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.
07-22-2019, 07:58 PM( This post was last modified: 07-22-2019, 08:01 PM by Shadow )
I put this video also here to update earlier postings about Kodiak brown bear male, named Taquka and Eurasian brown bear male, Felix. These bears live in same enclosure in Swedish wildlife park because they get along so good. In video from March 2019 Taquka is approximately 8,5 years old and Felix is app. 5,5 years old. Brown bears grow size (bones, skull) approximately up to age 10-11 years old. Naturally also weight grows too. So Felix should be growing a bit more compared to Taquka, but obviously it is and will be clearly smaller in future too.
Zoo gave weights from this April and Taquka was 410 kg (app. 904 lbs) and Felix 244 kg (app. 538 lbs). Good to notice, that these are weights after hibernation quite early spring. These two are very interesting pair to observe also in future.
For those, who are interested to think about situation in Amur region, Felix is subspecies which is quite comparable with Ussuri brown bears overall. Maybe biggest bears in Ussuri area are bigger than Eurasian cousins, but in average, they are quite close each others. Biggest Eurasian brown bears are also about 400 kg before hibernation. Seeing how Kodiak bear dwarfes reasonable sized Eurasian brown bear like this is quite astonishing (imo). When Felix is alone, it doesn´t look like small at all :)
07-30-2019, 12:04 AM( This post was last modified: 07-30-2019, 03:25 AM by Shadow )
This photo is from zoo Orsa Björnparken, Sweden. This is interesting way to show to people sizes of two of their bears.
Left are silhouettes of Kamchatka brown bear, Peter the Great and on right Eurasian brown bear Norbert. As you can see, Kodiak bears aren´t only giants among bears. These are both residents of Orsa Björnparken.
Here figures, which are told in information tables of these bears:
Peter: Weight 570 kg (1257 lbs), height on hind legs 3 meters 10 cm (10 ft 2,05 inches), shoulder height 1 meter 55 cm (5 ft 1 inch) body length 260 cm (8 ft 6,36 inches)
Norbert: Weight 250 kg (551 lbs), height on hind legs 2 meters 10 cm (6 ft 10,68 inches), shoulder height 1 meter 5 cm (3 ft 3,34 inches) body length 160 cm (5 ft 3 inches)
This is a bit unfair comparison I have to say, because this Kamchatka bear is a really big boy, then again Norbert seems to be smallish Eurasian, they can be after all even 250 cm tall on hind legs, which is 8 ft 2,45 inches. Still this is a pair, which could meet also in wild in Russian far east if some Kamchatka bear makes a trip to inland. Brown bear males can travel several hundreds of kilometers especially when rutting time in summer. Naturally same when thinking about Alaskan peninsula brown bears and inland grizzlies.
I have seen some sources saying, that in heaviest condition Peter would have been 900 kg (1984 lbs), but about that I try to find more information. Anyway that 570 kg is direct information from the zoo (no idea yet if spring or autumn weight, but with that frame it could be spring weight, that bear is simply huge, bigger than for instance famous original Bart the Bear and naturally clearly bigger than Bart II.
I think, that these silhouettes are excellent way to show the size difference so, that people can really understand it.
*This image is copyright of its original author
In this photo seems to be some man, maybe 180 cm, about 6 feet tall, my quick estimation comparing himself to Peter the Great silhouette :)
*This image is copyright of its original author
And a woman at almost same place.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
Kamchatka bears Peter the Great and Sofia sitting in the pond, Orsa Björnparken June 14th 2013.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Peter the Great, October 2014
*This image is copyright of its original author
June 2016, Norbert should be one of the males in the rear enclosure.
Me holding two adult leopard skulls - a male (the large one) and a female. A great example of the range of variation of the metric and morphological parameters of a single species. The female is from Ethiopian Highlands , the male is captive , African.
08-24-2019, 03:14 PM( This post was last modified: 08-24-2019, 03:57 PM by Luipaard )
From The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society by W. S. Millard and R. A. Spence (date of publication 1st July 1920) (source)
RECORD PANTHER SKULL (F. PARDUS.)
Through Mr. Eugene J. Van Ingen, the Society recently received the skull of a Panther which in dimension easily establishes a record for India. The animal was obtained by Mr. E. E. Limouzin of Dunsandle Estate, Ootacamund, in the Water Fall Shola.
In forwarding the skull Mr. Van Ingen writes:-
"I send here with the skull and ribs of a Panther (?). As the skull seems abnormally large and more like a tiger's, I should be extremely obliged, if you would examine it and tell me whether it is a tiger's or a panther's.
I may mention that the owner, Mr. E. E. Limouzin of Dunsandli Estate, Ootacamund, declares it to be a Panther's but yet is not quite sure about it. While out shooting he caught a glimpse of the animal, late in the evening about dusk, and wounded and lost it. It was found some days afterwards but by then decomposition had set in and vultures and jackals had destroyed the skin; the skeleton and skull remained together with strips of skin, and Mr. Limouzin examined what he found of the latter carefully and is positive the animal is a panther.
Yet I think the skull seems to be quite out of proportion with the ribs and Mr. L. remarked the same. He tells me that he had seen this panther previously on several occasions, and had examined him through his glasses and though his head and fore quarters seemed to be extremely large and powerfully built, the body and hind quarters seemed to dwindle away! Before this, in fact almost a year ago, Col. W. told me that he had seen a panther a few miles from Dunsandli, and he described its head, chest and forearms to have been enormous. It was standing on a rock 20 yards away looking down at him and Col. W., who has shot many panthers, claimed it to be the largest he had ever seen. He quite believes this animal of Mr. Limouzin to be the one seen by him.
Another reason Mr. Limouzin gives by which he is positive is that a few minutes previous to coming on to the Panther he heard the unmistakable call of a panther.
I much regret that I did not send you on of the claws, nearly all of which Mr. Lisonzin recovered. They are quite the size of a large tigress. As regards the skull, in the course of my profession I have seen many panther skulls; many of them belonging to animals well of 7 ft. but none anywhere approaching this one in size."
Writing later Mr. Limouzin says: By to-day's Mail I have sent the entire skeleton of the panther to your care (with the exception of one rib, smashed to bits by the bullet and another rib, broken, possibly by the explosion internally). Before I fired at the panther I was very much struck with the extraordinary size of his head and shoulders, he appeared to be immense, but unfortunately he jumped aside and I was only able to get a "snapshot" at his side going down hill, from me."
The skull sent is undoubtedly that of an adult Panther. The skull sent in by Mr. Van Ingen measures as follows:-
*This image is copyright of its original author
The largest speciment in the Society's collection measures 8.3" in basal length and is 5.9" wide across the zygomata. This animal is taped 7'.3".
Blandford in his Mammalia, writing on the points of distinction between the skulls of Tigers and Panthers say:-
"The upper surface of the skull (Panther) is arched as in the Tiger, but the lower jaw is convex beneath, as in the Lion, the cordyle being proportionately nearer the angle even than in the latter. When a Leopard's skull, with the mandible attached, is placed on a flat surface, the hinder part of the skull almost always touched that surface".
We publish for comparison a photograph of Mr. Limouzin's panther together with a photo of a tiger's skull and that of the largest Panther skull in the Society's collection. Also a Lion's skull.
08-24-2019, 04:51 PM( This post was last modified: 08-24-2019, 10:20 PM by BorneanTiger )
(08-24-2019, 03:14 PM)Luipaard Wrote: From The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society by W. S. Millard and R. A. Spence (date of publication 1st July 1920) (source)
RECORD PANTHER SKULL (F. PARDUS.)
Through Mr. Eugene J. Van Ingen, the Society recently received the skull of a Panther which in dimension easily establishes a record for India. The animal was obtained by Mr. E. E. Limouzin of Dunsandle Estate, Ootacamund, in the Water Fall Shola.
In forwarding the skull Mr. Van Ingen writes:-
"I send here with the skull and ribs of a Panther (?). As the skull seems abnormally large and more like a tiger's, I should be extremely obliged, if you would examine it and tell me whether it is a tiger's or a panther's.
I may mention that the owner, Mr. E. E. Limouzin of Dunsandli Estate, Ootacamund, declares it to be a Panther's but yet is not quite sure about it. While out shooting he caught a glimpse of the animal, late in the evening about dusk, and wounded and lost it. It was found some days afterwards but by then decomposition had set in and vultures and jackals had destroyed the skin; the skeleton and skull remained together with strips of skin, and Mr. Limouzin examined what he found of the latter carefully and is positive the animal is a panther.
Yet I think the skull seems to be quite out of proportion with the ribs and Mr. L. remarked the same. He tells me that he had seen this panther previously on several occasions, and had examined him through his glasses and though his head and fore quarters seemed to be extremely large and powerfully built, the body and hind quarters seemed to dwindle away! Before this, in fact almost a year ago, Col. W. told me that he had seen a panther a few miles from Dunsandli, and he described its head, chest and forearms to have been enormous. It was standing on a rock 20 yards away looking down at him and Col. W., who has shot many panthers, claimed it to be the largest he had ever seen. He quite believes this animal of Mr. Limouzin to be the one seen by him.
Another reason Mr. Limouzin gives by which he is positive is that a few minutes previous to coming on to the Panther he heard the unmistakable call of a panther.
I much regret that I did not send you on of the claws, nearly all of which Mr. Lisonzin recovered. They are quite the size of a large tigress. As regards the skull, in the course of my profession I have seen many panther skulls; many of them belonging to animals well of 7 ft. but none anywhere approaching this one in size."
Writing later Mr. Limouzin says: By to-day's Mail I have sent the entire skeleton of the panther to your care (with the exception of one rib, smashed to bits by the bullet and another rib, broken, possibly by the explosion internally). Before I fired at the panther I was very much struck with the extraordinary size of his head and shoulders, he appeared to be immense, but unfortunately he jumped aside and I was only able to get a "snapshot" at his side going down hill, from me."
The skull sent is undoubtedly that of an adult Panther. The skull sent in by Mr. Van Ingen measures as follows:-
*This image is copyright of its original author
The largest speciment in the Society's collection measures 8.3" in basal length and is 5.9" wide across the zygomata. This animal is taped 7'.3".
Blandford in his Mammalia, writing on the points of distinction between the skulls of Tigers and Panthers say:-
"The upper surface of the skull (Panther) is arched as in the Tiger, but the lower jaw is convex beneath, as in the Lion, the cordyle being proportionately nearer the angle even than in the latter. When a Leopard's skull, with the mandible attached, is placed on a flat surface, the hinder part of the skull almost always touched that surface".
We publish for comparison a photograph of Mr. Limouzin's panther together with a photo of a tiger's skull and that of the largest Panther skull in the Society's collection. Also a Lion's skull.
*This image is copyright of its original author
IMO, this account adds credibility to Alfred Edward Pease's assertion that in the Atlas Mountains of the Maghreb (Northwest Africa), there were ferocious black panthers that were much bigger and more powerful than regular leopards, and about the same size as the Barbary lion, pages 55–56:
(08-24-2019, 03:14 PM)Luipaard Wrote: From The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society by W. S. Millard and R. A. Spence (date of publication 1st July 1920) (source)
RECORD PANTHER SKULL (F. PARDUS.)
Through Mr. Eugene J. Van Ingen, the Society recently received the skull of a Panther which in dimension easily establishes a record for India. The animal was obtained by Mr. E. E. Limouzin of Dunsandle Estate, Ootacamund, in the Water Fall Shola.
In forwarding the skull Mr. Van Ingen writes:-
"I send here with the skull and ribs of a Panther (?). As the skull seems abnormally large and more like a tiger's, I should be extremely obliged, if you would examine it and tell me whether it is a tiger's or a panther's.
I may mention that the owner, Mr. E. E. Limouzin of Dunsandli Estate, Ootacamund, declares it to be a Panther's but yet is not quite sure about it. While out shooting he caught a glimpse of the animal, late in the evening about dusk, and wounded and lost it. It was found some days afterwards but by then decomposition had set in and vultures and jackals had destroyed the skin; the skeleton and skull remained together with strips of skin, and Mr. Limouzin examined what he found of the latter carefully and is positive the animal is a panther.
Yet I think the skull seems to be quite out of proportion with the ribs and Mr. L. remarked the same. He tells me that he had seen this panther previously on several occasions, and had examined him through his glasses and though his head and fore quarters seemed to be extremely large and powerfully built, the body and hind quarters seemed to dwindle away! Before this, in fact almost a year ago, Col. W. told me that he had seen a panther a few miles from Dunsandli, and he described its head, chest and forearms to have been enormous. It was standing on a rock 20 yards away looking down at him and Col. W., who has shot many panthers, claimed it to be the largest he had ever seen. He quite believes this animal of Mr. Limouzin to be the one seen by him.
Another reason Mr. Limouzin gives by which he is positive is that a few minutes previous to coming on to the Panther he heard the unmistakable call of a panther.
I much regret that I did not send you on of the claws, nearly all of which Mr. Lisonzin recovered. They are quite the size of a large tigress. As regards the skull, in the course of my profession I have seen many panther skulls; many of them belonging to animals well of 7 ft. but none anywhere approaching this one in size."
Writing later Mr. Limouzin says: By to-day's Mail I have sent the entire skeleton of the panther to your care (with the exception of one rib, smashed to bits by the bullet and another rib, broken, possibly by the explosion internally). Before I fired at the panther I was very much struck with the extraordinary size of his head and shoulders, he appeared to be immense, but unfortunately he jumped aside and I was only able to get a "snapshot" at his side going down hill, from me."
The skull sent is undoubtedly that of an adult Panther. The skull sent in by Mr. Van Ingen measures as follows:-
*This image is copyright of its original author
The largest speciment in the Society's collection measures 8.3" in basal length and is 5.9" wide across the zygomata. This animal is taped 7'.3".
Blandford in his Mammalia, writing on the points of distinction between the skulls of Tigers and Panthers say:-
"The upper surface of the skull (Panther) is arched as in the Tiger, but the lower jaw is convex beneath, as in the Lion, the cordyle being proportionately nearer the angle even than in the latter. When a Leopard's skull, with the mandible attached, is placed on a flat surface, the hinder part of the skull almost always touched that surface".
We publish for comparison a photograph of Mr. Limouzin's panther together with a photo of a tiger's skull and that of the largest Panther skull in the Society's collection. Also a Lion's skull.
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Luipaard
Great find thanks for your valuable information
08-24-2019, 10:00 PM( This post was last modified: 08-24-2019, 10:40 PM by Shadow )
(08-24-2019, 04:51 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote:
(08-24-2019, 03:14 PM)Luipaard Wrote: From The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society by W. S. Millard and R. A. Spence (date of publication 1st July 1920) (source)
RECORD PANTHER SKULL (F. PARDUS.)
Through Mr. Eugene J. Van Ingen, the Society recently received the skull of a Panther which in dimension easily establishes a record for India. The animal was obtained by Mr. E. E. Limouzin of Dunsandle Estate, Ootacamund, in the Water Fall Shola.
In forwarding the skull Mr. Van Ingen writes:-
"I send here with the skull and ribs of a Panther (?). As the skull seems abnormally large and more like a tiger's, I should be extremely obliged, if you would examine it and tell me whether it is a tiger's or a panther's.
I may mention that the owner, Mr. E. E. Limouzin of Dunsandli Estate, Ootacamund, declares it to be a Panther's but yet is not quite sure about it. While out shooting he caught a glimpse of the animal, late in the evening about dusk, and wounded and lost it. It was found some days afterwards but by then decomposition had set in and vultures and jackals had destroyed the skin; the skeleton and skull remained together with strips of skin, and Mr. Limouzin examined what he found of the latter carefully and is positive the animal is a panther.
Yet I think the skull seems to be quite out of proportion with the ribs and Mr. L. remarked the same. He tells me that he had seen this panther previously on several occasions, and had examined him through his glasses and though his head and fore quarters seemed to be extremely large and powerfully built, the body and hind quarters seemed to dwindle away! Before this, in fact almost a year ago, Col. W. told me that he had seen a panther a few miles from Dunsandli, and he described its head, chest and forearms to have been enormous. It was standing on a rock 20 yards away looking down at him and Col. W., who has shot many panthers, claimed it to be the largest he had ever seen. He quite believes this animal of Mr. Limouzin to be the one seen by him.
Another reason Mr. Limouzin gives by which he is positive is that a few minutes previous to coming on to the Panther he heard the unmistakable call of a panther.
I much regret that I did not send you on of the claws, nearly all of which Mr. Lisonzin recovered. They are quite the size of a large tigress. As regards the skull, in the course of my profession I have seen many panther skulls; many of them belonging to animals well of 7 ft. but none anywhere approaching this one in size."
Writing later Mr. Limouzin says: By to-day's Mail I have sent the entire skeleton of the panther to your care (with the exception of one rib, smashed to bits by the bullet and another rib, broken, possibly by the explosion internally). Before I fired at the panther I was very much struck with the extraordinary size of his head and shoulders, he appeared to be immense, but unfortunately he jumped aside and I was only able to get a "snapshot" at his side going down hill, from me."
The skull sent is undoubtedly that of an adult Panther. The skull sent in by Mr. Van Ingen measures as follows:-
*This image is copyright of its original author
The largest speciment in the Society's collection measures 8.3" in basal length and is 5.9" wide across the zygomata. This animal is taped 7'.3".
Blandford in his Mammalia, writing on the points of distinction between the skulls of Tigers and Panthers say:-
"The upper surface of the skull (Panther) is arched as in the Tiger, but the lower jaw is convex beneath, as in the Lion, the cordyle being proportionately nearer the angle even than in the latter. When a Leopard's skull, with the mandible attached, is placed on a flat surface, the hinder part of the skull almost always touched that surface".
We publish for comparison a photograph of Mr. Limouzin's panther together with a photo of a tiger's skull and that of the largest Panther skull in the Society's collection. Also a Lion's skull.
*This image is copyright of its original author
IMO, this accountadds credibility to Alfred Edward Pease's assertion that in the Atlas Mountains of the Maghreb (Northwest Africa), there were ferocious black panthers that were much bigger and more powerful than regular leopards, and about the same size as the Barbary lion, pages 55–56:
One is that when someone has been comparing Atlas leopards to lions, that has to be when comparing lionesses and leopards. A big leopard frame can be impressive as silhouette, but that is just part of the truth. For instance that leopard from India, which they considered to show to Guinness Book of Records people, was said to be only 71 kg. Any lion weighing that little would be close to death by starvation. I wonder what happened, was it checked by people of Guinness?
What comes to that comparison picture, Atlas lion, bear and leopard... it is good to know, that Atlas bears were considered to be quite reasonable sized bears, up to 450 kg and even 9 feet tall. So even if there would have been some exceptional lions back in history, that picture looks very odd. Maybe artist used bear cub to make that comparison picture :)
Then here is one video, which shows many Atlas leopards, interesting to watch for people who like to get better image about size of those. I was surprised to find that good video with good quality photos, easy to stop video and look closer. Maybe there has been some bigger individuals, but I didn´t see anything "supersized" in these photos though.
08-25-2019, 09:23 PM( This post was last modified: 08-27-2019, 12:20 AM by chui_ )
Hello all, I’ve largely stayed away from the online world of zoological discussion for the past couple of years but I occasionally browse through the forums. Since there was some discussion on topics which interest me in the previous few pages I thought I would help clarify some things especially since I’m seeing a lot of stuff from my old posts from the Carnivora forum being posted here.
(07-16-2019, 04:58 AM)peter Wrote: Reliable data say adult male jaguars of large subspecies are a bit longer than adult male leopards of large subspecies in head and body. Seen from the perspective of leopards, jaguars seem to be about 10% longer. In weight, however, the difference is outspoken. Male jaguars of large subspecies average 95-105 kg., whereas male leopards of large subspecies average 60-65 kg., maybe a bit more in some regions. Seen from the perspective of male leopards of large subspecies, male jaguars of large subspecies are at least 50% heavier.
In the skull department, the differences between adult male leopards of large subspecies (about 240-245 mm.) and adult male jaguars or large subspecies (about 290 mm.) also is significant (about 20%). Using the info we have (see above), one could say male jaguars of large subspecies, compared to male leopards of large subspecies, have relatively long skulls for their head and body length and be right.
Some points to consider since you bring up perspective.
Male leopards of around 60-65kg are pretty standard for many parts of the species range - most of Southern Africa, many parts of East Africa, most of western Asia, most of India, and probably some other regions from where we don’t have much data. Higher mean weights can probably be expected from the best areas (Northern Iran, Coastal Gabon, North/East Congo, Rift Valley highlands etc).
On the other hand, a 95-105kg jaguar would be a pretty big one for most of that species range. It’s only in 2 specific locations where male jaguars average within this range, the Pantanal and the Llanos. Both these areas are especially prey rich and jaguars in both also frequently hunt domestic cattle which provide easy meals. These largest of jaguars have had lots and lots of data recorded on their size – we have much more data on the size of Pantanal jaguars than those from other regions – even though they are the exception not the rule. The same is not true of data on the size of leopards (little data on weights has been recorded for what are probably the biggest leopards based on skull size).
I am in no way suggesting that leopards can match or approach the biggest jaguars in size and of course even the more typical male jaguars of around 80-85kg from much of South America still considerably outweigh the average 60-65kg male leopards from many parts of Africa and Asia. But comparing fairly standard (widely occurring) leopards with the pinnacle Pantanal jaguar as people often do exaggerates the difference. To put things in perspective, we could go to various different parts of Africa and Asia and find plenty of 60kg+ leopards but you're going to struggle to find 100kg+ jaguars outside the swamps and cattle ranches of the Pantanal and the Llanos (Tony Almeida goes further by stating in his book that 100kg would be an extreme weight for a jaguar outside the swamps - but I think this is too conservative).
Quote:b - Skull photographs - a large male leopard and an average-sized male jaguar side by side
In 2012, I visited the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart twice. On both occasions, I was there for a week to measure and photograph skulls of big cats. Poster 'Wanderfalke', living close to Stuttgart, assisted when he had time. He's the one who made the photographs.
The Staatliches Museum had 7 jaguar skulls. All skulls belonged to wild jaguars. The 3 male skulls were from Surinam, Argentina and Bolivia. The skull from Surinam, although short and not as heavy as the others, had the most massive upper canines. In this respect, it compared to many lion and tiger skulls. I selected the Bolivian skull for the photograph, because it is the longest (279,27 mm.).
As a result of a lack of time, I wasn't able to measure all leopard skulls. Of the 34 skulls I measured, 24 were male skulls. Of these, 12 belonged to leopards shot in what was then German East Africa (Tanzania today). The longest is 221,47 mm. in greatest total length. Of the 12 others, the skull of a leopard from the western part of Central Africa is the largest. That skull, collected a long time ago, has a greatest total length of 243,94 mm.
Here's a photograph showing the longest male jaguar skull (right) and the longest male leopard skull next to each other:
The skull of the male jaguar, missing a part of the right arch, is wider (188,34 mm. versus 149,51 mm.) and more elevated at the orbit (147,20 mm. versus 110,02 mm.). The rostrum is significantly wider as well (81,24 mm. versus 59,81 mm.). As a result, the skull of the male jaguar is almost twice as heavy (0,970 kg. versus 0,585 kg.). The skull of the male jaguar was cleaned (cooked), whereas the skull of the leopard was not. The real difference in weight, therefore, is even more outspoken. Most of the canines of the leopard, on the other hand, are missing.
I have to add that the skull of the male leopard was heavier than all other leopard skulls, whereas the skull of the male jaguar wasn't the heaviest I saw. The skull from Argentina, although a bit shorter, was 0,997 kg.
Based on what I have, I'd say that skulls of leopards from the western part of Central Africa are more robust than skulls of leopards from other parts of Africa. They're a bit lower at the orbit, but often have relatively large mandibulas and heavy teeth.
Most unfortunately, I never saw leopard skulls exceeding 250 mm. in greatest total length in European natural history museums. They seem to be few and far between.
Interesting comparison Peter but your leopard skull is hardly representative of big male leopards. You may not have seen any, but there are numerous male leopard skulls recorded by scientific sources measuring 250mm or more in total length. From a total of around 200 or so adult male skulls from across the leopard’s range whose measurements have been documented, around 60 exceed the size of the skull you’ve used for your comparison. Such big skulls seem pretty standard for some areas.
Here is a list I composed some time ago of the 20 biggest scientifically recorded leopard skulls (of about 17" or more total score) I was aware of. There are 2 additional skulls from Per Christiansen's data from his 2012 paper on the sexual dimorphism in smilodon and pantherine skulls - skull BM1958.11.20 from the London Natural History Museum which had a CBL of 236.9mm and ZW of 174.5mm, and also skull ZMB56448 from the Berlin Museum with CBL of 243.2mm and ZW of 166.4mm - both of these would have greatest lengths well over 250mm and total scores above 17" but I don't know their full details.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:Luipaard said there is some overlap in the department of skulls. More accurately, he said exceptional skulls of male leopards living in regions where leopards grow to a large size could compare to skulls of average-sized male jaguars living in regions where jaguars grow to a large size.
The question is if he has a point. The answer is it depends on the perspective.
If we use elevation (height at the orbit), weight, zygomatic width, rostrum width and the length and diameter of the upper canines as indicators, the answer is no. If we use condylobasal and total length as indicators, the answer is yes. Exceptional leopard skulls can be as long as average-sized skulls of male jaguars living in regions with good conditions.
Have to disagree here, a look at published data suggests yes they can be comparable in those measurements, although in terms of canines and the rostrum just barely. Again, I am talking about the biggest/most impressive leopard skulls compared to average sized adult male skulls of the large varieties of jaguars. The main point to remember is that the leopard is more variable than the jaguar in its skull and overall morphology.
The biggest leopard skulls can certainly overlap with adult male Pantanal jaguar skulls in terms of zygomatic width. The broadest leopard skulls from scientific sources (see the chart above) are over 180mm in width, the broadest is 191mm from Iran and 2 others from the Congo are 186mm (and additional 4 others also over 180mm). For comparison, 6 adult male jaguar skulls from the Pantanal measured by George Schallar ranged from 181 to 200mm in zygmatic width, with a mean of 188mm.
Zygomatic width measurements from George Schallar's paper, Jaguar predation on capybara 1978.
*This image is copyright of its original author
In terms of skull weight, data is pretty limited to provide any indepth comparison but we know leopard skulls certainly get well over 595g. Peter Turnbull-Kemp recorded a weight of 1lb 15.75oz (900g) for a huge leopard skull and considered anything over 1lb 10oz (737g) as heavy. His figures refer to properly dried skulls. A huge skull (282x 181mm) from Gabon measured by both RI Pocock and Rowland Ward weighed 1lb 12oz (794g). This skull according to Pocock’s assessment was from an adult but not old specimen judging from tooth wear and presence of some sutures (skulls tend to get heavier and more massive with age). Male jaguar skulls will probably be heavier at similar overall size (length+width) in most cases but the available data suggests the biggest male leopard skulls can be comparable at around 900 grams.
Some info on the measurements of leopards from Peter Turnbull-Kemp's book, "The Leopard" 1967. Info on skull weight in the last paragraph.
*This image is copyright of its original author
In terms of canine diameter, a quick look at Pocock’s and J.A. Allen’s papers shows male leopard skulls with anterior-posterior canine diameters of up to 21mm. The greatest canine anterior-posterior diameter recorded by Pocock was from a huge leopard skull from Kigezi Uganda at 21mm. Allen recorded measurements of 20.4mm and 20.8mm for two male leopard skulls from DR Congo. For comparison, 6 adult male South American jaguar skulls ranged from 20.7 to 22.8mm in canine diameter and 5 Central American adult male skulls ranged from 18.4 to 21.4mm (From Nelson and Goldman's 1933 paper, Revision of the Jaguars).
In terms of rostrum width, Persian leopards have the greatest measurements for leopards even compared to Central African skulls of similar or larger size. The single greatest I know of is 73.6mm from Iran, from unpublished data on Persian leopards. The greatest from Africa are around 66mm. For comparison the 6 adult male South American jaguar skulls ranged from 68.2 to 80mm and 5 from Central America from 63.8 to 74.5mm (again from Nelson and Goldman's paper).
08-25-2019, 09:37 PM( This post was last modified: 08-25-2019, 09:38 PM by Shadow )
(08-25-2019, 09:23 PM)chui_ Wrote: Hello all, I’ve largely stayed away from the online world of zoological discussion for the past couple of years but I occasionally browse through the forums. Since there was some discussion on topics which interest me in the previous few pages I thought I would help clarify some things especially since I’m seeing a lot of stuff from my old posts from the Carnivora forum being posted here.
(07-16-2019, 04:58 AM)peter Wrote: Reliable data say adult male jaguars of large subspecies are a bit longer than adult male leopards of large subspecies in head and body. Seen from the perspective of leopards, jaguars seem to be about 10% longer. In weight, however, the difference is outspoken. Male jaguars of large subspecies average 95-105 kg., whereas male leopards of large subspecies average 60-65 kg., maybe a bit more in some regions. Seen from the perspective of male leopards of large subspecies, male jaguars of large subspecies are at least 50% heavier.
In the skull department, the differences between adult male leopards of large subspecies (about 240-245 mm.) and adult male jaguars or large subspecies (about 290 mm.) also is significant (about 20%). Using the info we have (see above), one could say male jaguars of large subspecies, compared to male leopards of large subspecies, have relatively long skulls for their head and body length and be right.
Some points to consider since you bring up perspective.
Male leopards of around 60-65kg are pretty standard for many parts of the species range - most of Southern Africa, many parts of East Africa, most of western Asia, most of India, and probably some other regions from where we don’t have much data. Higher mean weights can probably be expected from the best areas (Northern Iran, Coastal Gabon, North/East Congo, Rift Valley highlands etc).
On the other hand, a 95-105kg jaguar would be a pretty big one for most of that species range. It’s only in 2 specific locations where male jaguars average within this range, the Pantanal and the Llanos. Both these areas are especially prey rich and jaguars in both also frequently hunt domestic cattle which provide easy meals. These largest of jaguars have had lots and lots of data recorded on their size – we have much more data on the size of Pantanal jaguars than those from other regions – even though they are the exception not the rule. The same is not true of data on the size of leopards (little data on weights has been recorded for what are probably the biggest leopards based on skull size).
I am in no way suggesting that leopards can match or approach the biggest jaguars in size and of course even the more typical male jaguars of around 80-85kg from much of South America still considerably outweigh the average 60-65kg male leopards from many parts of Africa and Asia. But comparing fairly standard (widely occurring) leopards with the pinnacle Pantanal jaguar as people often do exaggerates the difference. To put things in perspective, we could go to various different parts of Africa and Asia and find plenty of 60kg+ leopards but you're going to struggle to find 100kg+ jaguars outside the swamps and cattle ranches of the Pantanal and the Llanos (according to Tony Almeida 100kg would be an extreme weight for a jaguar outside the swamps).
Quote:b - Skull photographs - a large male leopard and an average-sized male jaguar side by side
In 2012, I visited the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart twice. On both occasions, I was there for a week to measure and photograph skulls of big cats. Poster 'Wanderfalke', living close to Stuttgart, assisted when he had time. He's the one who made the photographs.
The Staatliches Museum had 7 jaguar skulls. All skulls belonged to wild jaguars. The 3 male skulls were from Surinam, Argentina and Bolivia. The skull from Surinam, although short and not as heavy as the others, had the most massive upper canines. In this respect, it compared to many lion and tiger skulls. I selected the Bolivian skull for the photograph, because it is the longest (279,27 mm.).
As a result of a lack of time, I wasn't able to measure all leopard skulls. Of the 34 skulls I measured, 24 were male skulls. Of these, 12 belonged to leopards shot in what was then German East Africa (Tanzania today). The longest is 221,47 mm. in greatest total length. Of the 12 others, the skull of a leopard from the western part of Central Africa is the largest. That skull, collected a long time ago, has a greatest total length of 243,94 mm.
Here's a photograph showing the longest male jaguar skull (right) and the longest male leopard skull next to each other:
The skull of the male jaguar, missing a part of the right arch, is wider (188,34 mm. versus 149,51 mm.) and more elevated at the orbit (147,20 mm. versus 110,02 mm.). The rostrum is significantly wider as well (81,24 mm. versus 59,81 mm.). As a result, the skull of the male jaguar is almost twice as heavy (0,970 kg. versus 0,585 kg.). The skull of the male jaguar was cleaned (cooked), whereas the skull of the leopard was not. The real difference in weight, therefore, is even more outspoken. Most of the canines of the leopard, on the other hand, are missing.
I have to add that the skull of the male leopard was heavier than all other leopard skulls, whereas the skull of the male jaguar wasn't the heaviest I saw. The skull from Argentina, although a bit shorter, was 0,997 kg.
Based on what I have, I'd say that skulls of leopards from the western part of Central Africa are more robust than skulls of leopards from other parts of Africa. They're a bit lower at the orbit, but often have relatively large mandibulas and heavy teeth.
Most unfortunately, I never saw leopard skulls exceeding 250 mm. in greatest total length in European natural history museums. They seem to be few and far between.
Interesting comparison Peter but your leopard skull is hardly representative of big male leopards. You may not have seen any, but there are numerous male leopard skulls recorded by scientific sources measuring 250mm or more in total length. From a total of around 200 or so adult male skulls from across the leopard’s range whose measurements have been documented, around 60 exceed the size of the skull you’ve used for your comparison. Such big skulls seem pretty standard for some areas.
Here is a list I composed some time ago of the 20 biggest scientifically recorded leopard skulls (of about 17" or more total score) I was aware of. There are 2 additional skulls from Per Christiansen's data from his 2012 paper on the sexual dimorphism in smilodon and pantherine skulls - skull BM1958.11.20 from the London Natural History Museum which had a CBL of 236.9mm and ZW of 174.5mm, and also skull ZMB56448 from the Berlin Museum with CBL of 243.2mm and ZW of 166.4mm - both of these would have greatest lengths well over 250mm and total scores above 17" but I don't know their full details.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Quote:Luipaard said there is some overlap in the department of skulls. More accurately, he said exceptional skulls of male leopards living in regions where leopards grow to a large size could compare to skulls of average-sized male jaguars living in regions where jaguars grow to a large size.
The question is if he has a point. The answer is it depends on the perspective.
If we use elevation (height at the orbit), weight, zygomatic width, rostrum width and the length and diameter of the upper canines as indicators, the answer is no. If we use condylobasal and total length as indicators, the answer is yes. Exceptional leopard skulls can be as long as average-sized skulls of male jaguars living in regions with good conditions.
Have to disagree here, a look at published data suggests yes they can be comparable in those measurements, although in terms of canines and the rostrum just barely. Again, I am talking about the biggest/most impressive leopard skulls compared to similar sized adult male jaguar skulls. The main point to remember is that the leopard is more variable than the jaguar in its skull and overall morphology.
The biggest leopard skulls can certainly compare with average adult male Pantanal jaguar skulls in terms of zygomatic width. The broadest leopard skulls from scientific sources (see the chart above) are over 180mm in width, the broadest is 191mm from Iran and 2 others from the Congo at 186mm (and additional 4 others also over 180mm). For comparison, 6 adult male jaguar skulls from the Pantanal measured by George Schallar ranged from 181 to 200mm in zygmatic width, with a mean of 188mm.
Zygomatic width measurements from George Schallar's paper, Jaguar predation on capybara 1978.
*This image is copyright of its original author
In terms of skull weight, data is pretty limited to provide any indepth comparison but we know leopard skulls certainly get well over 595g. Peter Turnbull-Kemp recorded a weight of 1lb 15.75oz (900g) for a huge leopard skull and considered anything over 1lb 10oz (737g) as heavy. His figures refer to properly dried skulls. A huge skull (282x 182mm) from Gabon measured by both RI Pocock and Rowland Ward weighed 1lb 12oz (794g). This skull according to Pocock’s assessment was from an adult but not old specimen as it had unworn teeth and some sutures still present (skulls tend to get heavier and more massive with age). Male jaguar skulls will probably be heavier at similar overall size (length+width) in most cases but the available data suggests the biggest male leopard skulls can be comparable at around 900 grams.
Some info on the measurements of leopards from Peter Turnbull-Kemp's book, "The Leopard" 1967. Info on skull weight in the last paragraph.
*This image is copyright of its original author
In terms of canine diameter, a quick look at Pocock’s and J.A. Allen’s papers shows male leopard skulls with anterior-posterior canine diameters of up to 21mm. The greatest canine anterior-posterior diameter recorded by Pocock was from a huge leopard skull from Kigezi Uganda at 21mm. Allen recorded measurements of 20.4mm and 20.8mm for two male leopard skulls from DR Congo. For comparison, 6 adult male South American jaguar skulls ranged from 20.7 to 22.8mm in canine diameter and 5 Central American adult male skulls ranged from 18.4 to 21.4mm (From Nelson and Goldman's 1933 paper, Revision of the Jaguars).
