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.
04-16-2022, 02:37 AM( This post was last modified: 04-16-2022, 02:50 AM by Pckts )
(04-16-2022, 01:39 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-16-2022, 01:14 AM)Twico5 Wrote: I have seen camera trap images of pumas and jaguars from the highlands in costa rica and these cats are always around the same size. In the Caatinga region in Brazil cougars are bigger than jaguars, as well as certain regions in the Cerrado that have similarly sized jaguars and pumas becasue there they would prey on the same animals.
@Pckts and @Balam, you know more populations of jaguars than I, what do you think about this statement?
"real life as these big cats will never tolerate each other and the jaguar would have kicked out the puma immediatly! "
Here you can see a small female Jaguar compared to a Large Male Couger
"On the right you can see a well sized male puma (Puma concolor) and on the left a small but fully grown adult female jaguar (Panthera onca)! Usually jaguars are bigger than pumas but like humans their size varies between sexes and even between individuals and so that’s why sometimes jaguars tracks are smaller than pumas ones.
BTW, this female jaguar is called Nubosa and I’ve spotted her 20 times in the last 3 years! She looks young because of her small size but she’s at least 7+ years old as she was firstly spotted in 2013 and was already an adult at this time. "
and next you can see the same female jaguar compared to a large male Jaguar.
I made a comparison of the large male jaguar and cougar side by side, I just cant find it right now.
"In a study published this month in the journal [i]Alcheringa, researchers detail how a gigantic Smilodon skull, found among sediments of the Dolores Formation in the west and south of Uruguay, completely changes paleontologists’ understanding of this ferocious feline.[/i]
“Average Smilodon populator skulls are around 35 cm long, with the length measured from premaxillary to condyle,” Aldo Manzuetti, a graduate student at Uruguay's University of the Republic and an author on the study, tells Inverse.
“This material is almost 38 cm in the same measurement, almost 40 cm in total skull length.”
Based on measurements of the long bones in the new skull, Manzuetti and his team were able to estimate just how big the cat truly was: Up to 436 kg. That is the weight of a grand piano."
The article give more details, a Condylobasal length of about 38 cm and a Greatest total length of about 40 cm. Is indead a very large skull, here is an image from the article:
So it seems that the real total length of the skull is of 392 mm and the condylobasal length is of 379 mm, very large for Smilodon standars.
Again, the original paper is this: An extremely large saber-tooth cat skull from Uruguay (late Pleistocene–early Holocene, Dolores Formation): body size and paleobiological implications.
Hope some one can get it and share it here.
Greetings.
(04-16-2022, 01:29 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-16-2022, 01:20 AM)Mwarcaar Wrote: the comparison with the lion is perfectly correct based on this complete skeleton of smilodon populator. https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-smilodo...-a-species 100 cm at the shoulder and 80 cm at the hip, with a skull size of 345.7 mm long and 221.5 mm wide (which corresponds to the average skull size of the smilodon populator)
And the 130 cm at the shoulder is only an estimate and estimates are not facts
Sorry, but the image that you post do not provide any of that information. So the image was scaled with the measurements of that particular speciment, in that case the comparison with the lion is correct as both measure 100 cm in shoulder height.
130 cm is not unreliable, check that the estimations between 120 - 130 cm came from real experts and has been reconstructed based in real bones, so they are realiable and if you ask to any scientist that work with them they are going to tell you that thise sizes are facts.
Besides, you should know that animals can be escalated based in known measurements via extrapolation, don't you? So, if a specimen with a skull length of 345.7 mm had a shoulder height of 100 cm, certainly specimens with skulls over 390 mm will be much higher, that is a fact too.
Also, there is no form to know if that specimen is an average sized Smilodon populator, do you have a sample of animals of the same sex and in a range of age to confirm that? If not, that is your personal speculation.
"130 cm is not unreliable, check that the estimations between 120 - 130 cm came from real experts and has been reconstructed based in real bones, so they are realiable and if you ask to any scientist that work with them they are going to tell you that thise sizes are facts."
experts or not estimations are only speculations, in no way are they facts and these experts themselves do not agree with each other
it is impossible to know the exact size of an animal based on the size of its skull alone. it can be seen on any living or prehistoric species. some individuals of the same species sometimes have a large head and an average size and others may have a large size and a smaller head. it is not for nothing that there are high estimates and low estimates (120 and 130 for the 392 mm skull)
if we take the low estimate of 120 cm (which is only an estimate, it can be more or less) it is about the size of the largest modern lions and tigers
"Also, there is no form to know if that specimen is an average sized Smilodon populator, do you have a sample of animals of the same sex and in a range of age to confirm that? If not, that is your personal speculation."
that is not my personal speculation, i read it here on wildfact.com on one of your post.
(04-16-2022, 01:50 AM)Twico5 Wrote: Ofc its due to prey base. My point was that freshwater environments in south and central america have plenty of semi aquatic and reptillian prey.
If you were to remove venezuela and pantanal from those samples the weight for male jags and male pumas would be the same (both around ~65kg). The Venezuelan and pantanal samples are both from floodplain areas. Cattle ranch distribution map:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Notice how the Llanos and pantanal regions especially have the highest densities. Again these are also jaguar-filled floodplain regions with tons of reptillian and semi-aquatic prey.
Without the pantanal and llanos, cougars are the same size on average and max.
Puma weights from proceedings of the Washington academy of sciences volume 3:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is the same as the amazon average for male jags which btw is a really high average weight for amazonian jaguars. Also, in the screenshots you posted the lowest weight for male pumas and male jags was the same. So now tell me, is there really that much of a size difference? Under the same conditions would a jaguar be larger than a puma?
I dont have the pampas sample on me but i will try to find it now
Interesting hypotesis, but the problem is that reptiles are not a very important source of prey for jaguars, is not even a preferred prey, check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, reptiles are not important and are just preyed relatively to its abundance. Also, even when there is overlap (like with leopards), jaguars are always heavier than pumas when they share habitat, so the estimation of 65 kg that you propuse is not correct, check again the figures from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) that I showed previously.
About the table that you place, can you please show the correct reference? to say "Proceedings of the Washington academy of sciences volume 3" do not facilitate the search. Even then, these are only three males and do not say if they are of the same area.
About your question on the lowest average, yes, there is a difference and a significant one. The lightest population of jaguars is from Belize (famous for been small) and there the prey base is very low, they mostly eat armadillo while deers with pecaries live a relative low density, so that is why jaguars in this area are small. Now the lightest pumas in that list came from Florida, and they have a much better prey base than in Belize, there had a good body size (check the measurements) and they still don't reach the body masses of jaguars in similar habitats. This means that in order to have similar body masses, jaguars need to have a lower prey base and small size than pumas.
