There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
04-29-2022, 12:00 AM( This post was last modified: 04-29-2022, 02:07 AM by LonePredator )
(04-28-2022, 11:54 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-28-2022, 09:07 PM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I found something more, Tigers are NOT proportionally longer in length. The average 118kg Sumatran Tiger is 162cm in head-body length while a 104.5kg Llanos Jaguar is 156.5cm in head-body length.
Source: Guate Table for Sumatrans and Sunquist & Sunquist for Jaguars.
Which means Tigers are 2cm SHORTER than Jaguars in body length at weight parity but the difference is negligible. A Jaguar of the same head-body length as a Sumatran Tiger (162cm) will only be 115.9kg in weight while a Sumatran Tiger of the same body length is 118kg in weight so both have roughly equal body length for their size.
I have plenty of 110-130kg jaguars with measurements included, there’s no need to guess. I’ll provide them tomorrow. Also if you’re comparing averages to a single individual that’s not an accurate comparison.
First of all, I am comparing average Sumatran to average Jaguar.
And no! Your comparison is inaccurate. The average Jaguar has a proportionally longer body length than the average Sumatran Tiger, ‘pound for pound’.
No need for your 120-130kg Jaguars because that specimen does NOT represent the average Jaguar. Those 120-130kg Jaguars are much more bulky or fat than normal Jaguars.
Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
There are even fat or muscular humans who are of average height but are much heavier than average human. But they do NOT represent the average morphology of a human. Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar.
04-29-2022, 12:29 AM( This post was last modified: 04-29-2022, 02:10 AM by LonePredator )
@Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
04-29-2022, 09:44 PM( This post was last modified: 04-29-2022, 10:14 PM by LonePredator )
(04-29-2022, 09:36 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
No! Everything you said is not true at all. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is pointless in itself.
And since when is average just a number? Average specimens are used to represent the whole group (in this case the whole species or the whole particular population of the species)
According to your logic even a 270kg Bengal Tiger should be more robust than a Smilodon Fatalis because the Tiger has achieved the same weight at a lesser shoulder height?
And you don’t understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER AND TALLER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions despite being as robust or more robust than Bengal Tigers.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand how even simple physics works.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
And also tell me how will you compare Jaguar to a South African Lion in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Tell me, how will you make that comparison? Jaguars don’t even reach the size of South African Lions so what will you do now?
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
No offense but there is no point in arguing with you when you don’t even understand what I’m talking about and don’t even understand what isometric scaling is.
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
There is nothing to debate, you have the actual weights and measurements presented.
And once again, Isometric scaling is used to estimate, it's not exact while you have actual weights and measurements that are exact.
You scaling the average Jaguar which you don't even know what average is, it sounds like to 120kgs is far less valid than using actual 120kg Jaguars.
Your claim about Tigers and Lions makes no sense.
Funny you mention Christiansen, he literally says the same about jaguars compared to other cats.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
04-29-2022, 10:28 PM( This post was last modified: 04-29-2022, 10:34 PM by LonePredator )
(04-29-2022, 10:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 09:44 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 09:36 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
There is nothing to debate, you have the actual weights and measurements presented.
And once again, Isometric scaling is used to estimate, it's not exact while you have actual weights and measurements that are exact.
You scaling the average Jaguar which you don't even know what average is, it sounds like to 120kgs is far less valid than using actual 120kg Jaguars.
Your claim about Tigers and Lions makes no sense.
Funny you mention Christiansen, he literally says the same about jaguars compared to other cats.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
No! A big 220kg HYPOTHETICAL Jaguar would be similar in proportions to a small Jaguar which means its a case of isometric scaling NOT allometric which would only be done when the large animal is completely different in proportions compared to the small animal.
Your comparison is totally pointless because you are comparing a bulkier, extra muscular Jaguar to the average Sumatran Tiger which is not the correct way to make such comparisons.
And it doesn’t matter, I still stand by my initial point. I’m sure the Sumatran tiger still has a stronger bite than those Jaguars but you don’t understand even simple physics.
Now you tell me, how will you compare the Jaguar to a South African Lion in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Answer this question now. You don’t have a Sumatran like Lion, do you? How will you compare these two in pound for pound then.
04-29-2022, 10:40 PM( This post was last modified: 04-29-2022, 10:46 PM by LonePredator )
(04-29-2022, 10:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 09:44 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 09:36 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
Allometric scaling how? Okay then show me. Make the comparison right here and let’s see how you do it.
I already showed you how a Jaguar when scaled to Tiger size will still have 12% weaker bite than the Tiger. Now you show me your version of the comparison.
You say that the average Jaguar has a ‘pound for pound’ stronger bite force than the average Bengal Tiger.
