|
Size comparisons
|
Sri Lanken leopards are smaller than their afrian cousins, this is based off visual evidence not a BBC claim of a 100k Leopard which is equivalent to a people claiming Waghdoh was 350kgs, claims are pointless without evidence to back them. There are quite a few people on FB who've seen both Leopards, you should reach out to a few and see what they say.
I'm also well aware about exceptional leopard size, also why I said that Eastern and Southern African leopards are likely larger than their central cousins but yet you still have few verified weights of 100kg even Vin Diesel who is claimed to be 90kg has never been confirmed by any one involved with the capture I've seen. We have a large data base of leopard weights, none of which support weights of 100kg being common place for leopards while we have a smaller database for Jaguars yet weights of 130kg or more are somewhat common, that in itself should be proof of what is considered to be a freak individual. In regards to sexual dimorphism, leopards are no different than other cats  *This image is copyright of its original author It be like me saying Umarpani is a 280kg Tiger and Choti Tara is a 85kg Tigress and thus Tigers have the largest sexual dimorphism of any cat. But that isn't the case, big cats come in a wide variety of sizes and at averages their differences will usually be with in the same range. Exceptions exist for meta populations in some species but overall the dimorphism is similar.  (04-01-2019, 05:22 PM)Pckts Wrote: Again, Sri Lanken leopards are smaller than their aftican cousins, this is based off visual evidence not a BBC claim of a 100k Leopard which is equivalent to a people claiming Waghdoh was 350kgs, claims are pointless without evidence to back them.@Pckts Very valuable information  (04-01-2019, 07:17 PM)epaiva Wrote: Adult male Brown Bear compared to adult female Wolf in Europe. Those two aren´t close to each others as far as I remember, that is partially optical illusion. They just happened to be in good position for the photo, but they have distance between them, so this photo is not so good for size comparison really. 
@Shadow @epaiva
I made a detailed post about it in canid interactions thread. See The unsual friendship b/w that male Brown bear and female wolf (young) by "Finnish" Photographer. (04-01-2019, 10:35 PM)Sanju Wrote: @Shadow @epaiva Yes, I have shared those photos and stories in wolf or brown bear threads at some time last year. Also link, where that book can be read freely with stories and photos :) But that photo which epaiva shared is about different bear and wolf and perspective makes an illusion there. (04-01-2019, 10:35 PM)Sanju Wrote: @Shadow @epaiva It was in wolves thread :) But here is link, where you can download online version of book "Fighters!": https://www.articmedia.fi/  (03-27-2019, 10:01 PM)Pckts Wrote: This is Adrian, he is the 158kg Jaguar Is this weight actually confirmed, or published? If that is the case this is the new record for the heaviest jaguar captured by scientists and are great news!!!! Jaguars in that area, aparently, are larger because they prey on the feral cattle, reflecting the old days when jaguars had larger prey to hunt. In most of its habitat, the main prey are pecaries that weigh 20-50 kg more or less and the tapir big in so low densities that are a rare prey species for jaguars.
Only confirmed via the links provided and a few others
the weight is noted in the panthera group as well. I'd have to dig a little to find it. Pantanal Jags number 1 prey source is probably a tie between Caiman and Capybara, although I'd bet Caiman tops the list, especially in N. Pantanal. Whether they prey on cattle often or if its certain individuals or just on occasion is unknown, I've seen examples of all. I dont know whether cattle killing is more or less prevalent in the pantanal but I do know its prevalent in Bolivia and they're actually smaller than their Brazilian cousins and I believe the same holds true in Mexico. There must be unique traits about the Pantanal that contribute to their maximum growth.
Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity
 *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 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Brain-size-of-the-lion-(Panthera-leo)-and-the-tiger-Kitchener/cd566199aa20f680f15a18bd192e129a7e50904d#citing-papers Abstract Intraspecific encephalization of the lion and the tiger is investigated for the first time using a very large sample. Using cranial volume as a measure of brain size, the tiger has a larger brain relative to greatest length of skull than the lion, the leopard and the jaguar. The Asian lion has a relatively much smaller brain compared with those of sub-Saharan lions, between which there are few differences. The Balinese and Javan tigers had relatively larger brains compared with those of Malayan and Sumatran tigers, even although these four putative subspecies occupy adjacent ranges in south-eastern Asia. Differences in brain size do not appear to correlate with any known differences in behaviour and ecology and, therefore, may reflect only chance differences in intrageneric and intraspecific phylogeny. However, captive-bred big cats generally have a reduced brain size compared with that of wild animals, so that an animal's life history and living conditions may affect brain size and, hence, functional or environmental explanations should be considered when linking brain size differences to intraspecific phylogenies. The intraspecific regression line for lions was ln(cv) = 0.667 [ln(gl)] + 1.637 (R2 = 0.437, d.f. = 1, F = 280.91, P < 0.001). Residual analyses revealed no significant differences between sexes [male (N = 201), female (N = 159): d.f. = 1, F = 2.34, P = 0.127], ages [adult (N = 311), subadult (N = 49): d.f. = 1, F = 0.30, P = 0.586] or sex and age combined [adult male (N = 168), adult female (N = 143), subadult male (N = 33), subadult female (N = 16): d.f. = 1, F = 1.67, P = 0.197]. Therefore, sex and age classes were combined for the following analyses. There was a significant difference in residuals between captive and wild individuals [captive (N = 39 of which 30 were of known origin), wild (N = 306): d.f. = 1, F = 38.09, P < 0.001: Fig. 3], as well as between eight commonly recognized subspecies [melanochaita (N = 5), krugeri (N = 18), bleyenberghi (N = 31), nubica (N = 236), azandica (N = 7), senegalensis (N = 23), leo (N = 8), persica (N = 16): d.f. = 7, F = 16.74, P < 0.001: Fig. 4]. However, owing to the small overall sample size (N = 39), the average residual of captive animals may have been lowered by the eight Asian lions, which had the lowest average residual (Fig. 4). Additionally, the eight Barbary lions (leo) were all captive, potentially causing sampling bias. When only known-origin sub-Saharan lions were included in the analysis, the difference between captive and wild individuals was still statistically significant [captive (N = 11), wild (N = 296): d.f. = 1, F = 19.68, P < 0.001]. When only wild individuals were included in the analysis, there was still a statistically significant difference between subspecies [melanochaita (N = 2), krugeri (N = 14), bleyenberghi (N = 29), nubica (N = 228), azandica (N = 7), senegalensis (N = 16), persica(N = 7): d.f. = 6, F = 17.50, P < 0.001]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between wild sub-Saharan subspecies (i.e. excluding persica and leo: d.f. = 5, F = 0.94, P = 0.456). Actual values for all adult lions are summarized in Table 2. Whilst captive animals had significantly greater Schauenberg indices (i.e. smaller brains relative to skull size) than those of wild sub-Saharan lions (male d.f. = 1 F = 15.44 P < 0.001, female d.f. = 1 F = 7.88 P = 0.006), Asian lions showed the opposite trend (see Table 2). Residuals from pooled data for both sexes were significantly greater (i.e. larger brain size relative to skull size) for captive vs. wild Asian lions [wild (N = 7), captive (N = 8): d.f. = 1, F = 5.35, P = 0.038] https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/98/1/85/2235978 (04-02-2019, 05:33 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(03-27-2019, 10:01 PM)Pckts Wrote: This is Adrian, he is the 158kg Jaguar I found the video of the 142kg Jaguar being weighed, note he isn't gorged either just big. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2p7y8y Here is one who got the first hand info on Adrian Ben Cranke Wildlife Photographer CATS - Day 8 This massive male Jaguar weighs in at a 158 kg's. I was lucky enough to see and photograph him on several occasions on my last visit with ODP safaris. Pantanal, Brazil  *This image is copyright of its original author Nik Barratt Great photo Ben. How do you know it weighs 158 Kgs? Ben Cranke Wildlife PhotographerHi Nik, there is a Prof. researching these cats in the Pantanal, documenting and identifying all criteria for each cat. He had the weight of this particular boy so although I didn't ask, I assume he'd been caught, weighed and measured etc.  (04-02-2019, 05:33 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:wonder how heavy brutus is..he looks even bigger than adriano(03-27-2019, 10:01 PM)Pckts Wrote: This is Adrian, he is the 158kg Jaguar 
@Pckts :