Actually, this conversation is silly, as we are talking about a Panthera and a Felis/Puma, the Panthera will be always bigger and stronger. That is why I say that leopards are better to compare than jaguars. You say that the arms of the pumas are the same as jaguars, but that is not correct, not even close.
(04-16-2022, 03:11 AM)Mwarcaar Wrote: "130 cm is not unreliable, check that the estimations between 120 - 130 cm came from real experts and has been reconstructed based in real bones, so they are realiable and if you ask to any scientist that work with them they are going to tell you that thise sizes are facts."
experts or not estimations are only speculations, in no way are they facts and these experts themselves do not agree with each other
it is impossible to know the exact size of an animal based on the size of its skull alone. it can be seen on any living or prehistoric species. some individuals of the same species sometimes have a large head and an average size and others may have a large size and a smaller head. it is not for nothing that there are high estimates and low estimates (120 and 130 for the 392 mm skull)
if we take the low estimate of 120 cm (which is only an estimate, it can be more or less) it is about the size of the largest modern lions and tigers
"Also, there is no form to know if that specimen is an average sized Smilodon populator, do you have a sample of animals of the same sex and in a range of age to confirm that? If not, that is your personal speculation."
that is not my personal speculation, i read it here on wildfact.com on one of your post.
Post #54
“Average Smilodon populator skulls are around 35 cm long, with the length measured from premaxillary to condyle,”
You have a confusion here. The estimation of shoulder height for the specimen of Uruguay (392 mm) is 130 cm, the estimation of 120 cm came from OTHER specimens, which we can corroborate easely as this shoulder height was already in litterature before the skull from Uruguay was found, so there is no dissagreement at all.
Of course that is possible to know the size of an animal based on the skull, you can ask @tigerluver which is an expert on this and he can explain to you. Animals are simetric and that is a fact that we can easily corroborate with modern cats and there is no reason to believe that Smilodon was different. That is something that any Biologist and Paleontologist can do with a collection of measurements, is just a simple escalation.
About the average size of the skulls of Smilodon populator, I just totally forgot the statement of Aldo Manzuetti, so I guess that he measured a sample of skulls and got that result. However, that shows that 1 m of tall (estimated for an specimen of a similar sized skull) is just average for Smilodon populator, which again prove that a height up to 130 cm is completelly possible for the larger specimens.
120 cm is not the same height as modern lions and tigers. The maximum shoulder height measured for lions and tigers "between pegs" is of 114 cm, and that is with the legs streched, so the real standing height could be about 110 cm in both species. They are shorter than Smilodon populator.
While the reconstruction of Smilodon populator seems accurate, the comparison with the lion is totally incorrect. No lion in history reached the same shoulder height of the S. populator, the tallest male was of 114 cm "between pegs" while the tallest S. populator was about 130 cm. Also, the head of the lion is reconstructed to large in comparison with S. populator, which had a bigger skull overall. Head-body length of the largest lion is of 218 cm "between pegs" while that of S. populator is reconstructed at 220 cm, so that point the image is accurate.
the comparison with the lion is perfectly correct based on this complete skeleton of smilodon populator. https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-smilodo...-a-species 100 cm at the shoulder and 80 cm at the hip, with a skull size of 345.7 mm long and 221.5 mm wide (which corresponds to the average skull size of the smilodon populator)
And the 130 cm at the shoulder is only an estimate and estimates are not facts
A ‘large’ Smilodon Populator with a shoulder height of 100cm seems impossible. If it really was 100cm then it is probably a Smilodon Fatalis or a mediocre Populator at best.
Populators were close to the body length of modern day Tigers but they were taller. 100cm is the shoulder height of average Bengal Tiger specimens.
How is it even possible that this ‘large’ Smilodon Populator was 100cm tall (just as tall as an average Bengal Tiger) and probably even shorter in length than an average Bengal Tiger and yet it is called a large specimen? That seems impossible.
The shoulder height of a large 350-400kg Smilodon Populator specimen should be at least 120cm at the shoulder.
"How is it even possible that this ‘large’ Smilodon Populator was 100cm tall (just as tall as an average Bengal Tiger) and probably even shorter in length than an average Bengal Tiger and yet it is called a large specimen? That seems impossible."
100cm tall is an average size based on this complete specimen of smilodon populator whose skull is within the average size of smilodon populator skulls.
i never said it was the size of a large specimen
"The shoulder height of a large 350-400kg Smilodon Populator specimen should be at least 120cm at the shoulder."
350 and 400 kg are only estimations and 120 cm tall smilodon populator has yet been found. this is only an estimation, a prediction not a fact until proven otherwise. the day we find a 120 cm skeleton , then it will be a fact, not before . that's how science works
(04-16-2022, 03:59 AM)Mwarcaar Wrote: "How is it even possible that this ‘large’ Smilodon Populator was 100cm tall (just as tall as an average Bengal Tiger) and probably even shorter in length than an average Bengal Tiger and yet it is called a large specimen? That seems impossible."
100cm tall is an average size based on this complete specimen of smilodon populator whose skull is within the average size of smilodon populator skulls.
i never said it was the size of a large specimen
"The shoulder height of a large 350-400kg Smilodon Populator specimen should be at least 120cm at the shoulder."
350 and 400 kg are only estimations and 120 cm tall smilodon populator has yet been found. this is only an estimation, a prediction not a fact until proven otherwise. the day we find a 120 cm skeleton , then it will be a fact, not before . that's how science works
That is NOT how science works. If that will be true, how do you think that paleontologists recontruct the extint animals? Check Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus, just to mention a few famous ones, they are know from few fossils but using relatives they manage to reconstruct they sizes. The same is with many, many, many prehistoric specimens.
With Pleistocene animals, like Smilodon, is more easier to calculate the sizes thanks to the complete or semi-complete specimens that we have. Again, like I said, a simple escalation can be done and we can get the size of incomplete specimens.
Weights are going to be always estimations, because we can't weigh an extint animal, but with time those estimations are more reliable with more studies done. At the moment, "up to 400 kg" or a little more is the most reliable for Smilodon populator.
Also, as far I remember, the specimen housed in Paris is the one with the height of 120 cm, so it is already found.
(04-16-2022, 03:11 AM)Mwarcaar Wrote: "130 cm is not unreliable, check that the estimations between 120 - 130 cm came from real experts and has been reconstructed based in real bones, so they are realiable and if you ask to any scientist that work with them they are going to tell you that thise sizes are facts."
experts or not estimations are only speculations, in no way are they facts and these experts themselves do not agree with each other
it is impossible to know the exact size of an animal based on the size of its skull alone. it can be seen on any living or prehistoric species. some individuals of the same species sometimes have a large head and an average size and others may have a large size and a smaller head. it is not for nothing that there are high estimates and low estimates (120 and 130 for the 392 mm skull)
if we take the low estimate of 120 cm (which is only an estimate, it can be more or less) it is about the size of the largest modern lions and tigers
"Also, there is no form to know if that specimen is an average sized Smilodon populator, do you have a sample of animals of the same sex and in a range of age to confirm that? If not, that is your personal speculation."
that is not my personal speculation, i read it here on wildfact.com on one of your post.