So the average Jaguar needs to be ISOMETRICALLY scaled to the size of the Tiger otherwise the proportions of the Jaguar will completely change and the resulting animal after scaling will not even have the morphology of an actual Jaguar.
This is basic common sense. You are comparing the morphology of Jaguars to the morphology of the Bengal Tiger and to keep the current morphology of the Jaguar intact, it should be scaled to the size of the Tiger ISOMETRICALLY.
04-29-2022, 11:00 PM( This post was last modified: 04-30-2022, 01:53 AM by Pckts )
(04-29-2022, 10:40 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 10:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 09:44 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 09:36 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
Allometric scaling how? You say that the average Jaguar has a ‘pound for pound’ stronger bite force than the average Bengal Tiger.
So the average Jaguar needs to be ISOMETRICALLY scaled to the size of the Tiger otherwise the proportions of the Jaguar will completely change and the resulting animal after scaling will not even have the morphology of an actual Jaguar.
This is basic common sense. You are comparing the morphology of Jaguars to the morphology of the Bengal Tiger.
So we're going back to bite force now?
We then agree at equal weights the Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder but heavier in body? *more often*
Allometric would still be better than Iso simply because the growth rate of these cats is not 1:1. Their morphology is different and as they put on weight their bodies don't grow the same. Like I said, a jaguars body holds more weight at smaller sizes, so if we were to make it "Tiger sized" you'd need to grow it's body piece by piece to accommodate that. The limbs may not grow at the same rate as the chest or neck, and the body length may not grow at the same rate as the shoulder height or head. It's an imperfect science.
In regards to Bite force, there are many factors that go into it.
Generally speaking, Sumatran Tigers have larger Skulls than Jaguars, but they are generally larger in size. Unfortunately we don't have much data on Sumatran Tiger Skull size to body weight.
Where as we have quite a bit of data on skull size to Jaguar weight up to 119kg empty.
But from the skull sizes I have seen, I'd say Sumatran Tigers top the list even at equal weights. It's very rare for a Jaguars skull to score 21'' or more where as Sumatran/Java Skulls can possibly score 23'' or more. Unfortunately those scores are just the highest totals of all the specimens used, not necessarily from the same individuals. Regardless though, if you did the same for Jaguars, they still wouldn't reach that size. So long story short, I think I agree that the Sumatran Tiger would probably have the higher bite force lb for lb between the two since weights are close but Skull is much more exaggerated in the Sumatran Tiger. Of course we can get in Rostrum Width, Mandible shape, canine curvature and density, Sagittal Crest shape and size as well are zygomatic arch shape. But if we keep it simple and just use surface areas and muscle attachment openings, I think the Sumatran Tiger is going to top the list.
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
Allometric scaling how? You say that the average Jaguar has a ‘pound for pound’ stronger bite force than the average Bengal Tiger.
So the average Jaguar needs to be ISOMETRICALLY scaled to the size of the Tiger otherwise the proportions of the Jaguar will completely change and the resulting animal after scaling will not even have the morphology of an actual Jaguar.
This is basic common sense. You are comparing the morphology of Jaguars to the morphology of the Bengal Tiger.
So where going back to bite force now?
We then agree at equal weights the Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder but heavier in body? *more often*
Allometric would still be better than Iso simply because the growth rate of these cats is not 1:1. Their morphology is different and as they put on weight their bodies don't grow the same. Like I said, a jaguars body holds more weight at smaller sizes, so if we were to make it "Tiger sized" you'd need to grow it's body piece by piece to accommodate that. The limbs may not grow at the same rate as the chest or neck, and the body length may not grow at the same rate as the shoulder height or head. It's an imperfect science.
In regards to Bite force, there are many factors that go into it.
Generally speaking, Sumatran Tigers have larger Skulls than Jaguars, but they are generally larger in size. Unfortunately we don't have much data on Sumatran Tiger Skull size to body weight.
Where as we have quite a bit of data on skull size to Jaguar weight up to 119kg empty.
But from the skull sizes I have seen, I'd say Sumatran Tigers top the list even at equal weights. It's very rare for a Jaguars skull to score 21'' or more where as Sumatran/Java Skulls can possibly score 23'' or more. Unfortunately those scores are just the highest totals of all the specimens used, not necessarily from the same individuals. Regardless though, if you did the same for Jaguars, they still wouldn't reach that size. So long story short, I think I agree that the Sumatran Tiger would probably have the higher bite force lb for lb between the two since weights are close but Skull is much more exaggerated in the Sumatran Tiger. Of course we can get in Rostrum Width, Mandible shape, canine curvature and density, Sagittal Crest shape and size as well are zygomatic arch shape. But if we keep it simple and just use surface areas and muscle attachment openings, I think the Sumatran Tiger is going to top the list.
No! I do not agree with you at all on the body length topic but since you won’t even listen to reason, there’s no reason to argue on it anymore.
