WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Leopard
Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)
Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)
|
Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)
|
If the 230cm length was over the curves then this was just a normal sized Leopard.
 (04-29-2022, 08:58 PM)LonePredator Wrote: By TBL you mean total body length, right? Well on average, a Persian Leopard’s head-body length is about 67% of it’s total length and if this Leopard’s head-body length was also 67% of the total length (if it had a normal sized tail) then this Leopard should only be about 75kg unless it is unusually bulky but it doesn’t really look much more bulkier than a normal Leopard.I've actually got the paper that mentioned the shorter male I used as example, it was actually less than what I remember in Total Length (213 cm not 215 cm) and weighed more than what i remembered, I thought it was about 75 - 78 kg but it's actually almost 90 kg (86 kg), and it's just 213 cm in total length.  *This image is copyright of its original author Now about the 95 - 98 kg male I'm not sure if it was 230 cm (I remember Guate brought this convo up in the earliest pages of this thread) nor I actually remember if they specified the methods. (04-29-2022, 08:58 PM)LonePredator Wrote: So my guess is 85kg.Reply Actually it's not about estimating the body size, that leopard WAS weighed, before on a carcass when it was gorged and later the day if the euthanasia after it stayed in overstress and refused to eat during the captivity. It's not about estimating the animal based on body length, I've got via instagram confirmation that the animal IS 95 - 98 kg. I don't think we even need the body measurements to back it up, the opinion of 3 vets + the official Persian leopard project page is enough for me. (04-29-2022, 10:06 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the 230cm length was over the curves then this was just a normal sized Leopard.We don't even know if 230 cm is its TBL or of someone else, by the way as long as we know the official weight other measurements are irrilevant to me since weight is the thing I'm most interested for this male  (04-29-2022, 10:15 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:(04-29-2022, 10:06 PM)LonePredator Wrote: If the 230cm length was over the curves then this was just a normal sized Leopard.We don't even know if 230 cm is its TBL or of someone else, by the way as long as we know the official weight other measurements are irrilevant to me since weight is the thing I'm most interested for this male Measurements would be very important, they paint a much clearer picture. (04-29-2022, 10:14 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:(04-29-2022, 08:58 PM)LonePredator Wrote: By TBL you mean total body length, right? Well on average, a Persian Leopard’s head-body length is about 67% of it’s total length and if this Leopard’s head-body length was also 67% of the total length (if it had a normal sized tail) then this Leopard should only be about 75kg unless it is unusually bulky but it doesn’t really look much more bulkier than a normal Leopard.I've actually got the paper that mentioned the shorter male I used as example, it was actually less than what I remember in Total Length (213 cm not 215 cm) and weighed more than what i remembered, I thought it was about 75 - 78 kg but it's actually almost 90 kg (86 kg), and it's just 213 cm in total length. It's not 3 vets, it's just one person. Albeit, a qualified individual. (04-29-2022, 10:14 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote:(04-29-2022, 08:58 PM)LonePredator Wrote: By TBL you mean total body length, right? Well on average, a Persian Leopard’s head-body length is about 67% of it’s total length and if this Leopard’s head-body length was also 67% of the total length (if it had a normal sized tail) then this Leopard should only be about 75kg unless it is unusually bulky but it doesn’t really look much more bulkier than a normal Leopard.I've actually got the paper that mentioned the shorter male I used as example, it was actually less than what I remember in Total Length (213 cm not 215 cm) and weighed more than what i remembered, I thought it was about 75 - 78 kg but it's actually almost 90 kg (86 kg), and it's just 213 cm in total length. It may convince you but this seems very wrong to me if the 230cm was over the curves, then I would say this weight is completely wrong. Maybe the scale was messed up or something but this seems extremely unlikely. This case is just like the 389kg claim for the Smithsonian Tiger. Just a confirmation from Instagram is not enough to say that this weight is reliable. Even the weight of the 389kg Tiger was accepted by Indian authorities and you can probably use that weight in a debate but once I saw the picture of that Tiger, I knew that it wasn’t reliable at all. Similarly, I think the 158kg Jaguar also seems quite unreliable but I can’t say for sure unless I get to know his head-body length but still it seems unreliable. As for this Leopard, it’s chest girth and overall bulkiness seems normal, it’s length seems as much or only slightly higher than normal if it’s over the curves then there is NO WAY that this Leopard is 98kg. The 86kg Leopard you are talking about could have been more bulky and hefty with a big chest girth and it’s length was likely in straight line. This Leopard doesn’t even look anything like that. Where is the extra weight coming from? That Leopard is still made of flesh and bones after all.  (04-29-2022, 10:03 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote: I got this from the conversation in the early pages of this exact thread, I guess it was Guate that posted the information about this TBL Nop, I don't have any measurement from this leopard. The only thing that I have from this animal is that was real and included stomach content, that is all. (04-29-2022, 10:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Similarly, I think the 158kg Jaguar also seems quite unreliable but I can’t say for sure unless I get to know his head-body length but still it seems unreliable. Sasha Siemel did not provided measurements of his "giant" jaguar. However, check its picture:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Is more than obvious that this jaguar of 350 lb had a good stomach content, and that is why I don't use this figure, even when is normally quoted as the record jaguar. The figure of 148 kg from modern records is way more reliable and even if adjusted is no less than 142 kg. (04-29-2022, 10:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-29-2022, 10:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Similarly, I think the 158kg Jaguar also seems quite unreliable but I can’t say for sure unless I get to know his head-body length but still it seems unreliable. Agreed. It has a very bloated belly and he didn’t even provide the measurements for his length or girth. (04-29-2022, 09:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira What is your opinion on the size of this Leopard?? Well, the animal existed, it was weighed and the figure is in a per-review paper, so the only that we need to add is that included stomach content. So, what more can we add? I think this detate is futile. I believe that a leopard of 100 kg is an exceptional one, not a regular occurence, and in this case it included stomach content. The record leopard of 96 kg in Namibia was exceptional too, that figure was not reached by any other leopard in the area, at least in scientific and verified records (as far I know). By the way, if you want to continue with the debate, here are a few hunting records from Sri Lanka, from the book "For the Leopard: A tribute to the Sri Lanka Leopard" of 2002:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Now you can debate if these figures are real/correct or not. (04-29-2022, 11:03 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-29-2022, 09:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira What is your opinion on the size of this Leopard?? I am reading it now. However, I did NOT say that Leopards over 100kg don’t exist. I’m certain that Leopards over 100kg definitely do exist. I also did NOT say that this Leopard was not 105kg. BUT what I am saying is that if that Leopard was 230cm in total length (straight line) as @LoveAnimals said THEN the only possible way for that Leopard to reach 105kg is if it was at least around 165cm in head-body length and then it would be around 95-100kg without stomach content. BUT if the head body length of that Leopard is less than 164cm, then by looking at it’s bulkiness, I can say that this 105kg weight is extremely unlikely unless there was10-15kg of stomach content which seems unlikely. THIS is what I am actually saying. (04-29-2022, 10:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: It may convince you but this seems very wrong to me if the 230cm was over the curves, then I would say this weight is completely wrong. Maybe the scale was messed up or something but this seems extremely unlikely. This case is just like the 389kg claim for the Smithsonian Tiger. No it doesn't convince me, Guate just ended my doubt about 230 cm long so all we know about this leopard is nothing except the weight, and I do consider it reliable for 2 various reasons : Visual comparison, I was actually impressed by using this method because I've always believed that a 90+ kg animal would always look so "GIANT" but it's not always the case, an animal with a large frame can weigh just as much if not even less than an animal with a smaller frame (example cougar and leopard when compared to wolves, the wolves can be 11 cm taller on max yet they can weigh 30 + kg less) Also, one thing is to never underrate bone density, but that may just be me. Returning to visual comparison, I will show you jaguars that have weighed 90-100 kg 90 kg male from North America  *This image is copyright of its original author 91.2 kg Karol female  *This image is copyright of its original author 95 kg teorema  *This image is copyright of its original author Now a 100 kg jaguar  *This image is copyright of its original author Do they look really that large? Some maybe yes, but at first the last jaguar and maybe Teorema may not look to weigh in the 100 kg range yet they DO weigh that much Now let's compare some similar positions 91.2 kg karol  *This image is copyright of its original author The leopard  *This image is copyright of its original author 95 kg teorema  *This image is copyright of its original author The leopard  *This image is copyright of its original author The 90 kg jaguar  *This image is copyright of its original author The leopard.  *This image is copyright of its original author The 100 kg jaguar  *This image is copyright of its original author The leopard  *This image is copyright of its original author Now let's go to a larger jaguar, which is 100 kg empty and is theoretically 5 kg larger than the leopard, which isn't a huge difference, they would almost look identical in size. This is the image with the legs and feet of the man standing close to it (I marked the feet birders so you can see them easier)  *This image is copyright of its original author The leopard, it's 100% comparable although the leopard is not as close to the feet as the jaguar  *This image is copyright of its original author We also have 100% scientific confirmation the leopard weighed that much, so at this point is just you showing your opinion on why to you it is not that large, because it is confirmed and officially to be that large. FYI, even Balam, the reasonable person you completely wrongly claimed to be a biased anti-leopard jaguar fan (I won't even continue all of this, we've just had a fight with Yusuf so I don't want to start a new one immediately) does buy that weight and consider it reliable so again it's confirmed, people who doubt it are just going against what's confirmed. Learn to differentiate personal opinions from objective ones, the examples I can make go on Does this leopard look 85 kg to you?  *This image is copyright of its original author Yet it is verified to be that heavy  *This image is copyright of its original author (04-29-2022, 10:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Maybe the scale was messed up You're seriously doubting the scale used by scientists that used actually that scale several times in different periods of time? Don't you think that they would have acknowledged if the scale was guilty? Also these aren't "random Instagram people", it's scientists and members of a conservation project and you have several of them confirming that weight. Here the official persian leopard project page, made up by several researchers and vets that confirms the weight.  *This image is copyright of its original author Here Mohammad Farhadinia, debunking the idea of the 115 kg leopard and saying the original report was 95 kg.  *This image is copyright of its original author Here is Kaveh Hatami who also works for Persian leopards conservation also confirming that weight  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author you have the vets that were present there who confirm that after weighing the cat of course So now? Do you have again any doubts regarding the leopard to be around 95 kg? I guess yes, years pass but you're so solid to your own idea despite all the massive evidence telling you're wrong in doubting that (vets and researchers of the project confirming the weight for you is dubious) but so I can't do anything to convince you more than this. Although you can't get a better evidence than this and that anyone who is educated in size comparisons can see how the leopard compared to the other 91-95 kg Jaguars. I can't do much if you can't accept that. Fact is that the leopard DOES weigh 95 kg. End of story. Nothing dubious. (04-29-2022, 11:03 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(04-29-2022, 09:01 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @GuateGojira What is your opinion on the size of this Leopard?? As for the ‘record’ of 239cm and weight of 77kg that doesn’t seem like very exceptional for a Leopard so I personally would not doubt it. However, to know if that length and weight pair is a match or not, we need to be able to know the weights and measurements of a few Sri Lankan leopards. We don’t even have a picture of that Leopard to see whether it was as bulky as an average Sri Lankan Leopard or less or more than that. Another thing is that for Leopards, we usually only get head-body length unlike in the case of Tigers. For Tigers, we have good data of head-body length, shoulder height as well as chest girth along with weights so in case of Tigers, we can use all these things as reference to make our estimates. We can use all three of those to scale it to the said weight and then average out all the results and then see if they match or not. This gives a much more accurate estimate than just using a single dimension such as head-body length which only gives a single result. Like in your chart for Persian Leopards, only the records of head-body length exist so only that can be used for this purpose, we are only able to use head-body length but that still can work at least roughly because we at least have a picture of the Leopard to see how bulky it was. But in this case of the Sri Lankan Leopard, we only have a total length and bodyweight. And total lengths are problematic themselves. The information in this case is too less to know if the weight and length pair is a match or not plus we don’t even have many other records of Sri Lankan Leopards to use as reference either. (04-30-2022, 12:47 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:(04-29-2022, 10:25 PM)LonePredator Wrote: It may convince you but this seems very wrong to me if the 230cm was over the curves, then I would say this weight is completely wrong. Maybe the scale was messed up or something but this seems extremely unlikely. This case is just like the 389kg claim for the Smithsonian Tiger. Look my friend. I NEVER said that a 105kg Leopard is impossible. I repeat, I NEVER said that. Please go and read my comment once again. BUT what I did say is that you said 230cm was it’s total length. Now in such a case if the head-body length was 73% of the total length, then 95-100kg is more likely and then my estimate was that the 105kg weight must have been with stomach content. I used a simple body length equation and that is how I made these estimates. BUT THEN, pckts said that the 230cm was over the curves length and in such a case where 230cm is over the curves, then the 105kg weight is EXTREMELY unlikely unless the Jaguar was very bulky or fat which it didn’t look like so ONLY IN THIS CASE, the 105kg weight seemed wrong to me. But now you are saying that 230cm length itself was wrong, then all that I was saying was itself based on the 230cm length and later it got changed to over curves and then later you even said the length is false. So when the length you gave was wrong itself then why do you blame me? I made all my estimates just from that length only my friend so you should blame that wrong figure of 230cm not me because I was NOT wrong about anything that I said. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 18 Guest(s) |