Post #54
“Average Smilodon populator skulls are around 35 cm long, with the length measured from premaxillary to condyle,”
You have a confusion here. The estimation of shoulder height for the specimen of Uruguay (392 mm) is 130 cm, the estimation of 120 cm came from OTHER specimens, which we can corroborate easely as this shoulder height was already in litterature before the skull from Uruguay was found, so there is no dissagreement at all.
Of course that is possible to know the size of an animal based on the skull, you can ask @tigerluver which is an expert on this and he can explain to you. Animals are simetric and that is a fact that we can easily corroborate with modern cats and there is no reason to believe that Smilodon was different. That is something that any Biologist and Paleontologist can do with a collection of measurements, is just a simple escalation.
About the average size of the skulls of Smilodon populator, I just totally forgot the statement of Aldo Manzuetti, so I guess that he measured a sample of skulls and got that result. However, that shows that 1 m of tall (estimated for an specimen of a similar sized skull) is just average for Smilodon populator, which again prove that a height up to 130 cm is completelly possible for the larger specimens.
120 cm is not the same height as modern lions and tigers. The maximum shoulder height measured for lions and tigers "between pegs" is of 114 cm, and that is with the legs streched, so the real standing height could be about 110 cm in both species. They are shorter than Smilodon populator.
"You have a confusion here. The estimation of shoulder height for the specimen of Uruguay (392 mm) is 130 cm, the estimation of 120 cm came from OTHER specimens, which we can corroborate easely as this shoulder height was already in litterature before the skull from Uruguay was found, so there is no dissagreement at all."
Can you show a link for tha that other 120 cm spécimen
"Of course that is possible to know the size of an animal based on the skull, you can ask @tigerluver which is an expert on this and he can explain to you. Animals are simetric and that is a fact that we can easily corroborate with modern cats and there is no reason to believe that Smilodon was different. That is something that any Biologist and Paleontologist can do with a collection of measurements, is just a simple escalation."
I'm sorry to contradict you but no it's impossible to know the size of an animal based only on the size of its skull, as I said in my previous post the high and low estimates are there for a good reason.
I had two male cats that were the same size and yet one had a bigger skull than the other. if we had estimated the size of the cat with a larger skull based on the skeleton of the one with a smaller skull, we would have had an overestimated size.
(04-16-2022, 12:00 AM)Twico5 Wrote: Jaguars are heavier in most places where they co-exist, except they co-exist in most of Central and South america where there are more freshwater ecosystems than anywhere else and where there are more freshwater fish and crocodillian species (the very prey jaguars have adapted to hunt) than anywhere else on earth.
*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 Look at the red areas, these are the regions in which jaguars tend to be really large and pumas, smaller than jaguars. In western mexico there are 0 crocodillian species and very few freshwater ecosystems, it is dry and arid and both jaguars and pumas are hunting the same animals. Here are some hindfoot sizes of jaguars and pumas from there:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author Western mexico isnt the only region in which jaguars and pumas are hunting the same prey. I posted a study a while back that had weights of pumas killed in the Pampas region of argentinea. If i recall correctly there were 5 weights given and two of these weights were 107kg and 110kg. The average was over 90 kilograms for all male pumas included in the study. Now, its possible that jaguars here, or in other parts of northern argentinea have a similar or higher average weight. But considering that pumas have to be quite a bit taller and longer than jaguars in order to be the same weight, do you think these jaguars would appear to be bigger in size? No, they wouldn’t. Both jaguars and pumas in northern Argentinea primarily hunt domestic animals such as cattle, horses, sheep. The pantanal on the other hand shouldnt even be brought up anymore if you want to fairly compare jaguar and puma sizes. It is home to around 10 million yacare caiman. There are far less capybara, deer and whatever else pumas are hunting here. The pantanal is also home to some of largest cattle herds in the entire South America. Not to mention pumas here are rare. Yet in the size comparison posted above we see a female puma being close in height to a big male jaguar. All of this should prove that jaguars arent simply larger on their own. Also, regarding interactions between the two species, both have a mutual avoidance of each other.
Completelly dissagree. Water sources has noting to do with the size, is the prey base available what influence the size of these cats. Other thing, paw prints are not a good predictor as we don't know which specific variations may be between the species, after all they are not just "cats" but completelly different species, so the paw size may have another explanation.
About the weights of 107 and 110 kg for pumas, I doubt them for the moment and I will like to see the sources of those figures. The heaviest puma reliably recorded was of 105 kg (Hornocker & Negri, 2010), so those figures should be exceptional, but I will like to check its reliability first.
Definitelly, in every study jaguars are significavely heavier than pumas, the bodies are more massive and the skulls are bigger, there is no comparison.
And I support Pckts on this, jaguar dominate over pumas, no such thing as avoidance and also here in Guatemala pumas are smaller than jaguars and there is a case of a jaguar killing a puma in Belice.
Finally, from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
This studies clearly shows that pumas are smaller than jaguars.
Ofc its due to prey base. My point was that freshwater environments in south and central america have plenty of semi aquatic and reptillian prey.
If you were to remove venezuela and pantanal from those samples the weight for male jags and male pumas would be the same (both around ~65kg). The Venezuelan and pantanal samples are both from floodplain areas. Cattle ranch distribution map:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Notice how the Llanos and pantanal regions especially have the highest densities. Again these are also jaguar-filled floodplain regions with tons of reptillian and semi-aquatic prey.
Without the pantanal and llanos, cougars are the same size on average and max.
Puma weights from proceedings of the Washington academy of sciences volume 3:
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is the same as the amazon average for male jags which btw is a really high average weight for amazonian jaguars. Also, in the screenshots you posted the lowest weight for male pumas and male jags was the same. So now tell me, is there really that much of a size difference? Under the same conditions would a jaguar be larger than a puma?
I dont have the pampas sample on me but i will try to find it now
Quote:Without the pantanal and llanos, cougars are the same size on average and max.
Chaco, Cerrado and Atlantic Forest Jaguars will all significantly outsize Pumas as well.
Amazon Jaguars are sloth eaters, they are a much smaller variety. They suffer much more from floods and spend much of their lives in trees, it's just about the prey and habitat they live in. The only Jaguars smaller than them are the Caatinga ones.
It's pretty simple, when both animals are at their apex, the Jaguar is the much larger cat. If a habitat is geared towards one more than the other than that one should do better but in places where they both live, the Jaguar is going to be the superior cat.
