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.
02-11-2022, 03:30 AM( This post was last modified: 02-11-2022, 03:43 AM by Pckts )
(02-11-2022, 01:50 AM)Luipaard Wrote:
(02-10-2022, 10:40 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(02-10-2022, 02:21 AM)Twico5 Wrote: “There are no Leopard's on earth that compare to Jaguars shown.”
do you have their measurements and dimensions, like girth and etc?
Both are 110kg plus cats but body dimensions aren't given so If you'd like to compare I'll give you 104kg then a 119kg which are both as accurately and modestly measured as it gets.
These cats are measured between the pegs, height at the shoulder is straight line and only to the heel of the paw, not the tip.
First is the 104kg Jaguar which is full bellied, so really it's more along the lines of 90kg
104kg (Full Bellied Jaguar)
Total Length between the pegs - 79 8/16'' (201.9 cm)
Length of Tail- 22'' (55.8 cm) had about 2'' bit off by Piranhas
Chest Girth- 40 8/16'' (102.87 cm)
Belly Girth - 46'' Full (116.8 cm)
Head Girth - 26 8/16'' (67.31 cm)
Neck Girth - 25'' (63.5 cm)
Forearm Girth - 16 8/16" (41.9 cm)
Shoulder Height - 30'' (76.2 cm)
Total Skull Score 19 6/16" *Largest Leopard score ever recorded was 18.39''*
119kg (Empty Jaguar)
Total Length between the pegs - 83 8/16'' (212 cm)
Length of Tail- 21 8/16'' (54.6 cm) had about 2'' bit off by Piranhas
Chest Girth- 43'' (109.2 cm)
Belly Girth - 47'' Empty (119.38 cm)
Head Girth - 29'' (73.6 cm)
Neck Girth - 25 8/16'' (64.7 cm)
Forearm Girth - 17" (43.1 cm)
Shoulder Height - 28 12/16'' (73 cm)
Total Skull Score 20 1/16" *Largest Leopard score ever recorded was 18.39''*
Since all the Jaguars shown by Loveanimals are 110kg plus, it doesn't matter if they're empty or not, they'll be larger than the 104kg Full Bellied Jaguar that I presented and would most likely mean they are all more impressive in measurements.
There is no Leopard that has reached these dimensions. The largest one available is a Taxidermied one and I've already presented a female Jaguar that surpassed it's measurements when stuffed except for length and shoulder height but of course those were measured over the curves where as the female Jaguar was measured in the straight line process, and we have no idea what skinning then reattaching in a taxidermied process does to the length, girth and height of a cat. But you can be fairly sure since the skin must be stretched to do so that it embellishes it.
Why do you purposely add the so-called largest leopard score? And why purposely exclude the actual largest skull ever? Skull KBIN 8640 is by a margin the biggest and most impressive leopard skull ever:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unfortunately we don't know the skull length therefore can't tell the total score with certainty. However, for comparison lionesses with a condylobasal length of 260mm-264mm had a greatest length of 280mm-300mm. Furthermore you can see that this skull completely bests skull KBIN 9053 which you claim to be the largest skull ever recorded. This skull had a shorter condylobasal length but an equal width. You can tell with certainty that skull KBIN 8640 will be longer than skull KBIN 9053. It's superior in every department except for width where they're equal. Now give me one reason to assume skull KBIN 8640 is smaller in terms of total score.
Why ask questions you already know the answer too?
That skull has no true length and CBL doesn’t always equate to a longer skull. On top of everything else mentioned, the standard Jaguar skull still scores larger than Pococks estimated total score of that skull too, so the point is moot.
Amongst every intact, valid skull ever measured, a standard Male Jaguars skull tops the list.
(02-11-2022, 01:50 AM)Luipaard Wrote: Skull KBIN 8640 is by a margin the biggest and most impressive leopard skull ever:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unfortunately we don't know the skull length therefore can't tell the total score with certainty. However, for comparison lionesses with a condylobasal length of 260mm-264mm had a greatest length of 280mm-300mm. Furthermore you can see that this skull completely bests skull KBIN 9053 which you claim to be the largest skull ever recorded. This skull had a shorter condylobasal length but an equal width. You can tell with certainty that skull KBIN 8640 will be longer than skull KBIN 9053. It's superior in every department except for width where they're equal. Now give me one reason to assume skull KBIN 8640 is smaller in terms of total score.