About #266: What is the Schauenberg's index ? What does it meann ? I noticed that it was equal to the length of the skull (mm) divided by the cranial volume (cm3), thus its logical unity should been the inverse of a square ((X.10)exp-3 )m/((Y.10)exp-6))m3 = ((X/Y)exp3)m-2 And the value X/Y is approximately equal to 1... Here. Is it the Schauenberg's index ? What does it make to express ? In the case of the tiger it is the weakest one among all the considered felids... So what ? (04-03-2019, 12:57 AM)Spalea Wrote: @Pckts : MATERIAL AND METHODS Endocranial volume (cv; cm3) and greatest length of skull (gl; mm) were measured for 370 lions, 225 tigers, 32 jaguars and 42 leopards from European museum collections. A skull was classified as juvenile if the cemento-enamel junction of any permanent canine was not clearly visible above its alveolus. If these junctions were visible and yet the basioccipital–basisphenoid suture and/or frontal suture were still open, a skull was classified as subadult. If these sutures were closed, a skull was classified as adult. Only adults and subadults were analysed, owing to small sample sizes for juveniles. Based on museum labels, lions and tigers were categorized for sex, geographical origin, putative subspecies (Hemmer, 1974b; Mazák, 1981; Nowell & Jackson, 1996; Luo et al., 2004) and whether of wild or captive origin. Greatest length of skull (from prosthion to inion) was measured using metal callipers to the nearest 0.05 mm (see Barnett et al., 2008). The cranial cavity was cleaned and filled with glass balls of c. 4 mm diameter, which were then either weighed using an electronic balance to the nearest 1 g or measured using a plastic cylinder to the nearest 1 cm3. Weights were converted into volumes using the equation: volume = 0.633 × weight + 0.939 based on linear regression coefficients (R2 = 1.000, d.f. = 1, F = 24172.7, P < 0.001). The coefficient of variation for greatest skull length was 0.04 ± 0.01% (mean ± standard error, N = 5 skulls with three repeats each) and that for the cranial volume was 0.35 ± 0.08%. We are not aware of a widely accepted standard concerning accuracy, reliability and consistency of measurement and therefore follow Yamaguchi et al. (2004) in accepting a cut-off of less than 2% coefficient of variation for using measurements and volumes in subsequent analyses, which both measurements met. Data were log-transformed (ln) and regression lines were calculated. Residuals between data points and regression lines were analysed. All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and statistically significant differences were detected using ANOVA. RESULTS Greatest lengths of skull (mm), cranial volumes (cm3) and Schauenberg's indices (Schauenberg, 1969: greatest length of skull/cranial volume) for all four species of big cat are summarized in Table 1. The relationship between greatest lengths of skull and cranial volumes is shown in Figure 1. The interspecific regression line for all four species was ln(cv) = 0.943 [ln(gl)] + 0.100 (R2 = 0.544, d.f. = 1, F = 789.78, P < 0.001), with a residual mean (M) of 0 and residual standard deviation (SD) of 0.130, whilst a better-fitted line was obtained with larger F-value and reduced residual SD, if tigers were excluded {ln(cv) = 0.978 [ln(gl)] – 0.173: R2 = 0.793, d.f. = 1, F = 1670.03, P < 0.001, residual M = 0, residual SD = 0.086}. Residual analysis showed a significant difference in the distribution of data points around the regression line amongst the four species (d.f. = 3, F = 398.10, P < 0.001: Fig. 2). If tigers were excluded, the F value was substantially reduced, although the difference was still statistically significant (d.f. = 2, F = 16.56, P < 0.001). The intraspecific regression line for leopards was ln(cv) = 0.832 [ln(gl)] + 0.547 (R2 = 0.646, d.f. = 1, F = 77.74, P < 0.001) and for jaguars was ln(cv) = 0.680 [ln(gl)] + 1.442 (R2 = 0.451, d.f. = 1, F = 26.51, P < 0.001). BRAIN SIZE IN THE GENUSPANTHERA The results clearly demonstrate that the tiger has a larger cranial volume for its skull size than do the lion, the jaguar and the leopard. As a result, a small tiger skull can be easily distinguished from either a large jaguar or leopard skull based on its cranial volume (see Fig. 1). Our results are broadly consistent with those of Eisenberg (1981) (except for the jaguar), which are largely based on previous literature. The encephalization quotient (the ratio between observed and expected brain weights for a defined body weight) of the tiger (1.35) is greater than those of the leopard (0.85) and the lion (0.57–0.83), but that of the jaguar (1.36) is greater than expected compared with our results, which are based on skull size instead of body weight (Eisenberg, 1981). Although we could not measure actual brain size (e.g. brain weight), endocranial volume is commonly used as an acceptable estimator of brain size for many mammals, including carnivorans (Gittleman, 1986a). Also, Röhrs & Ebinger (2001) suggest that closely related species (e.g. congeneric) tend to show similar ratios between brain and brain-case size. Therefore, we consider that the results reflect differences in actual brain size of the four closely related big cat species. We are not aware of any behavioural, ecological or sociobiological characteristics that distinguish the tiger from the other three Panthera species for which we have data – in fact, the lion might be regarded as unique, especially with regard to sociality (Nowell & Jackson, 1996; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Encephalization and sociality in carnivores have been discussed previously (Hemmer, 1978a, b; Gittleman, 1986a, 1994; Pérez-Barbería et al., 2007). Although Hemmer (1978a) suggested that social species had proportionally larger brains, this was refuted by Gittleman (1986a) based on a larger sample size. Our results also do not support Hemmer's (1978a) suggestion concerning the four big cat species, which probably shared a common ancestor c. 3.7 million years ago (Johnson et al., 2006). One of the few studies reporting correlations between