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.
(04-30-2022, 01:02 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Look my friend. I NEVER said that a 105kg Leopard is impossible.
Why are you now putting in my mouth words I've never said? Since when am I talking about the leopard to be 105 kg? Now tell me when I've mentioned 105 kg, I've actually mentioned 95-98 kg a billion of times and it was clearly evident from my posts so unless someone is illiterate with grammar or litterally just doesn't read my full posts
(04-30-2022, 01:02 AM)LonePredator Wrote: But now you are saying that 230cm was nothing, 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.
No I didn't say the length is false, I thought GuateGojira was the one who mentioned this length but actually it wasn't so I probably mistook all of this with another leopard or simply we don't know it's measurement totally.
Even if the measurents are real and are over the curves, we still have the even shorter 213 cm long 86 kg male, which adds much more credibility to the weight.
But I don't need this ti add credibility, the fact the male was confirmed and widely accepted among the people who work for the persian leopard project, Fardinha who is a biologist and the vet Iman is enough for me.
04-30-2022, 01:20 AM( This post was last modified: 04-30-2022, 01:23 AM by LonePredator )
(04-30-2022, 01:10 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote:
(04-30-2022, 01:02 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Look my friend. I NEVER said that a 105kg Leopard is impossible.
Why are you now putting in my mouth words I've never said? Since when am I talking about the leopard to be 105 kg? Now tell me when I've mentioned 105 kg, I've actually mentioned 95-98 kg a billion of times and it was clearly evident from my posts so unless someone is illiterate with grammar or litterally just doesn't read my full posts
(04-30-2022, 01:02 AM)LonePredator Wrote: But now you are saying that 230cm was nothing, 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.
No I didn't say the length is false, I thought GuateGojira was the one who mentioned this length but actually it wasn't so I probably mistook all of this with another leopard or simply we don't know it's measurement totally.
Even if the measurents are real and are over the curves, we still have the even shorter 213 cm long 86 kg male, which adds much more credibility to the weight.
But I don't need this ti add credibility, the fact the male was confirmed and widely accepted among the people who work for the persian leopard project, Fardinha who is a biologist and the vet Iman is enough for me.
Stop using that kind of language. I am talking politely so please don’t be rude like this. First you yourself pulled that fake 230cm length out of nowhere and when I estimated my weight USING THAT LENGTH then you are blaming me.
You yourself gave a wrong length and I estimated the weight USING that length so of course an estimate based on false information would obviously be wrong so stop saying I’m wrong. Your length was wrong.
And if that particular Leopard from that picture was less than 163cm in head-body length in straight line, then the 105kg weight (or 98kg) is very unlikely even with stomach content (and keep in mind I am talking only about that particular Leopard in that picture after looking at its body shape and bulkiness) That is what I said and this is what I am saying again so don’t misinterpret it.
You stop putting words in my mouth and please be polite when I am polite with you.
(04-29-2022, 11:13 PM)LonePredator Wrote: 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.
Read my post again, I NEVER said that the book mentioned that leopards of 100 kg did not existed. I clearly wrote that if you want to continue with the debate, the book had a few hunting records from Sri Lanka with big specimens, that is all.
From my part, I doubt that any leopard over 100 kg "empty" could exist, the sample of old and modern records is as big as the one of tigers and lions and the heaviest reliably recorded is of 96 kg, apparently "empty" but the text do not mention any detail (Brain, 1981). However, if we accept the posibility, and based in the data available, I think that c.100 kg will be really exceptional for leopards and pumas (up to 105 kg (Hornocker & Negri, 2010), and only normally achieved by jaguars (biggest populations), lions and tigers.
(04-30-2022, 12:50 AM)LonePredator Wrote: 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.
I have no idea with leopard are you refering, talking about the one of "239 cm and weight of 77kg", can you refresh my memory?
About Sri Lanka leopards, the only other figures are those from Phillips (1935), which were taken between pegs:
*This image is copyright of its original author
As the main point of my post about the reports of huge Sri Lanka leopards was completelly missed, I will make the straight question: Do you all think that those reported weights from Sri Lanka (the huge ones) are real?
04-30-2022, 01:37 AM( This post was last modified: 04-30-2022, 01:37 AM by LonePredator )
(04-30-2022, 01:25 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 11:13 PM)LonePredator Wrote: 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.
Read my post again, I NEVER said that the book mentioned that leopards of 100 kg did not existed. I clearly wrote that if you want to continue with the debate, the book had a few hunting records from Sri Lanka with big specimens, that is all.
From my part, I doubt that any leopard over 100 kg "empty" could exist, the sample of old and modern records is as big as the one of tigers and lions and the heaviest reliably recorded is of 96 kg, apparently "empty" but the text do not mention any detail (Brain, 1981). However, if we accept the posibility, and based in the data available, I think that c.100 kg will be really exceptional for leopards and pumas (up to 105 kg (Hornocker & Negri, 2010), and only normally achieved by jaguars (biggest populations), lions and tigers.
And I am NOT doubting your words because you know more about the records of Leopards and their weights and measurements than I do.
But I was saying that my whole estimate of that weight was based on that 230cm length and later it turned out that it was over the curves and then once again it changed and this time it turned out that the length itself was fake.
So obviously when I made my estimations based on false information then that will obviously be wrong. That is what I am saying.
04-30-2022, 01:42 AM( This post was last modified: 04-30-2022, 01:45 AM by LonePredator )
(04-30-2022, 01:36 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-30-2022, 12:50 AM)LonePredator Wrote: 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.
I have no idea with leopard are you refering, talking about the one of "239 cm and weight of 77kg", can you refresh my memory?
About Sri Lanka leopards, the only other figures are those from Phillips (1935), which were taken between pegs:
*This image is copyright of its original author
As the main point of my post about the reports of huge Sri Lanka leopards was completelly missed, I will make the straight question: Do you all think that those reported weights from Sri Lanka (the huge ones) are real?
I meant the Leopard whose length and weight was written in the book which you sent the picture of. It was written in inches and pounds I think so I converted it.
And yes, I do believe the reported weight and length in that book is real but this is just my personal opinion. I can’t make any calculations because the information is very little (though I’m not sure about the one which was 8feet 8inches over curves)
And this is so much more useful, now that we have the head-body length, shoulder height and chest girth, we can make some estimates of other Sri Lankan Leopards (given the condition that these weight estimates from Philips are correct and precise enough) as well but the accuracy will depend on the amount of information available.
(04-30-2022, 01:37 AM)LonePredator Wrote: And I am NOT doubting your words because you know more about the data and the records of Leopards and their weights and measurements.
But I was only saying that my whole estimate of that weight was based on that 230cm length and later it turned out that it was over the curves and then once again it changed and this time it turned out that the length itself was fake.
So obviously when I made my estimations based on false information then that will obviously be wrong. That is what I am saying.
I don't recoment to make an estimation based only in total length, as we don't know the real proportions of the animal. When I made the table of the size of Indian leopards, I learned that there is a big variations of the tail lengths between the population, so "in theory" a leopard of "230 cm straight" could be as big as c.160 cm in H-B or as small as c.140 cm. To much variation.
(04-29-2022, 10:22 PM)Pckts Wrote: It's not 3 vets, it's just one person. Albeit, a qualified individual
I thought Fardinha was a vet as well lol, my mistake. I also mentioned as vet one member of the Persian Leopard Project so I was wrong there aswell there, my apologies
Fardinha doesn't claim about the Leopard in question.
He states prime males from the north are around 70kg.
The only one claiming the 115kg Leopard is Iman Memarian who is a vet but no others have any actual knowledge of it first hand.
(04-30-2022, 01:37 AM)LonePredator Wrote: And I am NOT doubting your words because you know more about the data and the records of Leopards and their weights and measurements.
But I was only saying that my whole estimate of that weight was based on that 230cm length and later it turned out that it was over the curves and then once again it changed and this time it turned out that the length itself was fake.
So obviously when I made my estimations based on false information then that will obviously be wrong. That is what I am saying.
I don't recoment to make an estimation based only in total length, as we don't know the real proportions of the animal. When I made the table of the size of Indian leopards, I learned that there is a big variations of the tail lengths between the population, so "in theory" a leopard of "230 cm straight" could be as big as c.160 cm in H-B or as small as c.140 cm. To much variation.
Yes, I agree. I just saw the records of some very large Leopards and the head body length can indeed be 73% of the total length, it may be more common than I thought.
(04-30-2022, 01:42 AM)LonePredator Wrote: I meant the Leopard whose length and weight was written in the book which you sent the picture of. It was written in inches and pounds I think so I converted it.
The longest leopard from India, measured "between pegs", was of 249 cm, so a male of 239 cm seems completelly plausible, and a weight of 77 kg seems correct for it; a shoulder height of 68.6 cm seems correct too, as the tallest Indian leopards was recorded at 74 cm.
(04-30-2022, 01:42 AM)LonePredator Wrote: I meant the Leopard whose length and weight was written in the book which you sent the picture of. It was written in inches and pounds I think so I converted it.
The longest leopard from India, measured "between pegs", was of 249 cm, so a male of 239 cm seems completelly plausible, and a weight of 77 kg seems correct for it; a shoulder height of 68.6 cm seems correct too, as the tallest Indian leopards was recorded at 74 cm.
Surely, I agree. Indian Leopards are also the longest aren’t they? Are they also the tallest?
I wonder why Indian Leopards still lag behind in terms of weight.
(04-30-2022, 01:42 AM)LonePredator Wrote: I meant the Leopard whose length and weight was written in the book which you sent the picture of. It was written in inches and pounds I think so I converted it.
The longest leopard from India, measured "between pegs", was of 249 cm, so a male of 239 cm seems completelly plausible, and a weight of 77 kg seems correct for it; a shoulder height of 68.6 cm seems correct too, as the tallest Indian leopards was recorded at 74 cm.
Surely, I agree. Indian Leopards are also the longest aren’t they? Are they also the tallest?
I wonder why Indian Leopards still lag behind in terms of weight.
04-30-2022, 02:21 AM( This post was last modified: 04-30-2022, 02:24 AM by GuateGojira )
(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Surely, I agree. Indian Leopards are also the longest aren’t they? Are they also the tallest?
I wonder why Indian Leopards still lag behind in terms of weight.
Been honest, because I am not very interested in leopards, I never made a comparison between leopards of different countries, the only ones that I focused are those from India (because I love India!) and those from the Amur (which are no giants as many people believe). My comparative image from Iran leopards just used the information from Dr Farhadinia's paper from 2014 but I did not digged to much.
Based in the data that I have, Indian leopards seems to be the largest in body dimetions, but this is probably because I have not compiled the data from Africa. I say this because when we compare the few animals reported from Iran (over curves), the Indian leopard is bigger even "between pegs", and I suspect that is the same case with those from Africa.
Now, about the low body mass, I think that we can "blame" the tiger as they monopolize the big prey and leave the leopard just the small animals, although in India there is no to much big prey to choose. However, if you check the body mass that I found, the average weight is for 57.6 kg for males and 39.1 kg for females, which is not too small compared with other populations. While I am aware that is not exaustive, let's use the table from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) for a quick comparison, some in "straight line", other "over curves":
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now the specimens from Iran, all "over curves":
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now check my comparative image that include the Indian leopard (forget the Bengal tiger, those values in the image are outdated at this moment), all measured "between pegs":
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, Indian leopards are among the biggest of all the populations, they are only smaller in the body mass, and by a small margin. By the way and just to clarify, the weight of 83 kg includes stomach content according with Dr Athreya, but did not specify to what degree.
(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Surely, I agree. Indian Leopards are also the longest aren’t they? Are they also the tallest?
I wonder why Indian Leopards still lag behind in terms of weight.
Been honest, because I am not very interested in leopards, I never made a comparison between leopards of different countries, the only ones that I focused are those from India (because I love India!) and those from the Amur (which are no giants as many people believe). My comparative image from Iran leopards just used the information from Dr Farhadinia's paper from 2014 but I did not digged to much.
Based in the data that I have, Indian leopards seems to be the largest in body dimetions, but this is probably because I have not compiled the data from Africa. I say this because when we compare the few animals reported from Iran (over curves), the Indian leopard is bigger even "between pegs", and I suspect that is the same case with those from Africa.
Now, about the low body mass, I think that we can "blame" the tiger as they monopolize the big prey and leave the leopard just the small animals, although in India there is no to much big prey to choose. However, if you check the body mass that I found, the average weight is for 57.6 kg for males and 39.1 kg for females, which is not too small compared with other populations. While I am aware that is not exaustive, let's use the table from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) for a quick comparison, some in "straight line", other "over curves":
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now the specimens from Iran, all "over curves":
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now check my comparative image that include the Indian leopard (forget the Bengal tiger, those values in the image are outdated at this moment), all measured "between pegs":
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, Indian leopards are among the biggest of all the populations, they are only smaller in the body mass, and by a small margin. By the way and just to clarify, the weight of 83 kg includes stomach content according with Dr Athreya, but did not specify to what degree.
I noticed the range is 33-83kg for males, can you post the source for this 33kg leopard?
(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Surely, I agree. Indian Leopards are also the longest aren’t they? Are they also the tallest?
I wonder why Indian Leopards still lag behind in terms of weight.
Been honest, because I am not very interested in leopards, I never made a comparison between leopards of different countries, the only ones that I focused are those from India (because I love India!) and those from the Amur (which are no giants as many people believe). My comparative image from Iran leopards just used the information from Dr Farhadinia's paper from 2014 but I did not digged to much.
Based in the data that I have, Indian leopards seems to be the largest in body dimetions, but this is probably because I have not compiled the data from Africa. I say this because when we compare the few animals reported from Iran (over curves), the Indian leopard is bigger even "between pegs", and I suspect that is the same case with those from Africa.
Now, about the low body mass, I think that we can "blame" the tiger as they monopolize the big prey and leave the leopard just the small animals, although in India there is no to much big prey to choose. However, if you check the body mass that I found, the average weight is for 57.6 kg for males and 39.1 kg for females, which is not too small compared with other populations. While I am aware that is not exaustive, let's use the table from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) for a quick comparison, some in "straight line", other "over curves":
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now the specimens from Iran, all "over curves":
*This image is copyright of its original author
Now check my comparative image that include the Indian leopard (forget the Bengal tiger, those values in the image are outdated at this moment), all measured "between pegs":
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, Indian leopards are among the biggest of all the populations, they are only smaller in the body mass, and by a small margin. By the way and just to clarify, the weight of 83 kg includes stomach content according with Dr Athreya, but did not specify to what degree.
Thank you! I believe that with the example of Amur Leopards, Amur Tigers and Canadian Lynx, we can say that the Bergmann’s ‘rule’ does not apply to felids.
People still use that to say that Siberian Tigers are bigger than Bengals even though the body dimensions are almost the same.
Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)