Honestly, at this point, I have 0 interest in this debate of leopards and jaguars. However this claim of a leopard skull of 264 mm in Condylobasal length, the same as an average lioness of the biggest Caspian tigress, is to impressive to leave it like that.
Can you please show the source of this table? And, if is possible, the source of that skull? There is something that definitelly needs to be verified on it. Also, jaguars are normally bigger than leopards, but from the list of skull of jaguars that I have (a very small one), there is no male with a CBL of that size.
02-11-2022, 04:35 AM( This post was last modified: 02-11-2022, 05:30 PM by AndresVida )
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: What's the difference?
At least or around 70kg's, neither is saying 90-100kg's and if they are using a specific weight of 70kg's as a gauging #, it doesn't matter IMO. Mind you, I'm the one that posted that Leopard with the exact quotation.
There is a distinct difference, since they are two statements that have a total different logical meaning.
"Around 70 kg" means "circa or close to" 70 kg, meaning it could weigh 70 kg or less. Remember the vet who mentioned the 95kg Persian leopard? Guess what he said: a leopard around 100 kg. Because around 100 kg means close to the 100 kg benchmark. And what is close to that? 95 kg! Exactly why "around 70 kg" would likely mean 70 kg or less, possibly about 65 + kg.
Now, "at least" doesn't mean the same thing as "around" it means that the leopard could have weighed no less than 70 kg and possibly even more:
*This image is copyright of its original author
So "around 70 kg" and "at least 70" kg aren't the same thing.
But you actually said "IMO" and 100% respect that. Kudos
Case closed.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: You have males captured in multiple studies, the largest ever produced was 91kg. Next is the fact that we don't even know if it's full bellied or not, cattle killer or not, etc. So claiming that two other Cats from the exact same location as being record holders without any real data to go off of other than a fleeting glimpse from 100s of meters away strikes me more as a fanatical claim than anything else. Would be like me seeing one video of Tiger from 100s of meters away then stating that the Tiger is no doubt larger than any Tiger that's every been captured in history from that region
There are 4 males between 90-95 kg.
They were originally 3 because the 115 kg one was excluded (as it had to be, as it was never that big) but it should have been included as a "95 kg" male because that was its true weight. Just because it doesn't feel real to you doesn't mean I don't know it is. And I'm 100% sure that the 91 kg male was empty bellied, just like the 96.5 kg Namibian male that was apparently empty as Guate once stated in the size comparison, otherwise they would have excluded him.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: And what evidence are you talking about? Since I already presented the actual vet claiming it to be 115kg.
Haven't you read anything of what I wrote above?
By plenty of evidence I mean everything I posted above, namely E-mail from Mohammad confirming 95 kg to others who work for the persian leopard project confirming the weight of 95 kg, then comparing it to jaguars of 90-95 kg, showing clearly how comparable they are in size.
91.5 kg vs 95 kg
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
95 kg vs 95 kg
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Another image of the 95 kg leopard.
*This image is copyright of its original author
What's more, I have this new comparison. This jaguar posted here https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...#pid121496
weighed 100 kg!
Is it true that it does not seem at all visible that it is of that size? Too bad, it is!
*This image is copyright of its original author
For comparison, the 95 kg leopard.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Photos can be deceiving and a very knowledgeable mod "tigerluver) also said one must not underestimate bone structure. Also the jaguar above is apparently 100kg so you don't have to look enormous in order to weigh that much.
You can't have clearer proofs than these, seriously do you still think it's not 95kg when it compares perfectly to the others? It IS comparable. Otherwise that's just keep pushing it's just because you don't want it to be comparable.
But seriously I don't need you to accept that weight or not, I know it's the real weight and reliable so that's enough for me.