For obvious reasons pumas suffer from amazonic floods more than jaguars do. Sloths are a large prey animal for jaguars btw. It is no surprise why pumas here are small. Here are some weights of jaguars from parts of the amazon that flood often:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Some forests in the amazon stay flooded for up to 4 months each year. Obviously the pumas are suffering more during these months as they arent as specialized in hunting semi-aquatic animals as jaguars are. Jaguars are the stronger cat, idk why youre acting like i said pumas were stronger or better hunters. But see in most of the amazon male pumas are also weighing around 50-60kg. So it really to me seems like were making the size difference between these two cats out to be much more than it is actually is only because in a few regions jags are significantly heavier than pumas. When the vice versa is also common.
In a place where both predators are equally as specialized to the same prey base and enviroment there wouldnt be a significant difference in size between the two species.
(04-15-2022, 07:29 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Is this from the wild? If so, I did not know these two species coexisted. Is there any recorded instances of Cougars and Jaguars interacting?
Yes, jaguar and cougars coexist in most of America, from southern Mexico to northern Argentina. In the areas where they coexist, jaguars are always bigger. When they interact, jaguars dominate thanks to its largest size.
Jaguars are heavier in most places where they co-exist, except they co-exist in most of Central and South america where there are more freshwater ecosystems than anywhere else and where there are more freshwater fish and crocodillian species (the very prey jaguars have adapted to hunt) than anywhere else on earth.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Look at the red areas, these are the regions in which jaguars tend to be really large and pumas, smaller than jaguars. In western mexico there are 0 crocodillian species and very few freshwater ecosystems, it is dry and arid and both jaguars and pumas are hunting the same animals. Here are some hindfoot sizes of jaguars and pumas from there:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Western mexico isnt the only region in which jaguars and pumas are hunting the same prey. I posted a study a while back that had weights of pumas killed in the Pampas region of argentinea. If i recall correctly there were 5 weights given and two of these weights were 107kg and 110kg. The average was over 90 kilograms for all male pumas included in the study. Now, its possible that jaguars here, or in other parts of northern argentinea have a similar or higher average weight. But considering that pumas have to be quite a bit taller and longer than jaguars in order to be the same weight, do you think these jaguars would appear to be bigger in size? No, they wouldn’t. Both jaguars and pumas in northern Argentinea primarily hunt domestic animals such as cattle, horses, sheep. The pantanal on the other hand shouldnt even be brought up anymore if you want to fairly compare jaguar and puma sizes. It is home to around 10 million yacare caiman. There are far less capybara, deer and whatever else pumas are hunting here. The pantanal is also home to some of largest cattle herds in the entire South America. Not to mention pumas here are rare. Yet in the size comparison posted above we see a female puma being close in height to a big male jaguar. All of this should prove that jaguars arent simply larger on their own. Also, regarding interactions between the two species, both have a mutual avoidance of each other.
Jaguars are hunted to hear extinction in Mexico/N. America.
And the Pantanal has 1000s of Capybara, they are absolutely everywhere. And while there is a ton of cattle in Brazil, not all jaguars or puma are cattle killer. On top of that, it's not just S. America where Jaguar are larger than Puma, C. America as well. Costa Rica which doesn't have the caiman still produce much larger Jaguar than the Pumas you find there.
Lastly, there is no mutual avoidance. Jaguar dominate and puma avoid, this goes for anywhere they are found together in any numbers.
The best place to spot a jaguar on earth rn is caiman ecological refuge in the pantanal. There are way more caiman and fish (which are also a huge part of a pantanal jag’s diet) here than capybara. Also, i only mentioned nw mexico, NOT costa rica, belize, honduras, guatemala or southern mexico. Costa Rica does have crocodillians. Along the costa rican coast jaguars kill and eat leatherback turtles. This isnt something pumas typically do.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I have seen camera trap images of pumas and jaguars from the highlands in costa rica and these cats are always around the same size. In the Caatinga region in Brazil cougars are bigger than jaguars, as well as certain regions in the Cerrado that have similarly sized jaguars and pumas becasue there they would prey on the same animals.
This study here from mexico shows very little or no avoidance done by either cats. Except it says how jaguar activity decreases once puma activity is at a high because “encounters between two species of large carnivores usually end with interspecific aggresion and the maiming or killing of one of the aggresors.”
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Pumas dont avoid jaguars
Quote:Pumas dont avoid jaguars
Of course they do:
About the Puma and Jaguar in the same areas, sizes and interactions.
In Brazil the smallest difference in size for both species happens in Caatinga where jaguars are the smallest in size.
The Amazonic jaguars from Mamirauá reserve are small too but they're larger than the Caatinga jaguars.
There are a few infos of Jaguars and Pumas coexistence in the Jaguars of Brazil thread, in Atlantic Forest area of Iguaçú - South Brazil Pumas and Jaguars can be seen in the same territories but on different times of the day and night within that specific area.
IN THE BRAZILIAN ATLANTIC FOREST.
from the Bafo de Onça live.
Vânia from the Onças do Iguaçú project: ''both species use the same area but with Atlantic forest Jaguars and Ocelots being more nocturnal active cats in Iguaçú whereas Pumas are also nocturnal but they were active much more on daytime than jaguars so maybe the utilization of the area at different times help the existence of both species.''
IN PANTANAL.
In the Pantanal basin wise there's a post I dropped some months ago in the Jaguars of Brazil thread of Onçafari live ''Onçatalks''and according to their monitoring and to what Joares May said in Pantanal Pumas will also avoid direct encounters with jaguars and will seek smaller preys.
Joares May: ''The Onçafari team are on the field monitoring the area to figure out the places where it spots more Pumas and the ones that spots more jaguars, and from what we've seen in the areas where jaguars are seen the most the Pumas will either not show up around there or they will show up there only every once in a while during the day so both species are in the same region but in different times and its very clear in those places where in the range area of the jaguar you won't see Pumas around because the Puma won't be able to compete with this big predator.''
In the same onçafari live they were asked about jaguar predation on pumas and Joares May who travelled all over Brazil and the world he captured jaguars, maned wolves, pumas... he mentioned about a Puma carcass in Parque Nacional Grande Sertão Veredas ( Cerrado ) that was found and supposedly killed by a jaguar they checked the fighting place and the carcass had bite marks on the shoulders and paws so he imagined the Puma carcass was killed by jaguar, he also mentions he saw the result of a Puma and Jaguar fight and he says the result was Ugly.
also Pumas won't be seen very often in neither Porto Jofre (North section of Pantanal) nor in Mamirauá reserve (Central Amazon) because these two regions got high densities of jaguars with very high intraspecific competitions amongst jags. But just like in Iguaçú Pumas may very well ''show up'' during the times of the day/night when jaguars are less active in one specific place of those areas.
The area where wild Pumas and Jaguars are most equally sized is in Caatinga where both cats are found in serious critical endangered situations and where some Pumas could be the same size as jaguars or even slightly larger as Ronaldo Morato have stated in the live. In Caatinga is where you'll see the smallest wild jaguars than in any other biome but despite their small size they're yet proportionately very stocky cats which is expected from the most robust cat pound for pound.
Quote:The best place to spot a jaguar on earth rn is caiman ecological refuge in the pantanal. There are way more caiman and fish (which are also a huge part of a pantanal jag’s diet) here than capybara. Also, i only mentioned nw mexico, NOT costa rica, belize, honduras, guatemala or southern mexico. Costa Rica does have crocodillians. Along the costa rican coast jaguars kill and eat leatherback turtles. This isnt something pumas typically do.
And the best place to spot jaguars on earth is in the Northern Pantanal, Caiman Ecological Refuge is the southern Pantanal. And fish play a very little role in the N. Pantanal Jags diet. Caiman and Capybara are by far the most preyed upon animal and it's not close other than cattle.
But were talking about size here, not who would win in a fight. Ofc a fat male pantanal jag would kill a skinny little puma. Every study that ive found from the amazon or mexico state that there is likley a mutual avoidance between the two species. Ofc, we cant be certain about this as there is no way to determine whos avoiding who. Ive seen pumas scavenging on jaguar kills though.
(04-16-2022, 01:50 AM)Twico5 Wrote: Ofc its due to prey base. My point was that freshwater environments in south and central america have plenty of semi aquatic and reptillian prey.
If you were to remove venezuela and pantanal from those samples the weight for male jags and male pumas would be the same (both around ~65kg). The Venezuelan and pantanal samples are both from floodplain areas. Cattle ranch distribution map:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Notice how the Llanos and pantanal regions especially have the highest densities. Again these are also jaguar-filled floodplain regions with tons of reptillian and semi-aquatic prey.
Without the pantanal and llanos, cougars are the same size on average and max.
Puma weights from proceedings of the Washington academy of sciences volume 3:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is the same as the amazon average for male jags which btw is a really high average weight for amazonian jaguars. Also, in the screenshots you posted the lowest weight for male pumas and male jags was the same. So now tell me, is there really that much of a size difference? Under the same conditions would a jaguar be larger than a puma?
I dont have the pampas sample on me but i will try to find it now
Interesting hypotesis, but the problem is that reptiles are not a very important source of prey for jaguars, is not even a preferred prey, check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, reptiles are not important and are just preyed relatively to its abundance. Also, even when there is overlap (like with leopards), jaguars are always heavier than pumas when they share habitat, so the estimation of 65 kg that you propuse is not correct, check again the figures from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) that I showed previously.
About the table that you place, can you please show the correct reference? to say "Proceedings of the Washington academy of sciences volume 3" do not facilitate the search. Even then, these are only three males and do not say if they are of the same area.
About your question on the lowest average, yes, there is a difference and a significant one. The lightest population of jaguars is from Belize (famous for been small) and there the prey base is very low, they mostly eat armadillo while deers with pecaries live a relative low density, so that is why jaguars in this area are small. Now the lightest pumas in that list came from Florida, and they have a much better prey base than in Belize, there had a good body size (check the measurements) and they still don't reach the body masses of jaguars in similar habitats. This means that in order to have similar body masses, jaguars need to have a lower prey base and small size than pumas.
Actually, this conversation is silly, as we are talking about a Panthera and a Felis/Puma, the Panthera will be always bigger and stronger. That is why I say that leopards are better to compare than jaguars. You say that the arms of the pumas are the same as jaguars, but that is not correct, not even close.
That chart includes mammalian prey only. It literally says that reptiles make up 54% of jaguar diets in the screenshot you posted. Also what? Florida panthers are smaller than belizean jaguars? Obviously not true. Yes, they do have a better prey base, but for some reason theyre still small, just not smaller than belizean jaguars. They are heavier, taller and longer and if youd like i can show proof of this
“in order to have similar body masses, jaguars need to have a lower prey base and small size than pumas”. So then howcome when they have the same prey base they look like this? It seems as if jaguars dont need smaller prey bases to be larger but instead specific reptillian prey species in order to be puma sized or larger! Two adult females from nw mexico btw:
04-16-2022, 11:21 AM( This post was last modified: 04-16-2022, 01:28 PM by LonePredator )
(04-16-2022, 04:41 AM)Mwarcaar Wrote:
(04-16-2022, 03:45 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-16-2022, 03:11 AM)Mwarcaar Wrote: "130 cm is not unreliable, check that the estimations between 120 - 130 cm came from real experts and has been reconstructed based in real bones, so they are realiable and if you ask to any scientist that work with them they are going to tell you that thise sizes are facts."
experts or not estimations are only speculations, in no way are they facts and these experts themselves do not agree with each other
it is impossible to know the exact size of an animal based on the size of its skull alone. it can be seen on any living or prehistoric species. some individuals of the same species sometimes have a large head and an average size and others may have a large size and a smaller head. it is not for nothing that there are high estimates and low estimates (120 and 130 for the 392 mm skull)
if we take the low estimate of 120 cm (which is only an estimate, it can be more or less) it is about the size of the largest modern lions and tigers
"Also, there is no form to know if that specimen is an average sized Smilodon populator, do you have a sample of animals of the same sex and in a range of age to confirm that? If not, that is your personal speculation."
that is not my personal speculation, i read it here on wildfact.com on one of your post.
Post #54
“Average Smilodon populator skulls are around 35 cm long, with the length measured from premaxillary to condyle,”
You have a confusion here. The estimation of shoulder height for the specimen of Uruguay (392 mm) is 130 cm, the estimation of 120 cm came from OTHER specimens, which we can corroborate easely as this shoulder height was already in litterature before the skull from Uruguay was found, so there is no dissagreement at all.
Of course that is possible to know the size of an animal based on the skull, you can ask @tigerluver which is an expert on this and he can explain to you. Animals are simetric and that is a fact that we can easily corroborate with modern cats and there is no reason to believe that Smilodon was different. That is something that any Biologist and Paleontologist can do with a collection of measurements, is just a simple escalation.
About the average size of the skulls of Smilodon populator, I just totally forgot the statement of Aldo Manzuetti, so I guess that he measured a sample of skulls and got that result. However, that shows that 1 m of tall (estimated for an specimen of a similar sized skull) is just average for Smilodon populator, which again prove that a height up to 130 cm is completelly possible for the larger specimens.
120 cm is not the same height as modern lions and tigers. The maximum shoulder height measured for lions and tigers "between pegs" is of 114 cm, and that is with the legs streched, so the real standing height could be about 110 cm in both species. They are shorter than Smilodon populator.
"You have a confusion here. The estimation of shoulder height for the specimen of Uruguay (392 mm) is 130 cm, the estimation of 120 cm came from OTHER specimens, which we can corroborate easely as this shoulder height was already in litterature before the skull from Uruguay was found, so there is no dissagreement at all."
Can you show a link for tha that other 120 cm spécimen
"Of course that is possible to know the size of an animal based on the skull, you can ask @tigerluver which is an expert on this and he can explain to you. Animals are simetric and that is a fact that we can easily corroborate with modern cats and there is no reason to believe that Smilodon was different. That is something that any Biologist and Paleontologist can do with a collection of measurements, is just a simple escalation."
I'm sorry to contradict you but no it's impossible to know the size of an animal based only on the size of its skull, as I said in my previous post the high and low estimates are there for a good reason.
I had two male cats that were the same size and yet one had a bigger skull than the other. if we had estimated the size of the cat with a larger skull based on the skeleton of the one with a smaller skull, we would have had an overestimated size.
Really? That’s how science works? So according to your logic, as long as there is no complete skeleton of a specimen available, then all the size and weight estimations made by real ‘scientists’ are wrong?
You are contradicting yourself even. If you are so sceptical in believing estimates then why are you even believing the 100cm height estimate? That is also an ‘estimate’ after all since only the skeleton is available. we don’t have the whole animal in flesh so that should also be wrong as per your logic because that is also an ‘estimate’
Isometry is very commonly used to make estimations and since we have complete skeletons available for Smilodon Populator as well as lots of individual bones, that would allow us to scale the bones in question to similar proportions to estimate a particular size.
And your example of two cats is rubbish. One cat may have a big skull but when estimating sizes with isometry, not just one single skull is used, most often, as many skulls as possible are used (and other bones as well) just so the body proportions can get averaged out and then the body measurements are estimated for the specimen in question.
You are explicitly stating that as long as the complete skeleton is not available, all those estimates are rubbish. If this was the way ‘science worked’ then there would be no size estimates for so many prehistoric species.
04-16-2022, 12:56 PM( This post was last modified: 04-18-2022, 05:52 PM by Hello )
(04-16-2022, 01:27 AM)Mwarcaar Wrote:
(04-15-2022, 03:07 PM)Hello Wrote:
(04-15-2022, 01:13 AM)Mwarcaar Wrote:
(04-14-2022, 01:39 PM)Hello Wrote:
(04-13-2022, 08:29 PM)Hello Wrote:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Yes, unrealistic, only to show how impressive is the artwork and a scale for amazement. Almost 900 lbs and 4 ft is realistic ,if not the largest. No idea about the largest skull? I believe they in general had smaller skulls than lions.
for your information the largest skull of smilodon populator measures 392 mm, which is smaller than the largest skulls of modern lions and no the proportions are not at all realistic, the head is too large, the neck and the body are too short and above all he has an excessive size, even Kodiak bears are not that size.
I think everyone in general including me knew that height of 120 cm from google and almost every site, reality is that 120 cm is over curves, rather than standing height. The tallest lion, standing height up to shoulders is at 114 cm, while an average lion is a slightly above a meter tall at shoulders, while standing. I believe there are also lion reaching 120 cm, but exceptions like Angus MacAskill (largest non pathological human?) or someone with gigantism (hormonal issue)).
(04-16-2022, 12:00 AM)Twico5 Wrote: Jaguars are heavier in most places where they co-exist, except they co-exist in most of Central and South america where there are more freshwater ecosystems than anywhere else and where there are more freshwater fish and crocodillian species (the very prey jaguars have adapted to hunt) than anywhere else on earth.
*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 Look at the red areas, these are the regions in which jaguars tend to be really large and pumas, smaller than jaguars. In western mexico there are 0 crocodillian species and very few freshwater ecosystems, it is dry and arid and both jaguars and pumas are hunting the same animals. Here are some hindfoot sizes of jaguars and pumas from there:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author Western mexico isnt the only region in which jaguars and pumas are hunting the same prey. I posted a study a while back that had weights of pumas killed in the Pampas region of argentinea. If i recall correctly there were 5 weights given and two of these weights were 107kg and 110kg. The average was over 90 kilograms for all male pumas included in the study. Now, its possible that jaguars here, or in other parts of northern argentinea have a similar or higher average weight. But considering that pumas have to be quite a bit taller and longer than jaguars in order to be the same weight, do you think these jaguars would appear to be bigger in size? No, they wouldn’t. Both jaguars and pumas in northern Argentinea primarily hunt domestic animals such as cattle, horses, sheep. The pantanal on the other hand shouldnt even be brought up anymore if you want to fairly compare jaguar and puma sizes. It is home to around 10 million yacare caiman. There are far less capybara, deer and whatever else pumas are hunting here. The pantanal is also home to some of largest cattle herds in the entire South America. Not to mention pumas here are rare. Yet in the size comparison posted above we see a female puma being close in height to a big male jaguar. All of this should prove that jaguars arent simply larger on their own. Also, regarding interactions between the two species, both have a mutual avoidance of each other.
Completelly dissagree. Water sources has noting to do with the size, is the prey base available what influence the size of these cats. Other thing, paw prints are not a good predictor as we don't know which specific variations may be between the species, after all they are not just "cats" but completelly different species, so the paw size may have another explanation.
About the weights of 107 and 110 kg for pumas, I doubt them for the moment and I will like to see the sources of those figures. The heaviest puma reliably recorded was of 105 kg (Hornocker & Negri, 2010), so those figures should be exceptional, but I will like to check its reliability first.
Definitelly, in every study jaguars are significavely heavier than pumas, the bodies are more massive and the skulls are bigger, there is no comparison.
And I support Pckts on this, jaguar dominate over pumas, no such thing as avoidance and also here in Guatemala pumas are smaller than jaguars and there is a case of a jaguar killing a puma in Belice.
Finally, from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002):
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
This studies clearly shows that pumas are smaller than jaguars.
Ofc its due to prey base. My point was that freshwater environments in south and central america have plenty of semi aquatic and reptillian prey.
If you were to remove venezuela and pantanal from those samples the weight for male jags and male pumas would be the same (both around ~65kg). The Venezuelan and pantanal samples are both from floodplain areas. Cattle ranch distribution map:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Notice how the Llanos and pantanal regions especially have the highest densities. Again these are also jaguar-filled floodplain regions with tons of reptillian and semi-aquatic prey.
Without the pantanal and llanos, cougars are the same size on average and max.
Puma weights from proceedings of the Washington academy of sciences volume 3:
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is the same as the amazon average for male jags which btw is a really high average weight for amazonian jaguars. Also, in the screenshots you posted the lowest weight for male pumas and male jags was the same. So now tell me, is there really that much of a size difference? Under the same conditions would a jaguar be larger than a puma?
I dont have the pampas sample on me but i will try to find it now
Quote:Without the pantanal and llanos, cougars are the same size on average and max.
Chaco, Cerrado and Atlantic Forest Jaguars will all significantly outsize Pumas as well.
Amazon Jaguars are sloth eaters, they are a much smaller variety. They suffer much more from floods and spend much of their lives in trees, it's just about the prey and habitat they live in. The only Jaguars smaller than them are the Caatinga ones.
It's pretty simple, when both animals are at their apex, the Jaguar is the much larger cat. If a habitat is geared towards one more than the other than that one should do better but in places where they both live, the Jaguar is going to be the superior cat.
For obvious reasons pumas suffer from amazonic floods more than jaguars do. Sloths are a large prey animal for jaguars btw. It is no surprise why pumas here are small. Here are some weights of jaguars from parts of the amazon that flood often:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Some forests in the amazon stay flooded for up to 4 months each year. Obviously the pumas are suffering more during these months as they arent as specialized in hunting semi-aquatic animals as jaguars are. Jaguars are the stronger cat, idk why youre acting like i said pumas were stronger or better hunters. But see in most of the amazon male pumas are also weighing around 50-60kg. So it really to me seems like were making the size difference between these two cats out to be much more than it is actually is only because in a few regions jags are significantly heavier than pumas. When the vice versa is also common.
In a place where both predators are equally as specialized to the same prey base and enviroment there wouldnt be a significant difference in size between the two species.
Sloths are not large prey, I’m not sure what you’re considering Large. The point of the Amazon was to say why they’re smaller there in comparison. Regardless of where they are, there is only one place where Puma and Jaguar coexist that they are the same size. Everywhere else the Jaguar surpasses the Puma and that is with many different prey items available.
Because your claims seem to bounce from one to another I’m not sure what you’re trying to say but to clear.
Let’s make it simple.
What happens when a cougar gets the best conditions and top of the food chain? *Patagonia*
They reach around 100kg max.
What happens when the Jaguar gets the same?
They reach 140kg+
(04-15-2022, 07:29 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Is this from the wild? If so, I did not know these two species coexisted. Is there any recorded instances of Cougars and Jaguars interacting?
Yes, jaguar and cougars coexist in most of America, from southern Mexico to northern Argentina. In the areas where they coexist, jaguars are always bigger. When they interact, jaguars dominate thanks to its largest size.
Jaguars are heavier in most places where they co-exist, except they co-exist in most of Central and South america where there are more freshwater ecosystems than anywhere else and where there are more freshwater fish and crocodillian species (the very prey jaguars have adapted to hunt) than anywhere else on earth.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Look at the red areas, these are the regions in which jaguars tend to be really large and pumas, smaller than jaguars. In western mexico there are 0 crocodillian species and very few freshwater ecosystems, it is dry and arid and both jaguars and pumas are hunting the same animals. Here are some hindfoot sizes of jaguars and pumas from there:
*This image is copyright of its original author
Western mexico isnt the only region in which jaguars and pumas are hunting the same prey. I posted a study a while back that had weights of pumas killed in the Pampas region of argentinea. If i recall correctly there were 5 weights given and two of these weights were 107kg and 110kg. The average was over 90 kilograms for all male pumas included in the study. Now, its possible that jaguars here, or in other parts of northern argentinea have a similar or higher average weight. But considering that pumas have to be quite a bit taller and longer than jaguars in order to be the same weight, do you think these jaguars would appear to be bigger in size? No, they wouldn’t. Both jaguars and pumas in northern Argentinea primarily hunt domestic animals such as cattle, horses, sheep. The pantanal on the other hand shouldnt even be brought up anymore if you want to fairly compare jaguar and puma sizes. It is home to around 10 million yacare caiman. There are far less capybara, deer and whatever else pumas are hunting here. The pantanal is also home to some of largest cattle herds in the entire South America. Not to mention pumas here are rare. Yet in the size comparison posted above we see a female puma being close in height to a big male jaguar. All of this should prove that jaguars arent simply larger on their own. Also, regarding interactions between the two species, both have a mutual avoidance of each other.
Jaguars are hunted to hear extinction in Mexico/N. America.
And the Pantanal has 1000s of Capybara, they are absolutely everywhere. And while there is a ton of cattle in Brazil, not all jaguars or puma are cattle killer. On top of that, it's not just S. America where Jaguar are larger than Puma, C. America as well. Costa Rica which doesn't have the caiman still produce much larger Jaguar than the Pumas you find there.
Lastly, there is no mutual avoidance. Jaguar dominate and puma avoid, this goes for anywhere they are found together in any numbers.
The best place to spot a jaguar on earth rn is caiman ecological refuge in the pantanal. There are way more caiman and fish (which are also a huge part of a pantanal jag’s diet) here than capybara. Also, i only mentioned nw mexico, NOT costa rica, belize, honduras, guatemala or southern mexico. Costa Rica does have crocodillians. Along the costa rican coast jaguars kill and eat leatherback turtles. This isnt something pumas typically do.
*This image is copyright of its original author
I have seen camera trap images of pumas and jaguars from the highlands in costa rica and these cats are always around the same size. In the Caatinga region in Brazil cougars are bigger than jaguars, as well as certain regions in the Cerrado that have similarly sized jaguars and pumas becasue there they would prey on the same animals.
This study here from mexico shows very little or no avoidance done by either cats. Except it says how jaguar activity decreases once puma activity is at a high because “encounters between two species of large carnivores usually end with interspecific aggresion and the maiming or killing of one of the aggresors.”
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Pumas dont avoid jaguars
Quote:Pumas dont avoid jaguars
Of course they do:
About the Puma and Jaguar in the same areas, sizes and interactions.
In Brazil the smallest difference in size for both species happens in Caatinga where jaguars are the smallest in size.
The Amazonic jaguars from Mamirauá reserve are small too but they're larger than the Caatinga jaguars.
There are a few infos of Jaguars and Pumas coexistence in the Jaguars of Brazil thread, in Atlantic Forest area of Iguaçú - South Brazil Pumas and Jaguars can be seen in the same territories but on different times of the day and night within that specific area.
IN THE BRAZILIAN ATLANTIC FOREST.
from the Bafo de Onça live.
Vânia from the Onças do Iguaçú project: ''both species use the same area but with Atlantic forest Jaguars and Ocelots being more nocturnal active cats in Iguaçú whereas Pumas are also nocturnal but they were active much more on daytime than jaguars so maybe the utilization of the area at different times help the existence of both species.''
IN PANTANAL.
In the Pantanal basin wise there's a post I dropped some months ago in the Jaguars of Brazil thread of Onçafari live ''Onçatalks''and according to their monitoring and to what Joares May said in Pantanal Pumas will also avoid direct encounters with jaguars and will seek smaller preys.
Joares May: ''The Onçafari team are on the field monitoring the area to figure out the places where it spots more Pumas and the ones that spots more jaguars, and from what we've seen in the areas where jaguars are seen the most the Pumas will either not show up around there or they will show up there only every once in a while during the day so both species are in the same region but in different times and its very clear in those places where in the range area of the jaguar you won't see Pumas around because the Puma won't be able to compete with this big predator.''
In the same onçafari live they were asked about jaguar predation on pumas and Joares May who travelled all over Brazil and the world he captured jaguars, maned wolves, pumas... he mentioned about a Puma carcass in Parque Nacional Grande Sertão Veredas ( Cerrado ) that was found and supposedly killed by a jaguar they checked the fighting place and the carcass had bite marks on the shoulders and paws so he imagined the Puma carcass was killed by jaguar, he also mentions he saw the result of a Puma and Jaguar fight and he says the result was Ugly.
also Pumas won't be seen very often in neither Porto Jofre (North section of Pantanal) nor in Mamirauá reserve (Central Amazon) because these two regions got high densities of jaguars with very high intraspecific competitions amongst jags. But just like in Iguaçú Pumas may very well ''show up'' during the times of the day/night when jaguars are less active in one specific place of those areas.
The area where wild Pumas and Jaguars are most equally sized is in Caatinga where both cats are found in serious critical endangered situations and where some Pumas could be the same size as jaguars or even slightly larger as Ronaldo Morato have stated in the live. In Caatinga is where you'll see the smallest wild jaguars than in any other biome but despite their small size they're yet proportionately very stocky cats which is expected from the most robust cat pound for pound.
Quote:The best place to spot a jaguar on earth rn is caiman ecological refuge in the pantanal. There are way more caiman and fish (which are also a huge part of a pantanal jag’s diet) here than capybara. Also, i only mentioned nw mexico, NOT costa rica, belize, honduras, guatemala or southern mexico. Costa Rica does have crocodillians. Along the costa rican coast jaguars kill and eat leatherback turtles. This isnt something pumas typically do.
And the best place to spot jaguars on earth is in the Northern Pantanal, Caiman Ecological Refuge is the southern Pantanal. And fish play a very little role in the N. Pantanal Jags diet. Caiman and Capybara are by far the most preyed upon animal and it's not close other than cattle.
But were talking about size here, not who would win in a fight. Ofc a fat male pantanal jag would kill a skinny little puma. Every study that ive found from the amazon or mexico state that there is likley a mutual avoidance between the two species. Ofc, we cant be certain about this as there is no way to determine whos avoiding who. Ive seen pumas scavenging on jaguar kills though.
No, you claimed mutual avoidance so let’s not forget that.
And obviously you have a general bias if you’re calling them “a fat jag.”
Next is that what’s “every study” because I literally just presented you numerous scientific accounts telling you though opposite.
Lastly, scavenging a kill isn’t mutual avoidance. You think a Lion is avoiding a Jackal when it’s scavenging their kill?
04-16-2022, 04:43 PM( This post was last modified: 04-16-2022, 04:50 PM by Pckts )
(04-16-2022, 08:30 AM)Twico5 Wrote:
(04-16-2022, 03:29 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:
(04-16-2022, 01:50 AM)Twico5 Wrote: Ofc its due to prey base. My point was that freshwater environments in south and central america have plenty of semi aquatic and reptillian prey.
If you were to remove venezuela and pantanal from those samples the weight for male jags and male pumas would be the same (both around ~65kg). The Venezuelan and pantanal samples are both from floodplain areas. Cattle ranch distribution map:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Notice how the Llanos and pantanal regions especially have the highest densities. Again these are also jaguar-filled floodplain regions with tons of reptillian and semi-aquatic prey.
Without the pantanal and llanos, cougars are the same size on average and max.
Puma weights from proceedings of the Washington academy of sciences volume 3:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is the same as the amazon average for male jags which btw is a really high average weight for amazonian jaguars. Also, in the screenshots you posted the lowest weight for male pumas and male jags was the same. So now tell me, is there really that much of a size difference? Under the same conditions would a jaguar be larger than a puma?
I dont have the pampas sample on me but i will try to find it now
Interesting hypotesis, but the problem is that reptiles are not a very important source of prey for jaguars, is not even a preferred prey, check this:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
As you can see, reptiles are not important and are just preyed relatively to its abundance. Also, even when there is overlap (like with leopards), jaguars are always heavier than pumas when they share habitat, so the estimation of 65 kg that you propuse is not correct, check again the figures from Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) that I showed previously.
About the table that you place, can you please show the correct reference? to say "Proceedings of the Washington academy of sciences volume 3" do not facilitate the search. Even then, these are only three males and do not say if they are of the same area.
About your question on the lowest average, yes, there is a difference and a significant one. The lightest population of jaguars is from Belize (famous for been small) and there the prey base is very low, they mostly eat armadillo while deers with pecaries live a relative low density, so that is why jaguars in this area are small. Now the lightest pumas in that list came from Florida, and they have a much better prey base than in Belize, there had a good body size (check the measurements) and they still don't reach the body masses of jaguars in similar habitats. This means that in order to have similar body masses, jaguars need to have a lower prey base and small size than pumas.
Actually, this conversation is silly, as we are talking about a Panthera and a Felis/Puma, the Panthera will be always bigger and stronger. That is why I say that leopards are better to compare than jaguars. You say that the arms of the pumas are the same as jaguars, but that is not correct, not even close.
That chart includes mammalian prey only. It literally says that reptiles make up 54% of jaguar diets in the screenshot you posted. Also what? Florida panthers are smaller than belizean jaguars? Obviously not true. Yes, they do have a better prey base, but for some reason theyre still small, just not smaller than belizean jaguars. They are heavier, taller and longer and if youd like i can show proof of this
“in order to have similar body masses, jaguars need to have a lower prey base and small size than pumas”. So then howcome when they have the same prey base they look like this? It seems as if jaguars dont need smaller prey bases to be larger but instead specific reptillian prey species in order to be puma sized or larger! Two adult females from nw mexico btw:
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
You should read his screen shot again more closely. That’s not what it says at all.
It also highly depends which location you’re talking about. In the N. Pantanal there is no animal more important to the Jaguar than a Caiman, in the Amazon it’s the sloth. It just depends where you’re talking about, the terrain, seasonal changes and prey availability.
Before the mass extinction of the N. American Jaguar they would actually reach a decent size. I have accounts of a 90kg one and a few other large ones. Again, they’re out sizing any of the Pumas in the same locations as well, but once they were hunted so viciously, you’re lucky to see one let alone one with the size they attained in the past.
What is the debate here?
Anywhere they coexist the Jaguar is the dominate and larger cat. And anywhere they coexist they obviously have access to the same prey.
There is only one place where they may be even but even then, the Jaguar still dominates in that area. I’ll also post about the differences in the Caatinga later next week so you can see why they are smaller there.
