|
Size comparisons
|
 (07-15-2019, 01:15 AM)Pckts Wrote: Why not highlight the rest of Peter's quote? Quote:Why not highlight the rest of Peter's quote? We're not talking about Asian Leopards, we're talking about Africans, correct? I have proven that Central African leopards have larger skulls than South African leopards a few posts ago. Fact that no East African or South African made the top lists says enough. One specimen of Uganda, one from Sudan and one from Sudan made it. The rest were from either Iran or Central African. The quote was becouse @peter stated that "skulls of males shot in central parts of Africa had a robust mandibula, large and robust teeth and a flattish profile." Quote:I don't wan't to talk about which male? None of the males I've seen exceed males from other parts of Africa, I'm pretty sure I've spoken about that numerous times. I've also shown Leopards with exceeding measurements of the Congo Basin Skulls aswell, do you wish to talk about them? Yes you may talk about them. All I asked you is if the particular leopard I showed you are above or under 80 kg since you said they were under 80 kg which is impossible since they have larger skull sized than Persian leopards. Many Persian easily weigh above 80 kg so how would Central African leopards weigh under 80 kg? Quote:A persian leopard also has bergmans rule on their side while Congo basin leopards have the opposite rule of insular dwarfism Yet they're the apex predator and mainly predate on heavy prey like red river hogs. Tackling such prey requires a lot of strength. I doubt they're smaller like South African leopards who mainly predate on impala. As you've mentioned before: Quote:Since there is no new info to present there really is no more debate to be had. We've both made our points and neither is willing to back down from them. I'm afraid this is a never ending story  (07-14-2019, 11:58 PM)Luipaard Wrote: I said that I didn't compare leopard skulls and jaguars directly becouse of obvious reasons. We have had this discussion before which is why I said that the leopard of skull KBIN 8640 is comparable in dimensions to large individual male jaguars from Pantanal and Llanos. I find it remarkable since jaguars are known to have massive, robust skulls. It would be nice to have sources for different charts, which you share. Link to source file or from what book chart has been copied? Time to time it´s interesting to read a bit more from different studies, that what is said there. 
Congo Basin prey is mainly dulkier and red river hog which is the the same has Warthog and less than Impala, mean prey mass for Congo Basin Leopards is the exact same as anywhere else in Africa.
"Many persians way above 80kgs" The Persian leopard is one of the largest subspecies (Stein and Hayssen 2013), adult males weigh on average 65.8 kg " https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/99/3/713/4996220 Repl "240 cm long .. this magnificent chap when we first captured him in Sep 2014 to collar .. My Journey with Persian Leopardsat least 70 kg My Journey with Persian LeopardsTail and body" " Ali Shemirani Looks either freshly fed, or pregnant....? How much do the males and females usually weight, and how do they compare in size to the African leopards? My Journey with Persian Leopards[b]It is an adult male, males generally are around 67 female around 44 kg"[/b] They dont get over 80kg as easily as you claim, as I can also post more with lower weights than these as well. And once again let's stay on Target, Persian males which are a completely different sub species, live by Bergmans rule and aren't the cat we're discussing, no skull correlation is shown as well. Yet that 70kg Leopard I posted would be the 2nd largest Leopard on that list according to body length which would mean its skull is one of the largest according to your claim. And how were these weights collected.... by baiting How come you dont mention that as well like you tried to do with Jags? In regards to your question if the Congo basin leopard is above 80kgs, who knows? I'm not like you, I dont pretend to know the weight of a cat based off of camera trap photos from a mirror. I have already shown that their dimensions are nothing special and their body size hasn't impressed me more than other Leopards I've posted throughout the African Leopards thread. So could it be 80kgs, absolutely but it could also be 60kgs too. And I have proven that many leopards from E. And S. Africa have topped that list, so what's your point? I have also proven that with Skulls larger than what's on that list no leopard has still weighed 100kgs. Round and round we go Luipaard.
@Shadow , I will try and find the sources for you. Regarding new data, there isn't any new data for now. I could try and find old data through archives though.
@Pckts Quote:Congo Basin prey is mainly dulkier and red river hog which is the the same has Warthog and less than Impala, mean prey mass for Congo Basin Leopards is the exact same as anywhere else in Africa. Then explain there robust appearance. There certainly is a difference, members of Panthera noticed this aswell. Also, from Leopard food habits in the Lopé National Park, Gabon, Central Africa by P. Henschel, 2005: "The most important single prey species was found to be red river hog Potamochoerus porcus (Linnaeus), making up 20% of the biomass consumed, followed by forest buffalo Syncerus caffer nanus"  *This image is copyright of its original author As you can see, they do indeed predate on duiker and red river hogs, but also on forest buffalo's. Quote:They dont get over 80kg as easily as you claim, as I can also post more with lower weights than these as well. That argument was just based on that weight chart, where 6 males weighed more than 80 kg, 2 were in the 75-80 kg weight class. As you can see, we're not talking about a couple of individuals. Quote:And how were these weights collected.... by baiting I didn't try anything, I just happened to have proof that the jaguar was gorged. This way, we could subtract 10-15 kg based on what Rafael Hoogesteijn said himself. Also, that other chart showed us 2 males weighing 66 and 86 kg, they were dead so obviously not gorged. Regarding the other weight chart, we can't tell how much we have to subtract like we can with the 148 kg jaguar. Quote:I'm not like you, I dont pretend to know the weight of a cat based off of camera trap photos from a mirror. I don't pretend that, I estimate that. There's nothing wrong with estimating an animal its size. Quote:I have already shown that their dimensions are nothing special and their body size hasn't impressed me more than other Leopards I've posted throughout the African Leopards thread. So could it be 80kgs, absolutely but it could also be 60kgs too. But I have literally shown their skull measurements, how are those not impressive? Sure you may find them average. Sure there other leopards from other regions look who look equally impressive. I doubt that they will weigh around 60 kg with such large skulls. But again, we can only speculate so it's not worth discussing this. Quote:And I have proven that many leopards from E. And S. Africa have topped that list, so what's your point? So your opinion is that no leopard can reach weights 100 kg. That's fine. My opinion is that they average bigger than other leopard subspecies, with big males rivaling the size of Pantanal male jaguars. I say we end this discussion until someone else can come up with new data. We will eventually find out who's right. Just like we found out about the 150+kg jaguar. Maybe @peter can give some information if possible?  (07-15-2019, 02:14 PM)Luipaard Wrote: I didn't try anything, I just happened to have proof that the jaguar was gorged. This way, we could subtract 10-15 kg based on what Rafael Hoogesteijn said himself. I will add something in this point. I had a direct conversation with Dr Hoogesteijn about the weight of the large jaguar of 148 kg. He mention that he used bait to capture him, so I told him that probably the weight of the animal was between 130 - 140 kg, however he corrected me and he told me that they used chickens to attract the jaguars so he personally told me that the amount eat by the jaguar was only about 4-5 kg, so the empty belly weight of that Pantanal jaguar was probably of no less than 143 kg, based on this evidence. As far I know, this is still the scientific record of any jaguar in the world. Now, what about the figures of 158 kg normally published? They came from the records of Sasha Siemel and he says that his heaviest jaguar was of 350 lb (158.8 kg) and came from a jaguar called "El Assesino" (The assasin) but if you see its picutures it was heavy gorged. De Almeida estimated that a big jaguar will weight about 120 kg empty and over 130 kg in exceptional cases, those jaguars of the Pantanal are very big and certainly did reached over 140 kg empty. I don't know how accurate is the weight of 158 kg that I see in some posts here about a particular big male. We must be carefull with reports from webpages, I recall a case when a tiger was reported to be 280 kg in one of those articles, but when I checked it resulted that it was just an estimate, the tiger was never weighed. Now, if we compare the jaguar to other cats, definitelly it is the largest of all the felids, excluding tigers and lions, and the only one that reach weights over 120 kg "confirmed". The heaviest puma from hunting records reported by Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) was a male of 125 kg "evicerated", but Hornocker & Negri (2010) says that this weight is bases in a "hearsay" and concluded that the heaviest puma reliably recorded was a male of 232 lb (105.2 kg) killed by President Roosevelt in Colorado. From a list of 85 specimenst from diferente regions of America, the heaviest male was of 80 kg and came from Chile (Sunquist & Sunqusit, 2002). There are many other samples from scientific studies and as far I know, no puma surpassed that weight reported from Chile. On the leopard side, we have may samples from many countries, to be fair the sample from Central Africa is very poor and large skulls from the area suggest big animals, but are not bigger than those from Persia region. Leopards from 90 kg has been reported from South Africa, but included stomach content (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002) and as far I know the heaviest leopards came from Iran with a maximum of 91 kg. I don't know if they bait the leopards to be honest, but remember that they can also use the snare method to campture them. Dr Farhadinia says that based in his studies the leopards of Iran are the largest of the world in this moment. From here came the record of the leopard of 115 kg which was exceptional in any sence as any leopard in hunting or sceintific records, reached that weight, but if includes stomach contect or not, it is not reported and I see that some people do not belive on it, althought it was confirmed by scientists. If we use the scientific records as base, between 70 to 80 kg is already a large male leopard and few animals surpass that range, if we exclude stomach content. I have a record from a leopard in India of over 80 kg, but Dr Atreya says that includes stomach content. The heaviest leopard on records, appart from the big male from Iran, is a male from Namibia that weighed 96 kg, apparently with no stomach content (Brain, 1981). From a sample of 77 males of diferent areas the heaviest male was of 71.3 kg from Zimbabwe, but to be fair the figures of Kruger NP just includes averages and the extremes, which I rememeber was more than 70 kg. It seems, from the evidence that we have, that leopards and pumas compete for the forth place, althought the smallest leopard population is smaller thant he smallest puma population, that I have saw. Jaguars are other level, they surpass these two cats on size, and althought the smallest populations match with the leopards and pumas in sizes, they are still bigger: 56.1 kg jaguar-Belize - 41 kg Puma-Paraguay - 30.9 kg leopard-Cape Province. There is overlap in these three species, but certainly only the jaguar surpass the 100 kg regularly. Please take in count that this list is not exaustive, but only the figures that I have in my mind and the books at hand now, but certainly represent some of the best of the info that you can found in any place.
I think, that you made typo here:
"It seems, from the evidence that we have, that leopards and pumas compete for the third place" You meant fourth place for sure :)  (07-15-2019, 07:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:@GuateGojira(07-15-2019, 02:14 PM)Luipaard Wrote: I didn't try anything, I just happened to have proof that the jaguar was gorged. This way, we could subtract 10-15 kg based on what Rafael Hoogesteijn said himself. Very good and valuable information, thanks for sharing my Friend (07-15-2019, 07:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: From a list of 85 specimenst from diferente regions of America, the heaviest male was of 80 kg and came from Chile (Sunquist & Sunqusit, 2002). There are many other samples from scientific studies and as far I know, no puma surpassed that weight reported from Chile. I made a quick research in the web and I found two males of 82 kg each from Canada and Chile, these are from scientific studies. There are other 5 records of males from 90 to 102.5 kg from modern hunting records reported by Boone and Crockett. So it seems that pumas did reach the figures of 80-100 kg more often than leopards. I also fount the original document of hte record Indian leopard and its weight was of 83 kg. But like I said before, it had stomach content. There is other leopard of 89 kg from South Africa, but in the picture it is posible to see a large belly, suggesting stomach content (?).
Read a few pages back @GuateGojira
We've already spoken with Rafeal and Fernando. The 158kg is wrong, Adriano is 130 kg. 148kg was the largest from Panthera and 142kg non baited has been posted as well. But as I mentioned, there's quite a few jags in the Pantanal larger than Adriano. @ You already know my response since nothing posted is new information. And just like we found out which Jagaur population was larger between Los Llanos and Pantanal. (07-15-2019, 09:18 PM)Pckts Wrote: Read a few pages back @GuateGojira Thanks for the information man. So the record of 148 kg stands. Just for those that don't know this male, here is the picture that Dr Rafael Hoogesteijn himself send to me:  *This image is copyright of its original author This large male was captured in October 2008 in the Fazenda São Bento in the Pantanal Norte (Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil). This is the largest jaguar recorded by scientists at this moment, but I have no doubt that probably are larger males in the area, but this is just speculation. Check its size, beautiful animal!!!
This one here too, because this good footage to compare bear subspecies is surprisingly rare to find. Or then I´m just bad in searching :)
From Sweden, captive Kodiak and Eurasian brown bears playing around, from 2015. Kodiak bear is 5 years old male Taquka, weighing 376 kg (829lbs) and Eurasian is 2 years old male Felix, weighing 160 kg (353 lbs). So both are young, not full grown. Especially Eurasian is practically still a cub. In the wild it would have just left from mother or still with her. Anyway this video gives a hint about it, what is the difference and why they call Kodiak Islands as The Land of Giant Bears. (07-16-2019, 03:51 AM)Shadow Wrote: This one here too, because this good footage to compare bear subspecies is surprisingly rare to find. Or then I´m just bad in searching :) Same bears, Taquka and Felix at same time as before, this time in pond. One day difference to video in my earlier posting. Smaller bear, 2 years old Felix is comparable to Ussuri brown bears. Or grizzlies same age, which live in other parts of North America, when counting out Alaskan peninsula. Especially in the third video some good footage to see the difference. 
ON JAGUARS, LEOPARDS, LIONS, TIGERS, SKULLS, AVERAGES AND EXCEPTIONS
I followed the debate about jaguars, leopards and skulls with some interest. The reason is I measured a number of skulls of both cats. Poster 'Luipaard' invited me to join the debate. He also asked me post a few skull photographs. Although a bit short of time, I decided to contribute. a - The debate What I read, suggests the controversy could, at least partly, be a result of mixing up perspectives (referring to averages and individual variation). As jaguars living in regions with decent conditions severely outaverage leopards living in similar conditions, those involved in the debate should perhaps focus on individual variation. What I have (on skulls) and saw (referring to zoos, facilities, circuses and a few wildcaught jaguars in Surinam) strongly suggest that individual variation is more pronounced in leopards than in jaguars. Same for sexual dimorphism. I've seen male jaguars dwarfing females, but at the level of averages leopards top the table. Individual variation often is more pronounced in large subspecies than in small subspecies. For this reason, I propose to focus on large subspecies of both big cats. Luipaard said there is some overlap in the department of skulls. More accurately, he said exceptional skulls of male leopards living in regions where leopards grow to a large size could compare to skulls of average-sized male jaguars living in regions where jaguars grow to a large size. The question is if he has a point. The answer is it depends on the perspective. If we use elevation (height at the orbit), weight, zygomatic width, rostrum width and the length and diameter of the upper canines as indicators, the answer is no. If we use condylobasal and total length as indicators, the answer is yes. Exceptional leopard skulls can be as long as average-sized skulls of male jaguars living in regions with good conditions. This regarding absolutes. Now for the relatives. Reliable data say adult male jaguars of large subspecies are a bit longer than adult male leopards of large subspecies in head and body. Seen from the perspective of leopards, jaguars seem to be about 10% longer. In weight, however, the difference is outspoken. Male jaguars of large subspecies average 95-105 kg., whereas male leopards of large subspecies average 60-65 kg., maybe a bit more in some regions. Seen from the perspective of male leopards of large subspecies, male jaguars of large subspecies are at least 50% heavier. In the skull department, the differences between adult male leopards of large subspecies (about 240-245 mm.) and adult male jaguars or large subspecies (about 290 mm.) also is significant (about 20%). Using the info we have (see above), one could say male jaguars of large subspecies, compared to male leopards of large subspecies, have relatively long skulls for their head and body length and be right. However. Individual variation in male leopards of large subspecies (referring to head and body length, weight and skull length) seems to be more outspoken than in jaguars. Some male leopards of large subspecies are about as long (referring to head and body length) and heavy as as an average-sized male jaguar of a large subspecies. Not seldom, exceptional male leopards seem to be somewhat 'overskulled'. Using exceptional male leopards as an indicator of relative size, one could say (some male) leopards have relatively longer skulls than an average-sized male jaguar of a large subspecies and be close. b - Skull photographs - a large male leopard and an average-sized male jaguar side by side In 2012, I visited the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart twice. On both occasions, I was there for a week to measure and photograph skulls of big cats. Poster 'Wanderfalke', living close to Stuttgart, assisted when he had time. He's the one who made the photographs. The Staatliches Museum had 7 jaguar skulls. All skulls belonged to wild jaguars. The 3 male skulls were from Surinam, Argentina and Bolivia. The skull from Surinam, although short and not as heavy as the others, had the most massive upper canines. In this respect, it compared to many lion and tiger skulls. I selected the Bolivian skull for the photograph, because it is the longest (279,27 mm.). As a result of a lack of time, I wasn't able to measure all leopard skulls. Of the 34 skulls I measured, 24 were male skulls. Of these, 12 belonged to leopards shot in what was then German East Africa (Tanzania today). The longest is 221,47 mm. in greatest total length. Of the 12 others, the skull of a leopard from the western part of Central Africa is the largest. That skull, collected a long time ago, has a greatest total length of 243,94 mm. Here's a photograph showing the longest male jaguar skull (right) and the longest male leopard skull next to each other:  *This image is copyright of its original author Different angle:  *This image is copyright of its original author The skull of the male jaguar, missing a part of the right arch, is wider (188,34 mm. versus 149,51 mm.) and more elevated at the orbit (147,20 mm. versus 110,02 mm.). The rostrum is significantly wider as well (81,24 mm. versus 59,81 mm.). As a result, the skull of the male jaguar is almost twice as heavy (0,970 kg. versus 0,585 kg.). The skull of the male jaguar was cleaned (cooked), whereas the skull of the leopard was not. The real difference in weight, therefore, is even more outspoken. Most of the canines of the leopard, on the other hand, are missing. I have to add that the skull of the male leopard was heavier than all other leopard skulls, whereas the skull of the male jaguar wasn't the heaviest I saw. The skull from Argentina, although a bit shorter, was 0,997 kg. Based on what I have, I'd say that skulls of leopards from the western part of Central Africa are more robust than skulls of leopards from other parts of Africa. They're a bit lower at the orbit, but often have relatively large mandibulas and heavy teeth. Most unfortunately, I never saw leopard skulls exceeding 250 mm. in greatest total length in European natural history museums. They seem to be few and far between. c - The jaguar skull compared to similar-sized skulls of tigresses and lionesses Compared to skulls of 9 wild lionesses from Tanzania (greatest total length 274,66-299,91 mm. and 130,60-147,70 mm. at the orbit), the jaguar skull is a bit shorter and more elevated at the orbit. The lionesses, however, have wider (range 179,99-201,20 mm.) and heavier (range 0,799-1,134 kg.) skulls. In rostral width, there is not much difference between the lionesses (75,75-82,13 mm.) and the male jaguar (81,24 mm.). The upper canines of the lionesses (38,33-47,98 mm.) are shorter, but about as robust (range 19,98-24,70 mm.). Most of the lionesses, however, were quite old when they were shot, which would have resulted in a lot of wear. Skulls of captive lionesses (n=3) are longer, much wider and heavier. Compared to skulls of 6 tigresses from southeast Asia (n=2, wild), Sumatra (n=3, captive) and Java (n=1, wild), the skull of the male jaguar is a bit shorter, not as wide and narrower at the rostrum. The upper canines just about compare for length and width at the insertion, but the skull of the male jaguar is a bit heavier. Skulls of 4 'Indian' (one was from Gwelia, but there are no details about the others) tigresses (2 wild and 2 captive adults) were longer (285,03-308,54 mm., n=3), wider (190,67-214,46 mm., n=4), about as elevated at the orbit (139,50-151,80 mm.) and a tad heavier (0,912-1,194 kg.). The upper canines of the tigresses were a bit longer (49,55-58,65 mm., n=3) and, apart from 1 exception (25,14 mm.), not quite as thick at the insertion (21,25-21,85 mm.). The tigresses had a wider rostrum (range 81,37-91,43 mm.). Skulls of male Sumatran tigers (1 young adult and 1 adult, both captive) are longer (294,80-312,28 mm.) and wider (207,34-217,55 mm.). In elevation (143,10-148,70 mm.), the difference is limited. The upper canines of the young adult male tiger are longer (61,04 mm.) and more robust (25,75 mm.). The Sumatrans also have wider rostrums. In weight, however, the difference is limited (skulls of captive big cats usually are not a robust as skulls of their wild relatives). Skulls of male tigers from Java (I saw the skull of 1 wild adult and 1 old male captured as an adult) are larger in all respects. Skulls of male Sumatran tigers are about 1 inch longer than skulls of male jaguar of large subspecies (averages), but there is some overlap. This is not true for wild male jaguars of large subspecies and wild male lions from Tanzania. Skulls of male Tanzanian lions are significantly longer (range 350,86-372,26 mm.), wider (range 230,61-248,0 mm.) and more elevated at the orbit (range 171,20-174,40 mm., n=3). The skull of the youngest of these 3 is the heaviest. Unfortunately, the mandibula is missing. The Tanzanian male lions I saw were shot before 1914. Skulls of captive Tanzanian lions (n=4) are as long or longer (the longest is 382,98 mm.) and quite a bit wider at the arches (238,39-269,76 mm.), but less robust and not as heavy (1,416-1,800 kg., as opposed to 1,915 and 2,080 kg.). Same for the upper canines (long, but less robust). All skulls I saw strongly suggest that captivity has a profound effect on lions. d - Measurements All measurements in this post were taken from skulls in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart. They were measured in the room of Dr. D. Mörike, a very-well informed and friendly host. She answered all questions I had, and I had many. Immediately after my second visit in July 2012, she retired. A great pity, as Dr. D. Mörike is loaded with knowledge. Here's a few photographs taken by 'Wanderfalke': d1 - Some of the skulls I measured:  *This image is copyright of its original author d2 - In the exhibition room:  *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 9 Guest(s) |