As Balam also told me, I will just agree to disagree with you and nothing more. This debate about the leopard confirmed to be 95 kg turned repetitive and annoying. You will stick with your opinion and I will stick with my evidence. Peace. Nothing more about that leopard.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: So claiming that two other Cats from the exact same location as being record holders without any real data to go off of other than a fleeting glimpse from 100s of meters away strikes me more as a fanatical claim than anything else.
It does not mean anything, I have repeated several times that it was just my opinion and that you could easily go against me or something else, when you also used your opinion using another guessestimated (not weighed) male from which you also misunderstood the meaning of the message "At least 70 kg". Even Balam estimated it to be above average, and although my estimate of it being between 90-100 kg she gave as upper estimate of 87 kg which is still very high compared to the so called average size. You should join reddit and join the Jaguarland community btw, it's a very beautiful subreddit.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: I promise you that Balam doesn't buy anything about that Leopard, we have pages on top of pages going back and forth with Luipaard
You are wrong.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
She doesn't buy the fact that the leopard was 115 kg as everyone else, me included. I never believed the 115 kg mark. And all those pages back with Luipaard was exactly about the leopard not being 115 kg.
Again, I am talking about the 95 kg weight, Balam does consider it reliable and you're the only one that I've seen on the taptalk-carnivora-wildfact range who is still doubting that weight. It's only you.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: It's up to you, he's a friendly guy and likes to make time to respond. Regardless, I doubt there's much he's going to say since he already claims it at 115kg. But nothing is going to change the fact that the Leopard looks nothing close to that weight.
Well you know what, Balam sent me a good long message regarding the possibilities of why it weighed that much, I will reproduce the message here:
I just noticed the conversation WF regarding the Persian leopard. Iman said that the leopard weighed 115 kg and that later the weight went bellow 100 kg, with multiple sources claiming it at 95 kg. Dr. Farhadina said that he saw the veterinary report where the weighed stipulated was 95 kg, keep in mind that Iman Memarian was not the only vet involved in the care of the leopard. So there are a few possible scenarios, that the leopard was initially weighed on a defective scale and the first value of 115 kg was simply erroneous, or that it was weighed soon after feeding and as a result it may have been gorged, with the second weight being from an empty belly. It is also possible that there may have been some miscommunications between the vet team regarding the initial capture, as Iman is the only person involved who has ever claimed the weightto be 115 kg, even when the official vet report stated 95 kg, which is why the 115 kg value was discarded from the scientific paper and is never quoted by any scientist or scientific institution, it is erroneous and not reliable. I would not think much else about it. "
So Pckts no matter what those voicemails are concerned, you can safely discard the 115 kg weight. It is simply wrong
02-11-2022, 02:46 PM( This post was last modified: 02-11-2022, 04:37 PM by Luipaard )
(02-11-2022, 04:04 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(02-11-2022, 01:50 AM)Luipaard Wrote: Skull KBIN 8640 is by a margin the biggest and most impressive leopard skull ever:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unfortunately we don't know the skull length therefore can't tell the total score with certainty. However, for comparison lionesses with a condylobasal length of 260mm-264mm had a greatest length of 280mm-300mm. Furthermore you can see that this skull completely bests skull KBIN 9053 which you claim to be the largest skull ever recorded. This skull had a shorter condylobasal length but an equal width. You can tell with certainty that skull KBIN 8640 will be longer than skull KBIN 9053. It's superior in every department except for width where they're equal. Now give me one reason to assume skull KBIN 8640 is smaller in terms of total score.
Honestly, at this point, I have 0 interest in this debate of leopards and jaguars. However this claim of a leopard skull of 264 mm in Condylobasal length, the same as an average lioness of the biggest Caspian tigress, is to impressive to leave it like that.
Can you please show the source of this table? And, if is possible, the source of that skull? There is something that definitelly needs to be verified on it. Also, jaguars are normally bigger than leopards, but from the list of skull of jaguars that I have (a very small one), there is no male with a CBL of that size.
I will like to verify this case, if is possible.
I don't have the direct source since Chui originally shared the spreadsheet. I do know that these skulls were used in the study A leopard in the Predynastic Elite Cemetery HK6 at Hierakonpolis, Egypt where they found a very large leopard skull (256mm condylobasal length). These skulls are held in two Belgian museums; KBIN = Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen (or Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences) & KMMA = Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika (or Royal Museum for Central Africa).
In the study they mention the condylobasal length of 264mm:
Quote:The condylobasal lengths of the measured specimens ranged between 241 mm and 298 mm for lion and between 186 mm and 264 mm for leopard.
(02-11-2022, 01:50 AM)Luipaard Wrote: Skull KBIN 8640 is by a margin the biggest and most impressive leopard skull ever:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Unfortunately we don't know the skull length therefore can't tell the total score with certainty. However, for comparison lionesses with a condylobasal length of 260mm-264mm had a greatest length of 280mm-300mm. Furthermore you can see that this skull completely bests skull KBIN 9053 which you claim to be the largest skull ever recorded. This skull had a shorter condylobasal length but an equal width. You can tell with certainty that skull KBIN 8640 will be longer than skull KBIN 9053. It's superior in every department except for width where they're equal. Now give me one reason to assume skull KBIN 8640 is smaller in terms of total score.
Honestly, at this point, I have 0 interest in this debate of leopards and jaguars. However this claim of a leopard skull of 264 mm in Condylobasal length, the same as an average lioness of the biggest Caspian tigress, is to impressive to leave it like that.
Can you please show the source of this table? And, if is possible, the source of that skull? There is something that definitelly needs to be verified on it. Also, jaguars are normally bigger than leopards, but from the list of skull of jaguars that I have (a very small one), there is no male with a CBL of that size.
I will like to verify this case, if is possible.
I don't have the direct source since Chui originally shared the spreadsheet. I do know that these skulls were used in the study A leopard in the Predynastic Elite Cemetery HK6 at Hierakonpolis, Egypt where they found a very large leopard skull (256mm condylobasal length). These skulls are held in two Belgian museums; KBIN = Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen (or Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences) & KMMA = Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika (or Royal Museum for Central Africa).
In the study they mention the condylobasal length of 264mm:
Quote:The condylobasal lengths of the measured specimens ranged between 241 mm and 298 mm for lion and between 186 mm and 264 mm for leopard.
(02-11-2022, 02:46 PM)Luipaard Wrote: I don't have the direct source since Chui originally shared the spreadsheet. I do know that these skulls were used in the study A leopard in the Predynastic Elite Cemetery HK6 at Hierakonpolis, Egypt where they found a very large leopard skull (256mm condylobasal length). These skulls are held in two Belgian museums; KBIN = Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen (or Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences) & KMMA = Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika (or Royal Museum for Central Africa).
In the study they mention the condylobasal length of 264mm:
Quote:The condylobasal lengths of the measured specimens ranged between 241 mm and 298 mm for lion and between 186 mm and 264 mm for leopard.
Thank you for share this with me. It is interesting to see that all the skulls are more or less in the line of other leopard skulls that I have saw, but this particular one is an outlier and it seems extreme. I remember the case of the large leopard skull in India that resulted to be a tigress. So I think that a DNA study on that huge skull will be necesary to make sure that is actually a leopard skull.
I will leave it as that. You can continue with your discussion.
(02-11-2022, 04:04 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Also, jaguars are normally bigger than leopards, but from the list of skull of jaguars that I have (a very small one), there is no male with a CBL of that size.
I want to make a correction. I was checking old documents in a USB that I had and I found a two documents with skulls from jaguars and there are several that had the CBL over 260 mm. So yes, there are jaguar males with skulls as large as an average lioness and tigress.
02-11-2022, 08:51 PM( This post was last modified: 02-11-2022, 09:14 PM by Pckts )
(02-11-2022, 04:35 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: What's the difference?
At least or around 70kg's, neither is saying 90-100kg's and if they are using a specific weight of 70kg's as a gauging #, it doesn't matter IMO. Mind you, I'm the one that posted that Leopard with the exact quotation.
There is a distinct difference, since they are two statements that have a total different logical meaning.
"Around 70 kg" means "circa or close to" 70 kg, meaning it could weigh 70 kg or less. Remember the vet who mentioned the 95kg Persian leopard? Guess what he said: a leopard around 100 kg. Because around 100 kg means close to the 100 kg benchmark. And what is close to that? 95 kg! Exactly why "around 70 kg" would likely mean 70 kg or less, possibly about 65 + kg.
Now, "at least" doesn't mean the same thing as "around" it means that the leopard could have weighed no less than 70 kg and possibly even more:
*This image is copyright of its original author
So "around 70 kg" and "at least 70" kg aren't the same thing.
But you actually said "IMO" and 100% respect that. Kudos
Case closed.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: You have males captured in multiple studies, the largest ever produced was 91kg. Next is the fact that we don't even know if it's full bellied or not, cattle killer or not, etc. So claiming that two other Cats from the exact same location as being record holders without any real data to go off of other than a fleeting glimpse from 100s of meters away strikes me more as a fanatical claim than anything else. Would be like me seeing one video of Tiger from 100s of meters away then stating that the Tiger is no doubt larger than any Tiger that's every been captured in history from that region
There are 4 males between 90-95 kg.
They were originally 3 because the 115 kg one was excluded (as it had to be, as it was never that big) but it should have been included as a "95 kg" male because that was its true weight. Just because it doesn't feel real to you doesn't mean I don't know it is. And I'm 100% sure that the 91 kg male was empty bellied, just like the 96.5 kg Namibian male that was apparently empty as Guate once stated in the size comparison, otherwise they would have excluded him.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: And what evidence are you talking about? Since I already presented the actual vet claiming it to be 115kg.
Haven't you read anything of what I wrote above?
By plenty of evidence I mean everything I posted above, namely E-mail from Mohammad confirming 95 kg to others who work for the persian leopard project confirming the weight of 95 kg, then comparing it to jaguars of 90-95 kg, showing clearly how comparable they are in size.
91.5 kg vs 95 kg
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
95 kg vs 95 kg
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Another image of the 95 kg leopard.
*This image is copyright of its original author
What's more, I have this new comparison. This jaguar posted here https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-modern-...#pid121496
weighed 100 kg!
Is it true that it does not seem at all visible that it is of that size? Too bad, it is!
*This image is copyright of its original author
For comparison, the 95 kg leopard.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Photos can be deceiving and a very knowledgeable mod "tigerluver) also said one must not underestimate bone structure. Also the jaguar above is apparently 100kg so you don't have to look enormous in order to weigh that much.
You can't have clearer proofs than these, seriously do you still think it's not 95kg when it compares perfectly to the others? It IS comparable. Otherwise that's just keep pushing it's just because you don't want it to be comparable.
But seriously I don't need you to accept that weight or not, I know it's the real weight and reliable so that's enough for me.
As Balam also told me, I will just agree to disagree with you and nothing more. This debate about the leopard confirmed to be 95 kg turned repetitive and annoying. You will stick with your opinion and I will stick with my evidence. Peace. Nothing more about that leopard.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: So claiming that two other Cats from the exact same location as being record holders without any real data to go off of other than a fleeting glimpse from 100s of meters away strikes me more as a fanatical claim than anything else.
It does not mean anything, I have repeated several times that it was just my opinion and that you could easily go against me or something else, when you also used your opinion using another guessestimated (not weighed) male from which you also misunderstood the meaning of the message "At least 70 kg". Even Balam estimated it to be above average, and although my estimate of it being between 90-100 kg she gave as upper estimate of 87 kg which is still very high compared to the so called average size. You should join reddit and join the Jaguarland community btw, it's a very beautiful subreddit.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: I promise you that Balam doesn't buy anything about that Leopard, we have pages on top of pages going back and forth with Luipaard
You are wrong.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
She doesn't buy the fact that the leopard was 115 kg as everyone else, me included. I never believed the 115 kg mark. And all those pages back with Luipaard was exactly about the leopard not being 115 kg.
Again, I am talking about the 95 kg weight, Balam does consider it reliable and you're the only one that I've seen on the taptalk-carnivora-wildfact range who is still doubting that weight. It's only you.
(02-10-2022, 11:02 PM)Pckts Wrote: It's up to you, he's a friendly guy and likes to make time to respond. Regardless, I doubt there's much he's going to say since he already claims it at 115kg. But nothing is going to change the fact that the Leopard looks nothing close to that weight.
Well you know what, Balam sent me a good long message regarding the possibilities of why it weighed that much, I will reproduce the message here:
I just noticed the conversation WF regarding the Persian leopard. Iman said that the leopard weighed 115 kg and that later the weight went bellow 100 kg, with multiple sources claiming it at 95 kg. Dr. Farhadina said that he saw the veterinary report where the weighed stipulated was 95 kg, keep in mind that Iman Memarian was not the only vet involved in the care of the leopard. So there are a few possible scenarios, that the leopard was initially weighed on a defective scale and the first value of 115 kg was simply erroneous, or that it was weighed soon after feeding and as a result it may have been gorged, with the second weight being from an empty belly. It is also possible that there may have been some miscommunications between the vet team regarding the initial capture, as Iman is the only person involved who has ever claimed the weightto be 115 kg, even when the official vet report stated 95 kg, which is why the 115 kg value was discarded from the scientific paper and is never quoted by any scientist or scientific institution, it is erroneous and not reliable. I would not think much else about it. "
So Pckts no matter what those voicemails are concerned, you can safely discard the 115 kg weight. It is simply wrong
One last time, Farhadinia has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged 115kg Leopard. In fact he has nothing to do with any of the leopards weighing.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Same with Kambiz
*This image is copyright of its original author
They are all sent to him by the others involved. The only person that was actually involved in the capture of said leopard specifically says he’s 115kg. He was there for the actual weighing.
It doesn’t matter what Balam said, the facts are the facts. I obviously agree there is no way it’s 115kg and how they obtained said weight is questionable at best.
So once again, it’s alleged weight right now is 115kg. You can ask Farhadinia right now, show him that Iman said he’s confirmed 115kg and I’ll pretty much guarantee that he says that Iman would know.
(02-11-2022, 04:04 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Also, jaguars are normally bigger than leopards, but from the list of skull of jaguars that I have (a very small one), there is no male with a CBL of that size.
I want to make a correction. I was checking old documents in a USB that I had and I found a two documents with skulls from jaguars and there are several that had the CBL over 260 mm. So yes, there are jaguar males with skulls as large as an average lioness and tigress.
Unfortunately CBL doesn't equate to TL always.
*This image is copyright of its original author
You'll notice the Leopard from Egypt and Sudan both have CBL longer than the largest verified scoring Leopard on the list while both have a shorter total length. You can also see the one from Upper Uele and Faradje, Congo have a CBL that is only 1mm less than largest verified skull yet one is shorter in length and the other is actually longer in total length. This is a total of 4/7 skulls, not including the broken one that show inconstancy when basing total length off of CBL length.
In regards to Jaguars skulls, I'm not sure which you're comparing to but unfortunately Almeida doesn't present CBL, only width and lenght.
Generally speaking a large Jaguar is going to have a skull that is in the high 11''+ long and high 7'' + wide.
Scores of 20''+ for Jaguars are considered upper tier but not uncommon and even 21''+ skulls have been registered.
The mean CBL score for the Pantanal was 252.32 for 72 males and Hoogestejin Referenced Almeida *unpublished* for Pantanal skulls but my guess is that since Almeida didn't provide CBL, I doubt he's going to be able to measure all of his skulls that he mentions since the hunters he took out would most likely keep their skulls as trophies. So who knows what skulls he's provided CBL measurements too as well as Quigley, Crawshaw, Pocock and Allen's skull measurements too.
In regards to Lioness v Pantanal Jaguar skulls, from this study
*This image is copyright of its original author
The average Lioness scores 19.6" which a little smaller than most Monster Jag Skull sizes.
That being said, I know very little about this study *age, location, captive/wild, weight, etc*
My guess would be that Lioness would probably have a slightly higher scoring skull than Monster Jaguars more often than not which makes sense since they'll be averaging 130kg while Pantanal Jaguar will average 107kg. But lb for lb, the Pantanal Jaguar skull is going to get you more bang for your buck. *Larger skull on a smaller body*
02-12-2022, 04:15 AM( This post was last modified: 02-12-2022, 04:16 AM by AndresVida )
(02-11-2022, 08:51 PM)Pckts Wrote: So once again, it’s alleged weight right now is 115kg
Even if they'll confirm it I will never ever buy that weight nor consider it real.
