Size comparisons

[Pckts]

Congo Leopard Skull Size compared to Jaguar Skull size

*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

*This image is copyright of its original author

10.2 inches long and 6.6 inches wide (255.4 and 164.6mm). Compare that to the average skull length and width of 262.7 (10.3'' long) and 175.9mm (6.8 inches wide) for adult male Amazon jaguars. 

Notice, any skull 11.1'' or less is 90kg or less in Jaguars and also understand that a Jaguar is built with much more mass while leopards tend to be slimmer in their build.

*This image is copyright of its original author

This also holds true with Jaguars from the Amazon as well, so needless to say even if Leopards skull size correlated to body weight, none of the ones measured would be over the 100kg mark and obviously they'll be less than comparable Jaguars regardless since they aren't built with the same lb per sq inch as the Jaguar is. 
Realistically they'd be in the 60-80kg  but again, I don't know what the exact correlation of skull size to leopard size is, I haven't done enough research on that topic.  

Praveen Siddannavar
 The shape and size of the head is very different between the two cats. Due to the different styles of killing the jaguar has a much broader forehead and wider jaw.

Jaguars have a large barrel like abdomen. It almost always looks as if they are pregnant or well fed. Leopards, on the other hand, often have a very slight build. Jaguars have a shorter, stockier, build then the leopard.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Read the whole post here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=870401666336331&set=a.361719057204597&type=3&theater Reply

[Pckts]

Body Size Comparisons 

Persian

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

147 HBL Average w/221 TBL (CM)



Compared to African and Sri Lankan. 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

As you can see, Persians do have a larger body length but since they are measured over the curves we're not sure how much that actually is but with African and Sri Lankan Leopards, the overlap is very easy to see and reflected in sizes from Males or Females.
Whether BW or HBL, they are both very close and we see what the difference between the largest of leopards *Persian 65kg average* compared to the 60kg average in Leopards from Kruger and Zimbabwe

Here you even have a larger average than persians with a 72kg average for these S. African Leopards >7 yrs

*This image is copyright of its original author

Not shown is E. African Leopards but with large weights like these you can expect much of the same when it comes to averages.

        East Africa:

o   92.5 kg. Mount Kenya, Kenya [Hunted] (Mellon 1995; Scott & Scott, 2006 [Spanish edition]).

o   79 kg. Loliondo region, Tanzania (De Almeida, 1990).

o   73 kg. Naivasha farm, Kenia (Hamilton, 1981).

o   65.3 kg. East Africa [Hunted] (Meinertzhagen, 1938; Schaller, 1972).

Kenya 

In his 1981 paper,  "The leopard and Cheetah in Kenya", PH Hamilton provided some weights of leopards captured for translocation in Kenya. Seven males described as adult from different parts of Kenya averaged 55.6kg. However, it appears the smallest male at 40kg was in very poor condition after having been in captivity for some time which may be the reason for this particularly low weight. If excluded the average weight for the remaining 6 males is 58.2kg with the biggest weighing 73kg.



D.R. Congo and Gabon Leopard Size

*This image is copyright of its original author

In the book, "Wild Cats:Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan" 1996 by Nowell and Jackson, the weight of 2 male leopards from north east Gabon is given as 34kg and 42kg. The original source of this data is S. Lahm who weighed these leopards after they had been killed in snares set by poachers. The 34kg male was assessed to be a subadult and the 42kg male was described as a prime adult.



2 Leopards here had their paws removed from snares and aren't in great shape, so lets say they are in the 60-70kg mark if they are healthy.





Again, this overlap is very apparent in Leopards, they are affected by location but it seems as though they reach a fairly common maximum and shrink down from there.  Reply

[Luipaard]

@Pckts 

Your point is? There is no larger subspecies and they all overlap? Let's not forget where the largest males come from:

*This image is copyright of its original author

What a coincidence, Central African leopards dominate the list alongside Persian leopards. It's becouse they're the largest subspecies.

And what about these Persian leopards who were weighted:

*This image is copyright of its original author

A 90kg leopard is rare in South Africa, which is why Vin Diesel (90kg) was so famous at the time. Meanwhile they've found not one but 3 Persian leopards within that range. (And let's not talk about the 115kg male, even if it it's exaggerated, he will still be within the 90-100kg range). 

As I've mentioned many times, a skull size is a good indication of how large an animal is. South African or Indian male leopards struggle to reach the average skull size of a Central African leopard. A South African leopard with skull measurements of 255.4 and 164.6mm is seen as a big male. For Central African leopards, that's just an average male. 

Also, comparing a South American jaguar with a mediocre Indian leopard isn't the right thing to do. Having the same posture in a photo isn't enough to compare.  If you use a large jaguar, which they are in Brazil, you should also use a large leopard.

This male from Kenya, Aberdare below makes the Indian leopard look like a different species of animal. Too bad I can't find a good picture with a good angle of a Central African male leopard. Would easily be on par with the jaguar below.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Also that post from Facebook is so vague with lack of good information. For example; he claims that the weight of a jaguaress is between 85 – 90 kg. How strange that a Mexican MALE jaguar averages 50kg. This poster takes Pantanal jaguars as the norm. Males weighing 110 -120 kg? Yeah Pantanal ones or those from Llanos Venezuela. This guy isn't aware of the fact that two male jaguars from the Peruvian Amazon weighed 31 and 37kg. So I can claim that female leopards are bigger than jaguars if I take these Peruvian jaguars as the norm. See where I'm going at?

Nothing will change my view on leopards; their weights overlap indeed, their weights overlap with (South American) jaguars. BUT there are subspecies who are just bigger than others. South African are common ones with the usual size and weights alongside Indian leopards. But Persian and Sri Lankan leopards are bigger. Central African (male) leopards are in a different league. Even researchers from Panthera admit that. Reply

[Shadow]

I have read time to time this leopard-jaguar and leopard subspecies debate. Looks like, that in this jaguar-leopard issue both "sides" write about same thing in slightly different way. Jaguars are bigger as species, when comparing biggest of the big of these two species. Then again biggest leopards are as big and even bigger than most of jaguars. So overlapping happens even though jaguars are third largest big cats as species. I think, that there is nothing unclear in that.

For me personally more interesting thing in this debate, which has been in 3-4 threads so far in one way or another(?), is that which leopards are the biggest and are there any expert opinions/studies? Answer, which this "Jo" (was it that name) gave was interesting, but that still kept this question open, not giving enough information to make big conclusions yet. Some photos shared are for sure very interesting to see, but from photos only it is impossible to make conclusions, I think, that all here understand it if looking closer that issue. Of course it can be seen if some animal looks to be robust or not, but what comes to size and weight, impossible situation if there is nothing right next to animal to what it can be compared. Usually there is nothing such when photo is taken in wildlife.

With some charts I haven´t seen source file, that from where some chart has been copied, those sources are always one interesting thing to see. Many times there has been relevant information when looking closer the sources. Or then those are mentioned earlier and I just haven´t payed attention good enough

But really it would be nice if this size comparison debate would focus to leopard subspecies, because what comes to jaguars-leopards, is there anything relevant really anymore, as far as I see, both agree about basic line, which is, that jaguars are bigger and debate is concerning about some details(?). So why not trying to find out if there really is a clear case concerning leopard subspecies? Reply

[Luipaard]

(04-13-2019, 12:20 PM)Shadow Wrote: I have read time to time this leopard-jaguar and leopard subspecies debate. Looks like, that in this jaguar-leopard issue both "sides" write about same thing in slightly different way. Jaguars are bigger as species, when comparing biggest of the big of these two species. Then again biggest leopards are as big and even bigger than most of jaguars. So overlapping happens even though jaguars are third largest big cats as species. I think, that there is nothing unclear in that.

For me personally more interesting thing in this debate, which has been in 3-4 threads so far in one way or another(?), is that which leopards are the biggest and are there any expert opinions/studies? Answer, which this "Jo" (was it that name) gave was interesting, but that still kept this question open, not giving enough information to make big conclusions yet. Some photos shared are for sure very interesting to see, but from photos only it is impossible to make conclusions, I think, that all here understand it if looking closer that issue. Of course it can be seen if some animal looks to be robust or not, but what comes to size and weight, impossible situation if there is nothing right next to animal to what it can be compared. Usually there is nothing such when photo is taken in wildlife.

With some charts I haven´t seen source file, that from where some chart has been copied, those sources are always one interesting thing to see. Many times there has been relevant information when looking closer the sources. Or then those are mentioned earlier and I just haven´t payed attention good enough

But really it would be nice if this size comparison debate would focus to leopard subspecies, because what comes to jaguars-leopards, is there anything relevant really anymore, as far as I see, both agree about basic line, which is, that jaguars are bigger and debate is concerning about some details(?). So why not trying to find out if there really is a clear case concerning leopard subspecies?

It all started with one person claiming that large jaguars are 'much, much' bigger than any leopard, which is false. I have proven that their sizes overlap. The largest leopard vs the largest jaguar won't be a huge difference.

Of course the jaguar is the bigger cat overall, but people need to stop taking Pantanal jaguars as the norm. Not every jaguar weighs 100kg, not even close. 

Regarding the largest subspecies of the leopard; there's a lot of debate but it's safe to say that Persian, Sri lankan and Central African leopards are the largest subspecies. Reply

[Wolverine]

(03-29-2019, 04:19 PM)Pckts Wrote: 1.Equatorial forests or not, pantanal Jags are going to be 1.5 to 2 times the size.

Yup, I don't know pantanal's or not, but all jaguars in our zoo are way larger and way more robust than the leopards. Completely different weight category, no comparison. If leop stand in point A and tiger in point Z jaguar is somewhere in the middle. Reply

[Luipaard]

(04-15-2019, 11:49 AM)Wolverine Wrote:

(03-29-2019, 04:19 PM)Pckts Wrote: 1.Equatorial forests or not, pantanal Jags are going to be 1.5 to 2 times the size.

Yup, I don't know pantanal's or not, but all jaguars in our zoo are way larger and way more robust than the leopards. Completely different weight category, no comparison. If leop stand in point A and tiger in point Z jaguar is somewhere in the middle.

And do you know what kind of leopard your zoo has? You can't compare a small leopard subspecies with a large subspecies of jaguar. It could be the other way aswell. Imagine having a 40kg jaguar from anywhere in Central America and a large leopard like this one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

They overlap in size. Most zoos have a common leopard or (luckily) a Amur one. They're average sized and everyone takes them as the norm. That's not supposed to be. Reply

[Shadow]

(04-15-2019, 11:19 AM)Luipaard Wrote:

(04-13-2019, 12:20 PM)Shadow Wrote: I have read time to time this leopard-jaguar and leopard subspecies debate. Looks like, that in this jaguar-leopard issue both "sides" write about same thing in slightly different way. Jaguars are bigger as species, when comparing biggest of the big of these two species. Then again biggest leopards are as big and even bigger than most of jaguars. So overlapping happens even though jaguars are third largest big cats as species. I think, that there is nothing unclear in that.

For me personally more interesting thing in this debate, which has been in 3-4 threads so far in one way or another(?), is that which leopards are the biggest and are there any expert opinions/studies? Answer, which this "Jo" (was it that name) gave was interesting, but that still kept this question open, not giving enough information to make big conclusions yet. Some photos shared are for sure very interesting to see, but from photos only it is impossible to make conclusions, I think, that all here understand it if looking closer that issue. Of course it can be seen if some animal looks to be robust or not, but what comes to size and weight, impossible situation if there is nothing right next to animal to what it can be compared. Usually there is nothing such when photo is taken in wildlife.

With some charts I haven´t seen source file, that from where some chart has been copied, those sources are always one interesting thing to see. Many times there has been relevant information when looking closer the sources. Or then those are mentioned earlier and I just haven´t payed attention good enough

But really it would be nice if this size comparison debate would focus to leopard subspecies, because what comes to jaguars-leopards, is there anything relevant really anymore, as far as I see, both agree about basic line, which is, that jaguars are bigger and debate is concerning about some details(?). So why not trying to find out if there really is a clear case concerning leopard subspecies?

It all started with one person claiming that large jaguars are 'much, much' bigger than any leopard, which is false. I have proven that their sizes overlap. The largest leopard vs the largest jaguar won't be a huge difference.

Of course the jaguar is the bigger cat overall, but people need to stop taking Pantanal jaguars as the norm. Not every jaguar weighs 100kg, not even close. 

Regarding the largest subspecies of the leopard; there's a lot of debate but it's safe to say that Persian, Sri lankan and Central African leopards are the largest subspecies.

I agree with pckts, that largest jaguars are considerably bigger than largest leopards. But of course it is also crystal clear, that there is overlapping in size because biggest leopards are bigger than many jaguars. 

But as said, no known leopard isn´t close to what biggest jaguars are, when we are looking at weight and robustness. It is quite clear that if we put an animal weighing 90-100 kg side by side with one weighing about 150 kg, there is a difference. And I think, that pckts has admitted, that there is overlapping. So I don´t know what there is to debate anymore at this point. Sometimes these debates goes to a bit heated up direction from quite small disagreement in some detail or how some expression is understood :)

Anyway I think, that most people believe, that biggest leopards are in weight range 90-100 kg, but then we are talking about exceptional individuals, not something to be seen too often. And same situation with jaguars up to about 150 kg, not something you see every day. Reply

[Sanju]

Leopards are the 4th biggest modern cat and pumas are the 5th.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Luipaard]

(04-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(04-15-2019, 11:19 AM)Luipaard Wrote:

(04-13-2019, 12:20 PM)Shadow Wrote: I have read time to time this leopard-jaguar and leopard subspecies debate. Looks like, that in this jaguar-leopard issue both "sides" write about same thing in slightly different way. Jaguars are bigger as species, when comparing biggest of the big of these two species. Then again biggest leopards are as big and even bigger than most of jaguars. So overlapping happens even though jaguars are third largest big cats as species. I think, that there is nothing unclear in that.

For me personally more interesting thing in this debate, which has been in 3-4 threads so far in one way or another(?), is that which leopards are the biggest and are there any expert opinions/studies? Answer, which this "Jo" (was it that name) gave was interesting, but that still kept this question open, not giving enough information to make big conclusions yet. Some photos shared are for sure very interesting to see, but from photos only it is impossible to make conclusions, I think, that all here understand it if looking closer that issue. Of course it can be seen if some animal looks to be robust or not, but what comes to size and weight, impossible situation if there is nothing right next to animal to what it can be compared. Usually there is nothing such when photo is taken in wildlife.

With some charts I haven´t seen source file, that from where some chart has been copied, those sources are always one interesting thing to see. Many times there has been relevant information when looking closer the sources. Or then those are mentioned earlier and I just haven´t payed attention good enough

But really it would be nice if this size comparison debate would focus to leopard subspecies, because what comes to jaguars-leopards, is there anything relevant really anymore, as far as I see, both agree about basic line, which is, that jaguars are bigger and debate is concerning about some details(?). So why not trying to find out if there really is a clear case concerning leopard subspecies?

It all started with one person claiming that large jaguars are 'much, much' bigger than any leopard, which is false. I have proven that their sizes overlap. The largest leopard vs the largest jaguar won't be a huge difference.

Of course the jaguar is the bigger cat overall, but people need to stop taking Pantanal jaguars as the norm. Not every jaguar weighs 100kg, not even close. 

Regarding the largest subspecies of the leopard; there's a lot of debate but it's safe to say that Persian, Sri lankan and Central African leopards are the largest subspecies.

I agree with pckts, that largest jaguars are considerably bigger than largest leopards. But of course it is also crystal clear, that there is overlapping in size because biggest leopards are bigger than many jaguars. 

But as said, no known leopard isn´t close to what biggest jaguars are, when we are looking at weight and robustness. It is quite clear that if we put an animal weighing 90-100 kg side by side with one weighing about 150 kg, there is a difference. And I think, that pckts has admitted, that there is overlapping. So I don´t know what there is to debate anymore at this point. Sometimes these debates goes to a bit heated up direction from quite small disagreement in some detail or how some expression is understood :)

Anyway I think, that most people believe, that biggest leopards are in weight range 90-100 kg, but then we are talking about exceptional individuals, not something to be seen too often. And same situation with jaguars up to about 150 kg, not something you see every day.

Not fully agreeing here I'm afraid. 90-100kg is common for males of certain subspecies. A 150kg is a freak jaguar, same like that 115kg Persian male. Those are just freak numbers. Same can be said about that Indian leopard who's said to have weighed 113kg:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Take a 90-100kg vs the maximum weight of a jaguar 130kg. There will be a difference no doubt, but again, the jaguar wont be 'much much' bigger. That's all I'm trying to say. Reply

[Shadow]

(04-15-2019, 03:04 PM)Luipaard Wrote:

(04-15-2019, 02:49 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(04-15-2019, 11:19 AM)Luipaard Wrote:

(04-13-2019, 12:20 PM)Shadow Wrote: I have read time to time this leopard-jaguar and leopard subspecies debate. Looks like, that in this jaguar-leopard issue both "sides" write about same thing in slightly different way. Jaguars are bigger as species, when comparing biggest of the big of these two species. Then again biggest leopards are as big and even bigger than most of jaguars. So overlapping happens even though jaguars are third largest big cats as species. I think, that there is nothing unclear in that.

For me personally more interesting thing in this debate, which has been in 3-4 threads so far in one way or another(?), is that which leopards are the biggest and are there any expert opinions/studies? Answer, which this "Jo" (was it that name) gave was interesting, but that still kept this question open, not giving enough information to make big conclusions yet. Some photos shared are for sure very interesting to see, but from photos only it is impossible to make conclusions, I think, that all here understand it if looking closer that issue. Of course it can be seen if some animal looks to be robust or not, but what comes to size and weight, impossible situation if there is nothing right next to animal to what it can be compared. Usually there is nothing such when photo is taken in wildlife.

With some charts I haven´t seen source file, that from where some chart has been copied, those sources are always one interesting thing to see. Many times there has been relevant information when looking closer the sources. Or then those are mentioned earlier and I just haven´t payed attention good enough

But really it would be nice if this size comparison debate would focus to leopard subspecies, because what comes to jaguars-leopards, is there anything relevant really anymore, as far as I see, both agree about basic line, which is, that jaguars are bigger and debate is concerning about some details(?). So why not trying to find out if there really is a clear case concerning leopard subspecies?

It all started with one person claiming that large jaguars are 'much, much' bigger than any leopard, which is false. I have proven that their sizes overlap. The largest leopard vs the largest jaguar won't be a huge difference.

Of course the jaguar is the bigger cat overall, but people need to stop taking Pantanal jaguars as the norm. Not every jaguar weighs 100kg, not even close. 

Regarding the largest subspecies of the leopard; there's a lot of debate but it's safe to say that Persian, Sri lankan and Central African leopards are the largest subspecies.

I agree with pckts, that largest jaguars are considerably bigger than largest leopards. But of course it is also crystal clear, that there is overlapping in size because biggest leopards are bigger than many jaguars. 

But as said, no known leopard isn´t close to what biggest jaguars are, when we are looking at weight and robustness. It is quite clear that if we put an animal weighing 90-100 kg side by side with one weighing about 150 kg, there is a difference. And I think, that pckts has admitted, that there is overlapping. So I don´t know what there is to debate anymore at this point. Sometimes these debates goes to a bit heated up direction from quite small disagreement in some detail or how some expression is understood :)

Anyway I think, that most people believe, that biggest leopards are in weight range 90-100 kg, but then we are talking about exceptional individuals, not something to be seen too often. And same situation with jaguars up to about 150 kg, not something you see every day.

Not fully agreeing here I'm afraid. 90-100kg is common for males from certain subspecies. A 150kg is a freak jaguar, same like that 115kg Persian male. Thos are just freak numbers. Same can be said about that Indian leopard who's said to have weighed 113kg:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Take a 90-100kg vs the maximum weight of a jaguar 130kg. There will be a difference no doubt, but again, the jaguar wont be 'much much' bigger. That's all I'm trying to say.

I wrote as I see situation. Of course there are always different kind of opinions. Still with current information available I see it as I wrote. But I look forward to see what more you get about leopards from that Jo and that group she (I assume, that she is a woman) represents. As she wrote, there isn´t too much information available and her reasoning was very understandable, no reason to take unnecessary risks for health of these animals. Reply

[Shadow]

(04-15-2019, 02:59 PM)Sanju Wrote: Leopards are the 4th biggest modern cat and pumas are the 5th.

*This image is copyright of its original author

That seems to be a thing many argues, I think that both of these are in weight range up to 90-100 kg :) I don´t care enough to debate about these two, but this pair might be a good place to start endless debate Reply

[Luipaard]

Quote:It may be worthwhile to look at some data on different body measurements to see how male leopards compare in build with female jaguars. Luckily we have this sort of data available for both at more or less comparable weights. Despite what most of you seem to believe, the jaguaress doesn’t appear to hold much of a physical advantage over an equal sized male leopard. At similar weights a male leopard will actually have a slightly more massive head, a much thicker neck, and a comparably massive chest. Limited data on forearm girth also doesn’t seem to show any notable difference. Excerpts from the book, “Jaguar Hunting in the Matto Grasso and Bolivia” 1990 by Tony Almedia. Very detailed measurements of jaguars from the Pantanal are provided in this great book.

Average dimensions for adult female jaguars from the Pantanal were: 

Weight: 76.8kg 
Chest Girth: 91.4cm 
Head Girth: 60.5cm 
Neck Girth: 54.5cm 
Forearm Girth: 34.7cm 


Measurements of leopards captured for research in South Africa. Fully mature males (7 years and older) had an average weight which was somewhat comparable to that of adult Pantanal jaguaresses. Though it should be noted that leopards in this study were captured using baited cage traps which typically use baits weighing around 5-10kg, so the weight of the male leopards was probably inflated by about 5kg (taking into consideration defecation etc.). Almeida on the other hand hunted his jaguars with hounds and did not use baits, though his weights were also not adjusted for stomach content. Nonetheless, the female jags in this sample were probably around 10% heavier than the mature adult male leopards in the below study.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here we can see that despite being a little smaller, mature male leopards had a comparable head circumference and an appreciably thicker neck. The chest girth was lower but understandably so given their smaller overall size. At equal weight the male leopard would at least match the female jag in these 3 measurements. Note the max weight in the sample at 75kg was barely equal to the average for the female jags while the max recorded head, neck, and chest circumference were all greater than the average for a Pantanal jaguaress. Head, neck, and chest circumference are particularly useful measurements not only because they give us a good idea of the forebody’s proportions but also because they can be taken with consistency and are generally taken with standard methodology and can thus be compared across samples. Another useful measurement may be fore arm girth though unlike the other three girth measurements this may vary with how relaxed the animal is when measured. For comparison, a 69kg male leopard had a left and right forearm girth of 32 and 37cm, respectively. Again the leopard’s not looking too bad, though the fact this was a live leopard may mean it wasn’t completely relaxed when sedated and measured.

It may also be relevant to see how a male jaguar would stack up against a male leopard and female jag of around the same weight. The following excerpt from Almeida’s earlier 1976 book provides measurements of a male Amazon jaguar. It weighed 79kg gorged and probably would have weighed around 65-70kg empty stomach, pretty much the same as the mature male leopards in the KZN study.

It’s measurements in cm: 
Weight: 79kg (gorged) 
Chest: 92.1cm 
Head: 63.5cm 
Neck: 55.9cm 
Forearm: 35.6cm 

This male jag had more impressive measurements for its weight than the male leopards but the difference wasn’t that big and in neck girth the leopards still had the edge. In terms of head and chest girth the jag did have the advantage but it certainly isn’t huge, for perspective the leopard’s advantage over the cougar in these measurements at equal weights appears more significant. Also I would note that all the data for leopards was from South Africa where they probably aren’t the most impressive, leopards in some other regions are likely bigger and more robust.

Based on this, I'd say a Central African leopard will certainly do better than a mediocre South African leopard. Reply

[Luipaard]

(04-15-2019, 04:11 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(04-15-2019, 01:00 PM)Luipaard Wrote:

(04-15-2019, 11:49 AM)Wolverine Wrote:

(03-29-2019, 04:19 PM)Pckts Wrote: 1.Equatorial forests or not, pantanal Jags are going to be 1.5 to 2 times the size.

Yup, I don't know pantanal's or not, but all jaguars in our zoo are way larger and way more robust than the leopards. Completely different weight category, no comparison. If leop stand in point A and tiger in point Z jaguar is somewhere in the middle.

And do you know what kind of leopard your zoo has? You can't compare a small leopard subspecies with a large subspecies of jaguar. It could be the other way aswell. Imagine having a 40kg jaguar from anywhere in Central America and a large leopard like this one:

*This image is copyright of its original author

They overlap in size. Most zoos have a common leopard or (luckily) a Amur one. They're average sized and everyone takes them as the norm. That's not supposed to be.

And do you know what type of sub species the Jags in the zoos are as well?
You cant use one excuse for one cat but not apply the same to another. 

Also I've seen many Captive leopards and none have come close to the size of the large Male I saw in Tanzania. 
Now compare that to someone like Marlon Dutoit who's probably seen over 100+ different wild leopards from all over Africa and states that Leopards aren't close in size to the Pantanal Jags he's seen.

115kg Persian isn't a freak, its unconfirmed, missing a paw and most likely false. Considering there are 2 more weights for Congo Basin Leopards of 42kg and 48kg and both missing paws from snare traps that'd mean that the Persian is more than  2 times the size of them and judging by the picture of the Persian next to people I think we all know it's not.

Now compare that with no Leopard ever weighing more than 100kgs "verified"  to Jaguars easily being over 100kg and a verified 142kg and another 158kg claimed to be weighed by the same panthera group that Jo is talking about.

In regards to Puma vs Leopard size:
I'd have to say that Puma have a propensity to be the larger of the two, if I recall correctly there are a few 100kg plus puma that are verified compared to almost none for Leopards.  But Leopards definitely have the Skull, neck and probably chest girth advantage,
Of course itll depend on which location you use. Cougars are smaller towards the equator and larger towards the poles. And it's no surprise that when all things are equal the Cougar is significantly outsized when sharing habitat with the Jaguar. Of course you can use rare locations or unconfirmed weights and claims but if you're going to speculate on one end then you must compare apples to apples and do same generous claims for the other. 


If you remove the speculation and just use facts, no leopard from anywhere on earth averages over 70kg and none have weighed more than 91kg while Jaguars can average over 105kg with one weighing more than 140kg. *verified weights*

That's almost 1.5 times the size at averages and more than that at Max weights. 
That is basically the difference between a Male and female of any Big cat species.

Like I've said before, I have little doubt that there are 100+kg leopards but I also have little doubt that there are 150+kg Jaguars as well. Again, we must use apples to apples and no matter the animal there will always be larger "fish" in the sea.

Quote:Now compare that to someone like Marlon Dutoit who's probably seen over 100+ different wild leopards from all over Africa and states that Leopards aren't close in size to the Pantanal Jags he's seen.

All over Africa, I doubt it. He hasn't been in Gabon or Congo Basin rainforest. Has he been to Aberdare in Kenya? Those leopards are also larger than the common South African leopards.

Quote:115kg Persian isn't a freak, its unconfirmed, missing a paw and most likely false.

And still its weight is in the weight chart and published. And yes it's a freak, just like that 113kg Indian male.

Quote:Considering there are 2 more weights for Congo Basin Leopards of 42kg and 48kg and both missing paws from snare traps that'd mean that the Persian is more than 2 times the size of them and judging by the picture of the Persian next to people I think we all know it's not.

Bad comparison. Plus those are your only verified weights from Central African leopards; 2 leopards in bad condition and yet you keep using those 2 weights as the norm. Meanwhile these leopards have average skull sizes that even large South African leopards struggle to reach. So I seriously doubt a healthy male would way less than 70kg.

Quote:Now compare that with no Leopard ever weighing more than 100kgs "verified"  to Jaguars easily being over 100kg and a verified 142kg and another 158kg claimed to be weighed by the same panthera group that Jo is talking about.

Hard to verify since they're barely being researched. It's easier to see a Pantanal male as a tourist than a leopard in the Congo Basin. But based on what we have (e.g. camera traps, skull measurements, researchers that also notice a different, more robust appearance). It's safe to say that the males we've seen so far, are atleast 90kg. They're far more impressive than an average Pantanal male so you have to use a large Pantanal male to best these leopards.

Quote:If you remove the speculation and just use facts, no leopard from anywhere on earth averages over 70kg

I have told you before, they average 70kg in Botswana and most likely those from equatorial forests aswell. 

Quote:none have weighed more than 91kg

Heaviest verified weight so far is 96kg, a male from Namibia, Valencia.

Quote:Like I've said before, I have little doubt that there are 100+kg leopards

I've seen enough males that probably reaches that number. Too bad we can only speculate.

"Robin Hurt had some experience hunting in Central Africa (DR Congo, CAR, Sudan). He only hunted one leopard in DR Congo and it turned out to be the biggest he encountered. He said it was almost as big as a lioness, its skull was over 11 inches long and he estimated the weight at 220lbs. According to him, the biggest leopards in Africa are usually found in the rainforest areas (both Central and East Africa). He also adds that very big leopard can sometimes be found in Southern Africa (Zimbabwe and Namibia etc) but these are exceptions. He is currently based in Namibia so he has no incentive to exaggerate the size of Congo leopards where trophy hunting is now banned. Robin Hurt's experience mirrors that of Peter TurnBull-Kemp who had also dealt with leopards from throughout Africa and similarly concluded the biggest are found in the equatorial forests. The biggest leopard Turnbull-Kemp had ever seen was a monster specimen killed in Cameroon. I'm not surprised by the convergent opinion of both these very experienced authorities on African leopards given the fact it is strongly supported by skull data and frankly a logical understanding of natural selection.  

The huge forest leopard shot by a client of Robin Hurt in DR Congo in the 1980s. The only one taken by Hurt in the Congo yet an absolutely huge specimen according to him. Here we can get an idea of what a leopard with a 280mm skull looks like, such big leopards appear to be relatively common in this part of Africa."

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Arctotherium]

(04-15-2019, 02:59 PM)Sanju Wrote: Leopards are the 4th biggest modern cat and pumas are the 5th.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Florida Panther(Biggest Puma) is 120 kg
Anatolian Leopard(Biggest Leopard)is 80 kg Reply