life history parameters and brain size suggests that, amongst orang-utan species (Pongo pygmaeus and P. abelii) and subspecies (P. pygmaeus sspp.), a shorter interbirth interval correlates with smaller brain size (Taylor & van Schaik, 2007). Therefore, Gittleman's (1986b) general study of carnivorans gives the lion's interbirth interval as 25 months, the leopard's as 24 months and the tiger's as 32 months, which might explain differences in brain size. However, Gittleman's (1986b) data need careful re-evaluation. For example, Nowell & Jackson (1996) gave a range of 11–25 months (N = 38) for the lion's interbirth interval, an average 15 months for the leopard's and 20–24 months (N = 7) for the tiger's. There appears to be no convincing evidence that the tiger has a longer interbirth interval than the lion's. There is a popular notion that tigers are ‘bigger’ than lions (e.g. Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Hemmer (1974a) suggested that the tiger has a relatively smaller head (skull length) for its body size (head-and-body length) than either the lion or the leopard, both of which possess similar head-to-body ratios. Therefore, the tiger's relatively bigger brain size may reflect its bigger body compared with that of the lion, which has a bigger skull relative to its body size. However, careful re-evaluation of original field data and relatively well-documented hunting records does not support this popular notion. The modern wild-living tiger has an estimated average body weight (i.e. excluding stomach contents) of c. 160 kg for adult males and c. 115 kg for adult females, whilst modern wild-living lion weigh c. 175 kg (males) and c. 120 kg (females), where ‘average’ is the mean body weight of commonly recognized putative subspecies (Yamaguchi, 2005a, b; Kitchener & Yamaguchi, in press). Therefore, we conclude that the tiger has a relatively bigger brain than the lion's (by c. 16%), given their very similar average body sizes. However, the brain size to skull size ratios of the lion, the jaguar and the leopard are similar. These three species are phylogenetically closer to each other than to the tiger, sharing a common ancestor c. 2.9 million years ago (Johnson et al., 2006), and our results may reflect this phylogenetic relationship more than any functional explanation. Additionally, the general shape of the brain is slightly different amongst extant felids, such that relatively larger brains have a more globose shape (Radinsky, 1975). The tiger's skull is more globose than the lion's (Haltenorth, 1937; Pocock, 1939) and this may relate to brain shape, which in turn results in differences in relative brain size. However, the main question still remains – why did the tiger evolve a relatively bigger brain (or why did the other species evolve smaller brains) after the tiger's ancestor split from the ancestor to the other three species? Alternatively, can such a difference be explained by intrageneric variation or merely by chance? Answers to these questions might be found by analysing similar data from their fossil relatives and smaller members of the Pantherinae (e.g. snow leopard, P. uncia, and clouded leopards, Neofelis spp.), as well as a comparative anatomical study of which parts of the brain contribute to overall differences in brain size between lions and tigers. INTRASPECIFIC VARIATION There is significant variation in brain size between commonly recognized putative subspecies of the lion and the tiger. This is comparable with that described for orang-utans (Taylor & van Schaik, 2007). The Asian lion has a relatively small brain compared with those of sub-Saharan lions, whose brain sizes are similar. Although the Barbary lion also had a relatively small brain, all the skulls in this study are from captives and so it is not clear whether this was characteristic of wild Barbary lions. However, mtDNA shows that the Barbary lion is phylogenetically closer to the Asian lion than to sub-Saharan lions (Barnett et al., 2006a, b). Therefore, the relatively small brain sizes of these two subspecies may reflect this close phylogenetic relationship. There are interesting differences in brain size between putative tiger subspecies from the Malay Peninsula and the Sunda Islands. Tiger populations in this region have been connected to each other intermittently, owing to sea-level changes associated with glacial–interglacial oscillations, and the effects of the gigantic Toba eruption c. 75 000 years ago (Kitchener & Dugmore, 2000; Kitchener & Yamaguchi, in press). This area has tigers with both the relatively biggest (Balinese and Javan tigers) and smallest (Sumatran and Malayan tigers) brains, compared with those of other continental subspecies, whose brains are similar to each other's (Table 3, Fig. 5). Differences between the three adjacent island subspecies are notable, because, based on skull morphology, Mazák & Groves (2006) suggested that Balinese and Javan tigers are closer to each other than to the Sumatran tiger. Our results appear to be consistent with those of Mazák & Groves (2006) suggesting tentatively that past geological events resulted in two distinct tiger lineages in the Malay Archipelago, with a possible boundary between Sumatra and Java. However, further evidence is required; for example, ancient biomolecular research on Balinese and Javan tigers, in order to ascertain whether brain size differences amongst Sunda Islands tigers reflect their intraspecific phylogeny. Entire study here https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/98/1/85/2235978 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 18 Guest(s) |