch such average which is almost 70 kg you're telling me that aberdare or Persian leopards can't average a little more? About 70-72 kg as large as Cougars? You already know that the Persian leopard overall average is 67 kg because you have to include the 95 kg male, as before the largest one was 91 kg. You have to note that the sample includes Persian leopards from all over their geographical range, including southern ones that are smaller than their northern counterparts. That sample also includes these males, my point is not saying all Persian leopards average 70+ kg. Just Northern males. As a whole I've got no problem saying they average 67 kg because they do, I'm just sticking to Northern males. That sample includes wolf sized 45-50 kg males, you're telling me that for Northern aspectatives a 45 kg leopard is going to be normal? Hell no, there was a 57 kg old male in good condition Form northern but as the vet said older males no matter the condition will be lighter than in their prime. So a 55-95 kg range for northern males seems likely rather than 45-95 kg as that sample ALSO included southern males. And guess what average a 55-95 kg range gives ? Around 72 kg! Even 50-95 kg gives already 70 kg. So yes, the largest leopard populations average 70+ kg just like the largest cougar populations, and already 3 males where over 90 kg, even Pckts said they frequently produce very large males compared to your standard leopard population, and he even guessestimated them to average mid to high 70s kg. To me, they are just as large as cougars, about 70-72 kg. Not 75-77 kg although that could be still possible then their numbers were high and their population wasn't still affected by human invasion of their habitats. And do not start the "cherry picking" thing, I never said all leopards as a whole can average 70+ kg, my claim only refers to isolated populations, that is also similar to African lions overall averaging 192-197 kg with the isolated Ngorongoro population that couild average over 200+ kg or with Bengal tigers, that overall average 210-220 kg with some isolated populations maybe from Kaziranga, Pahna and Terai that could average 225+ kg possibly even 230 kg. Jaguars are also to mention here, if the smoke was fair your Pantanal males wouldn't average just 108 kg but easily a bit over 110 kg, because you all included subadult or unhealthy males which is a very wrong thing when you're trying to get an average that should include fully grown adult healthy specimens only, so if you believe I'm overestimating leopards well then you gotta see I believe 107 kg average for Pantanal jaguars is an underestimate. Not to mention that from both Iran and Aberdares there are a lot of unweighted giant males such as these that visually are asily over 80-90 kg What about these two north iranian monsters below? Look how muscular and massive they are, there is also literally a wild boar carcass in comparison next to the first male which really tells us this can be a well over 90 kg male and possibly 100 kg. They are overall on the same exact tier as the Patagonia cougars which max around 90-100 kg possibly more. https://youtu.be/RjtGMa-hy_k https://www.instagram.com/p/CR6AQmwgvmJ/ Of course I'm not saying all of this as a clear fact, it's just an argument of what is possible and what is not. This is just my opinion, for a clear estimate we need solid verification. If I looked a bit angry or nervous it's just because anyone doubting the existence of 70+ average leopard populations and max 100+ kg leopards when looking at overall commonsense is rather uneducated or just foolish. I am a leopard fan but I get my facts straight. I don't overrated leopards and at the same time underrated other cats. Because you know what I say? Cougars are larger than leopards. Jaguars are tanks compared to them, lionesses dwarf them. In my opinion even a 60-70 kg Mexican jaguar would be able to defeat a 80-90+ kg leopard. I am not like you know who. Never trying to be superficial. But to me sometimes you just underrated leopards a little bit. I can see you estimating Scar Male of about 100 kg in Patagonia, what about the giant leopards i sent you? They aren't smaller by any means, using aswell that wildboar kill in comparison to that giant male with an enormous body. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |