Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)

[GuateGojira]

(04-30-2022, 02:25 AM)Twico5 Wrote: I noticed the range is 33-83kg for males, can you post the source for this 33kg leopard?

Yes, here it is, is the male of 72 lb:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Luipaard]

(04-30-2022, 02:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 01:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(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.

N194 measured 235cm with a weight of 74kg

*This image is copyright of its original author

I assume N194 is from the Phinda Male Leopards.

Those leopards are from the N/a'an ku sê Wildlife Sanctuary, Namibia. Reply

[Twico5]

(04-30-2022, 02:31 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 02:25 AM)Twico5 Wrote: I noticed the range is 33-83kg for males, can you post the source for this 33kg leopard?

Yes, here it is, is the male of 72 lb:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Oh ok yeah ive seen those weights before. I wasnt sure if you included hunting records in that sample beacuse of the small sizes Reply

[Pckts]

(04-30-2022, 02:39 AM)Luipaard Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 02:13 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 01:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(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.

N194 measured 235cm with a weight of 74kg

*This image is copyright of its original author

I assume N194 is from the Phinda Male Leopards.

Those leopards are from the N/a'an ku sê Wildlife Sanctuary, Namibia.

I saw that but if you look at their body length range and mass, they fit in perfectly with Phinda Males. So I don't know if they're using the Phinda Data to compare, but it seems so.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-30-2022, 02:28 AM)LonePredator Wrote: 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.

Well, with lynx remember that the Eurasian is bigger and lives in the same latitudes. So, I am not sure of the comparison.

With tigers you are right, Bengals and Amurs are of the same size, weight and skulls (overall records) so the rule is not an explanation for its size.

Finally about leopards, the Amur leopards are about the same size than those from Indochina, but even reputable books show them as the biggest of the species, chech this for example:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The comparisons are apparently at scale, but they repeat the same cliche that northern animals are bigger, sadly. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-30-2022, 02:44 AM)Twico5 Wrote: Oh ok yeah ive seen those weights before. I wasnt sure if you included hunting records in that sample beacuse of the small sizes

Allways check the references, if you see dates of 1890, 1930 or 1960 you can be sure that are hunting records. Reply

[LonePredator]

(04-30-2022, 03:00 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 02:28 AM)LonePredator Wrote: 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.

Well, with lynx remember that the Eurasian is bigger and lives in the same latitudes. So, I am not sure of the comparison.

With tigers you are right, Bengals and Amurs are of the same size, weight and skulls (overall records) so the rule is not an explanation for its size.

Finally about leopards, the Amur leopards are about the same size than those from Indochina, but even reputable books show them as the biggest of the species, chech this for example:

*This image is copyright of its original author

The comparisons are apparently at scale, but they repeat the same cliche that northern animals are bigger, sadly.

Exactly! It’s such a shame that all these types of sources such as NatGeo and all these have so much stupid information. It makes me even more angry when I see such false informatio floating around on thousands of YouTube channels.

They even give bite force in psi and I have seen that they say Siberian tigers have weaker bite force than Bengal even though Siberians have bigger skulls than Bengals on average.

And taking their false claim in count that Siberians are also bigger weight. I don’t understand how they could say that Siberians have weaker bite force when at the other hand they say that Siberians are bigger.

These sources such as NatGeo really disappoint me. Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-30-2022, 03:07 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Exactly! It’s such a shame that all these types of sources such as NatGeo and all these have so much stupid information. It makes me even more angry when I see such false informatio floating around on thousands of YouTube channels.

They even give bite force in psi and I have seen that they say Siberian tigers have weaker bite force than Bengal even though Siberians have bigger skulls than Bengals on average.

And taking their false claim in count that Siberians are also bigger weight. I don’t understand how they could say that Siberians have weaker bite force when at the other hand they say that Siberians are bigger.

These sources such as NatGeo really disappoint me.

Sadly NatGeo have very low standars in these days, but Discovery and History channels are even worst! I can tell you, there is no good scientific TV in these days, and is sad if you think about it. The old days of documentaries and tv shows with scientific aproach like "Paleoworld" already ended.


Internet is a great tool to investigate but only if you know how to use it. The webpage of NatGeo is not accurate, and Youtube is certainly one of the worst places to search for information. I don't give a cent for the information about animals that many channels share, but sadly many people (specially young ones) prefer a ridiculous video insted fo READING a book. Reply

[LonePredator]

(04-30-2022, 03:33 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 03:07 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Exactly! It’s such a shame that all these types of sources such as NatGeo and all these have so much stupid information. It makes me even more angry when I see such false informatio floating around on thousands of YouTube channels.

They even give bite force in psi and I have seen that they say Siberian tigers have weaker bite force than Bengal even though Siberians have bigger skulls than Bengals on average.

And taking their false claim in count that Siberians are also bigger weight. I don’t understand how they could say that Siberians have weaker bite force when at the other hand they say that Siberians are bigger.

These sources such as NatGeo really disappoint me.

Sadly NatGeo have very low standars in these days, but Discovery and History channels are even worst! I can tell you, there is no good scientific TV in these days, and is sad if you think about it. The old days of documentaries and tv shows with scientific aproach like "Paleoworld" already ended.


Internet is a great tool to investigate but only if you know how to use it. The webpage of NatGeo is not accurate, and Youtube is certainly one of the worst places to search for information. I don't give a cent for the information about animals that many channels share, but sadly many people (specially young ones) prefer a ridiculous video insted fo READING a book.

Indeed! Such stupidity spreading everywhere. And the problem is that more than 90% of the information about animals on the internet are of this low standard.

And don’t even get me started about the people who comment on these YouTube videos Reply

[GuateGojira]

(04-30-2022, 03:40 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Indeed! Such stupidity spreading everywhere. And the problem is that more than 90% of the information about animals on the internet are of this low standard.

And don’t even get me started about the people who comment on these YouTube videos?

Oh my!!! There is a lot of people that believe that dragons, megalodon (in modern days) and mermaids exist in real life, and they evidence are the mocumentarios of Animal Planet!!!

That is why Wildfact is so important, because here we try to search the truth, with documents, scientific studies all with with they proper reference. Reply

[LonePredator]

(04-30-2022, 04:20 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 03:40 AM)LonePredator Wrote: Indeed! Such stupidity spreading everywhere. And the problem is that more than 90% of the information about animals on the internet are of this low standard.

And don’t even get me started about the people who comment on these YouTube videos?

Oh my!!! There is a lot of people that believe that dragons, megalodon (in modern days) and mermaids exist in real life, and they evidence are the mocumentarios of Animal Planet!!!

That is why Wildfact is so important, because here we try to search the truth, with documents, scientific studies all with with they proper reference.

Yes! They say Megalodons exist at the bottom it’s hilarious.

And indeed, Wildfact is the best and probably the only source like this which gives the most genuine and the least known information. Reply

[Styx38]

(04-28-2022, 11:55 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 11:05 PM)Styx38 Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 06:20 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(04-28-2022, 03:58 AM)Styx38 Wrote: @Twico5

Pckts seems to be a bit in disbelief since a major argument of his was that it would be impossible for a Leopard to reach and surpass the 100 kg mark.

I do agree in the sense that this Leopard may be an anomaly. However, I am still hopeful for other possible 100+ kg Leopards waiting to be discovered in the near future.


Anyway, here is a Leopard from Chitral Gol National Park, Pakistan. The place is close to the Afghanistan border, so this could be the eastern extent for the Persian Leopard.

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://jomec.co.uk/life360-2019/uncateg...nge-for-it

You’re making up arguments for me now?
I suggest you speak for yourself instead of misrepresenting what my “beliefs” are.

To be fair, your arguments were to debunk or dismiss any case of a 100+ kg Leopard.

If you changed your opinions and believe that other 100+ kg Leopards are still out there, then I will recant my statement.

You should recant it because you’re falsely putting words in mouth, simple as that.

You were pretty insistent on 100 kg Leopards not existing some time back.

Your friend Balam was also pretty insistent about that.

If you agree that there are 100+ kg Leopards possibly out there, then I will recant my statement. Reply

[Styx38]

(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 01:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(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.

I am not sure. However, there were two relatively long Leopards.

In one study, two adult male Leopards from Gir National Park and Sanctuary, Gujarat, India were measured and radio-collared.

One was 54 kg while the other was 52 kg.

Each of their total lengths were 2.5 meters.

*This image is copyright of its original author

source: Zehra, Nazneen, Rohit Chaudhary, and Jamal A. Khan. "Ecology of Leopard (Panthera pardus fusca Meyer) in Dry Tropical Forests of Gir National Park and Sanctuary, Gujarat, India." International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 45.3 (2019): 241-255. Reply

[Twico5]

(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 01:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(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.

Like all leopards indian leopards are typically thin with the exception of well fed forest dwelling specimens. They are also shorter than african leopards and probably persian leopards as well. I dont think its fair to say that they should be the most massive or heavy leopards simply because of their length. 

A lot of modern and hunting record weights for indian leopards come from tiger dominated areas/tiger reserves where leopards tend to hunt smaller animals. How can we expect them to be just as bulky as persian leopards and therefore weigh the same? 

Indian leopards that have a good prey base and no competition are just as heavy as persian leopards there are many examples of this. Reply

[LonePredator]

(04-30-2022, 09:59 AM)Twico5 Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(04-30-2022, 01:50 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(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.

Like all leopards indian leopards are typically thin with the exception of well fed forest dwelling specimens. They are also shorter than african leopards and probably persian leopards as well. I dont think its fair to say that they should be the most massive or heavy leopards simply because of their length. 

Indian leopards that have a good prey base and no competition are just as heavy as persian leopards there are many examples of this.

Please read my comment again. I did NOT say that Indian Leopards are the most massive or heavy. I said Indian Leopards are the longest and tallest (I actually asked rather than claim)

And yes, that’s obviously because of the Tigers and in Gir, Gujarat, the Lions. Reply