Just like you. Doesn't matter, that leopard is nothing close to the 110 kg mark
You know what? Just don't care and don't buy it as I will also do.
(02-12-2022, 12:00 AM)Pckts Wrote: Pantanal Jaguar will average 107kg.
Being honest tho, I guess the 107 kg average for Pantanal jaguars doesn't give us the real average mark for adult grown HEALTHY males from that area, as the sample also includes young unhealthy males. I guess that if we remove them and include adult healthy males only the average would be easily 110+ kg.
That's not cherry-picking as some would say, that's being fair, in my opinion including unhealthy or subadult males is a very wrong way to determine the average weight of an animal population, my guess is that the average adult Pantanal Jaguars are 110+ kg
*This image is copyright of its original author
You'll notice the Leopard from Egypt and Sudan both have CBL longer than the largest verified scoring Leopard on the list while both have a shorter total length. You can also see the one from Upper Uele and Faradje, Congo have a CBL that is only 1mm less than largest verified skull yet one is shorter in length and the other is actually longer in total length. This is a total of 4/7 skulls, not including the broken one that show inconstancy when basing total length off of CBL length.
In regards to Jaguars skulls, I'm not sure which you're comparing to but unfortunately Almeida doesn't present CBL, only width and lenght.
Generally speaking a large Jaguar is going to have a skull that is in the high 11''+ long and high 7'' + wide.
Scores of 20''+ for Jaguars are considered upper tier but not uncommon and even 21''+ skulls have been registered.
The mean CBL score for the Pantanal was 252.32 for 72 males and Hoogestejin Referenced Almeida *unpublished* for Pantanal skulls but my guess is that since Almeida didn't provide CBL, I doubt he's going to be able to measure all of his skulls that he mentions since the hunters he took out would most likely keep their skulls as trophies. So who knows what skulls he's provided CBL measurements too as well as Quigley, Crawshaw, Pocock and Allen's skull measurements too.
In regards to Lioness v Pantanal Jaguar skulls, from this study
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The average Lioness scores 19.6" which a little smaller than most Monster Jag Skull sizes.
That being said, I know very little about this study *age, location, captive/wild, weight, etc*
My guess would be that Lioness would probably have a slightly higher scoring skull than Monster Jaguars more often than not which makes sense since they'll be averaging 130kg while Pantanal Jaguar will average 107kg. But lb for lb, the Pantanal Jaguar skull is going to get you more bang for your buck. *Larger skull on a smaller body*
Honestly scores are irrelevant for me, as there are just a value used by hunters, I don't pay attention to that, but thank you for sharing your point of view.
Now, again, that table that you put there is weird (I think it was made by Chui, I don't know), because is quoting 4 skulls from the paper of Van Neer et al. (2013) and in the documents there are only two, the one from the tomb HK6 and the mention of the CBL of the giant skull IRSNB-KBIN 8640, but that is all. I can't found the other three skulls in the paper (CBL 247, 253 (from Sudan) and 243 mm each) described in the table, unless that they were estimated based in the Fig. 9 and 10 of the same document (which is unlikely). Am I missing something?
About the jaguar skulls, I am not checking Almeida, but Nelson & Goldman (1933), Pocock (1939) and Seymour (1989). They provided information about from skulls measured by them in a scientific manner.
*This image is copyright of its original author
You'll notice the Leopard from Egypt and Sudan both have CBL longer than the largest verified scoring Leopard on the list while both have a shorter total length. You can also see the one from Upper Uele and Faradje, Congo have a CBL that is only 1mm less than largest verified skull yet one is shorter in length and the other is actually longer in total length. This is a total of 4/7 skulls, not including the broken one that show inconstancy when basing total length off of CBL length.
In regards to Jaguars skulls, I'm not sure which you're comparing to but unfortunately Almeida doesn't present CBL, only width and lenght.
Generally speaking a large Jaguar is going to have a skull that is in the high 11''+ long and high 7'' + wide.