In terms of rostrum width, Persian leopards have the greatest measurements for leopards even compared to Central African skulls of similar or larger size. The single greatest I know of is 73.6mm from Iran, from unpublished data on Persian leopards. The greatest from Africa are around 66mm. For comparison the 6 adult male South American jaguar skulls paper ranged from 68.2 to 80mm and 5 from Central America from 63.8 to 74.5mm (again from Nelson and Goldman's paper).
Nice to see carefully written postings. You mentioned in a way one aspect which has been missing all the time in this skull discussion and you did it by mentioning weight. I find it a bit disturbing, that all the time only with and length are compared, when talking about animals, which look as different as jaguars and leopards, when putting side by side. Skull is 3-dimensional, not 2-dimensional.
So what is height difference is one key factor in this comparison, imo. What is volume of these skulls. Jaguars head usually looks clearly more robust when comparing to leopard.
Anyway very good if something new comes up and/or some issues can be cleared a bit.
08-25-2019, 09:56 PM( This post was last modified: 08-26-2019, 09:51 AM by chui_ )
(07-15-2019, 07:56 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: I will add something in this point. I had a direct conversation with Dr Hoogesteijn about the weight of the large jaguar of 148 kg. He mention that he used bait to capture him, so I told him that probably the weight of the animal was between 130 - 140 kg, however he corrected me and he told me that they used chickens to attract the jaguars so he personally told me that the amount eat by the jaguar was only about 4-5 kg, so the empty belly weight of that Pantanal jaguar was probably of no less than 143 kg, based on this evidence. As far I know, this is still the scientific record of any jaguar in the world.
In my exchange with Dr Hoogensteijn he stated that the huge 148kg jaguar had approx 10-15kg of meat in the stomach which would indicate an empty stomach weight of around 133-138kg (around 300lbs basically). The capture of this jaguar was also recorded on video which was on youtube where the researchers clearly state he appeared fat, having just eaten, although not fully gorged. Given that observation and what we know about the weights of jaguars, an empty stomach weight of 143kg seems unlikely IMO.
*This image is copyright of its original author
In any case, a jaguar of 130kg or more should be considered very exceptional considering it will be over 30% heavier than the mean for the largest populations, equivalent to a 260kg+ lion. It’s important to note that the most comprehensive data on the weights of Pantanal jaguars comes from Tony Almeida, who measured nearly 50 adult male jaguars over a span of 2 decades in the Pantanal yet none of them reached 130kgs. He was particularly careful with important variables such as stomach content, accuracy of the weighing scale, and weighing the animal immediately after death.
Quote:On the leopard side, we have may samples from many countries, to be fair the sample from Central Africa is very poor and large skulls from the area suggest big animals, but are not bigger than those from Persia region. Leopards from 90 kg has been reported from South Africa, but included stomach content (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002) and as far I know the heaviest leopards came from Iran with a maximum of 91 kg. I don't know if they bait the leopards to be honest, but remember that they can also use the snare method to campture them. Dr Farhadinia says that based in his studies the leopards of Iran are the largest of the world in this moment. From here came the record of the leopard of 115 kg which was exceptional in any sence as any leopard in hunting or sceintific records, reached that weight, but if includes stomach contect or not, it is not reported and I see that some people do not belive on it, althought it was confirmed by scientists. If we use the scientific records as base, between 70 to 80 kg is already a large male leopard and few animals surpass that range, if we exclude stomach content. I have a record from a leopard in India of over 80 kg, but Dr Atreya says that includes stomach content. The heaviest leopard on records, appart from the big male from Iran, is a male from Namibia that weighed 96 kg, apparently with no stomach content (Brain, 1981). From a sample of 77 males of diferent areas the heaviest male was of 71.3 kg from Zimbabwe, but to be fair the figures of Kruger NP just includes averages and the extremes, which I rememeber was more than 70 kg.
The part in the Sunquists' book about 90kg leopards was in reference to Peter Turnbull-Kemp's statement (in fact the same page I posted in my above post) - he stated that he was aware of 7 records of leopards recorded at over 200lbs which he considered reliable but that only one was confirmed to be with empty stomach, 3 had at least some food in the stomach, and no info was available on the stomach content of the remaining 3. No where did he say that any of these leopards were from South Africa or that South African leopards are particularly big. The biggest leopard he ever saw was actually from Cameroon at 8'5" long between pegs but was not weighed it seems. His opinion was that leopards are biggest in the equatorial forests of Africa (he worked as a game warden in Nigeria, Sudan, South Africa, and Zimbabwe). Also note that his book is from 1967 - a lot more data on the weights of leopards has been recorded since of course (for example the 211lb live Namibian leopard and the 204lb hunted leopard from Mount Kenya were recorded after his book) .
A lot of the leopards in the published sample (mean 65.8kg, n21) from Iran were not live captured animals but were actually leopards which were found killed - caught in poachers snares, shot by farmers, killed in road kills etc. So capturing method is mostly irrelevant. IMO the 115kg weight is probably an error but it doesn't really matter because it was excluded from the dataset anyway by Dr Farhadinia.
Not sure about his exact height, but here he is with 5'7"-5'8" Joe Rogan
*This image is copyright of its original author
@Luipaard and @BorneanTiger For this video at 0:53, Joe asks whether Leopards are bigger than Jaguars, and Forrest mentions that Leopards are bigger rather than clarifying the difference of subspecies.
This lead to the typical "Actually Jaguars are bigger" comments there, as well as people questioning Forrest's knowledge in biology.