Scores of 20''+ for Jaguars are considered upper tier but not uncommon and even 21''+ skulls have been registered.
The mean CBL score for the Pantanal was 252.32 for 72 males and Hoogestejin Referenced Almeida *unpublished* for Pantanal skulls but my guess is that since Almeida didn't provide CBL, I doubt he's going to be able to measure all of his skulls that he mentions since the hunters he took out would most likely keep their skulls as trophies. So who knows what skulls he's provided CBL measurements too as well as Quigley, Crawshaw, Pocock and Allen's skull measurements too.
In regards to Lioness v Pantanal Jaguar skulls, from this study
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The average Lioness scores 19.6" which a little smaller than most Monster Jag Skull sizes.
That being said, I know very little about this study *age, location, captive/wild, weight, etc*
My guess would be that Lioness would probably have a slightly higher scoring skull than Monster Jaguars more often than not which makes sense since they'll be averaging 130kg while Pantanal Jaguar will average 107kg. But lb for lb, the Pantanal Jaguar skull is going to get you more bang for your buck. *Larger skull on a smaller body*
Honestly scores are irrelevant for me, as there are just a value used by hunters, I don't pay attention to that, but thank you for sharing your point of view.
Now, again, that table that you put there is weird (I think it was made by Chui, I don't know), because is quoting 4 skulls from the paper of Van Neer et al. (2013) and in the documents there are only two, the one from the tomb HK6 and the mention of the CBL of the giant skull IRSNB-KBIN 8640, but that is all. I can't found the other three skulls in the paper (CBL 247, 253 (from Sudan) and 243 mm each) described in the table, unless that they were estimated based in the Fig. 9 and 10 of the same document (which is unlikely). Am I missing something?
About the jaguar skulls, I am not checking Almeida, but Nelson & Goldman (1933), Pocock (1939) and Seymour (1989). They provided information about from skulls measured by them in a scientific manner.
No idea, Chui created the table.
I’d be curious about the Jaguar skulls you mentioned though, maybe you can post some scans when you have a spare minute?
It’d be nice to see some Pantanal Jags skull measurements including CBL to see how they correlate.
(02-12-2022, 04:42 AM)Pckts Wrote: I’d be curious about the Jaguar skulls you mentioned though, maybe you can post some scans when you have a spare minute?
It’d be nice to see some Pantanal Jags skull measurements including CBL to see how they correlate.
Here is what I found, real measurements that can be useful for comparisons:
* Nelson & Goldman (1933):
*This image is copyright of its original author
They also report the biggest jaguar that I have read about, measured in the flesh. Sadly I don't know if it was "between pegs" or "over curves", but I think it was in the first form.
* Pocock (1939):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
All the table from his document, from several populations, including some from Guatemala! There are more details in the paper.
And finally, Seymour (1989):
*This image is copyright of its original author
He mixed males and females, but the important thing is that he did measuread one skull of which was a big one.
Maybe other posters had more records, but these are the ones that I have, from scientific papers.
(02-12-2022, 04:42 AM)Pckts Wrote: I’d be curious about the Jaguar skulls you mentioned though, maybe you can post some scans when you have a spare minute?
It’d be nice to see some Pantanal Jags skull measurements including CBL to see how they correlate.
Here is what I found, real measurements that can be useful for comparisons:
* Nelson & Goldman (1933):
*This image is copyright of its original author
They also report the biggest jaguar that I have read about, measured in the flesh. Sadly I don't know if it was "between pegs" or "over curves", but I think it was in the first form.
* Pocock (1939):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
All the table from his document, from several populations, including some from Guatemala! There are more details in the paper.
And finally, Seymour (1989):
*This image is copyright of its original author
He mixed males and females, but the important thing is that he did measuread one skull of which was a big one.
Maybe other posters had more records, but these are the ones that I have, from scientific papers.
Great info, I’ll review next week when I’m back in front of a large screen but it looks as though you have a couple of 20”ers.
A shame there’s not many Panatanal Jags but great info still.
In regards to the record Jaguar, do you know it’s body dimensions?
We can compare it to Joker or quite a few other Jags and see how it stacks up.
Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)
There are more details in the paper.