And even Bengal Tiger will have stronger bite force even at equal weight. Please make the comparison for it. You talked about allometric scaling, didn’t you? (Allometric scaling won’t even apply to such cases)
But I already scaled the Jaguar with my equation and everything and I even calculated the bite force at equal weight and concluded that the Tiger would still have a 12% stronger bite.
Now I would invite you to make your own calculation and please show me how would the Jagaur’s bite force compare to that of Bengal Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Please do a calculation right here and show me what your estimate is.
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
There is nothing to debate, you have the actual weights and measurements presented.
And once again, Isometric scaling is used to estimate, it's not exact while you have actual weights and measurements that are exact.
You scaling the average Jaguar which you don't even know what average is, it sounds like to 120kgs is far less valid than using actual 120kg Jaguars.
Your claim about Tigers and Lions makes no sense.
Funny you mention Christiansen, he literally says the same about jaguars compared to other cats.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
No! A big 220kg HYPOTHETICAL Jaguar would be similar in proportions to a small Jaguar which means its a case of isometric scaling NOT allometric which would only be done when the large animal is completely different in proportions compared to the small animal.
Your comparison is totally pointless because you are comparing a bulkier, extra muscular Jaguar to the average Sumatran Tiger which is not the correct way to make such comparisons.
And it doesn’t matter, I still stand by my initial point. I’m sure the Sumatran tiger still has a stronger bite than those Jaguars but you don’t understand even simple physics.
Now you tell me, how will you compare the Jaguar to a South African Lion in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Answer this question now. You don’t have a Sumatran like Lion, do you? How will you compare these two in pound for pound then.
What are you not understanding here?
Two Jaguars can weigh the same and still have completely different body measurements. Those proportions would be very different depending on the individual.
And what do you want to compare in regards to the Lion and Jaguar?
lb for lb what?
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
There is nothing to debate, you have the actual weights and measurements presented.
And once again, Isometric scaling is used to estimate, it's not exact while you have actual weights and measurements that are exact.
You scaling the average Jaguar which you don't even know what average is, it sounds like to 120kgs is far less valid than using actual 120kg Jaguars.
Your claim about Tigers and Lions makes no sense.
Funny you mention Christiansen, he literally says the same about jaguars compared to other cats.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
No! A big 220kg HYPOTHETICAL Jaguar would be similar in proportions to a small Jaguar which means its a case of isometric scaling NOT allometric which would only be done when the large animal is completely different in proportions compared to the small animal.
Your comparison is totally pointless because you are comparing a bulkier, extra muscular Jaguar to the average Sumatran Tiger which is not the correct way to make such comparisons.
And it doesn’t matter, I still stand by my initial point. I’m sure the Sumatran tiger still has a stronger bite than those Jaguars but you don’t understand even simple physics.
Now you tell me, how will you compare the Jaguar to a South African Lion in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Answer this question now. You don’t have a Sumatran like Lion, do you? How will you compare these two in pound for pound then.
What are you not understanding here?
Two Jaguars can weigh the same and still have completely different body measurements. Those proportions would be very different depending on the individual.
And what do you want to compare in regards to the Lion and Jaguar?
lb for lb what?
lb for lb bite force. Please compare lb for lb bite force for a Jaguar and a Bengal Tiger. Show me how much bite force will a Jaguar have in comparison to a Bengal Tiger if Jaguars are scaled to the same weight as Bengal Tigers.
Please show me the calculation and steps here while you do it and let’s see what the result comes out to be.
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
There is nothing to debate, you have the actual weights and measurements presented.
And once again, Isometric scaling is used to estimate, it's not exact while you have actual weights and measurements that are exact.
You scaling the average Jaguar which you don't even know what average is, it sounds like to 120kgs is far less valid than using actual 120kg Jaguars.
Your claim about Tigers and Lions makes no sense.
Funny you mention Christiansen, he literally says the same about jaguars compared to other cats.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
No! A big 220kg HYPOTHETICAL Jaguar would be similar in proportions to a small Jaguar which means its a case of isometric scaling NOT allometric which would only be done when the large animal is completely different in proportions compared to the small animal.
Your comparison is totally pointless because you are comparing a bulkier, extra muscular Jaguar to the average Sumatran Tiger which is not the correct way to make such comparisons.
And it doesn’t matter, I still stand by my initial point. I’m sure the Sumatran tiger still has a stronger bite than those Jaguars but you don’t understand even simple physics.
Now you tell me, how will you compare the Jaguar to a South African Lion in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Answer this question now. You don’t have a Sumatran like Lion, do you? How will you compare these two in pound for pound then.
What are you not understanding here?
Two Jaguars can weigh the same and still have completely different body measurements. Those proportions would be very different depending on the individual.
And what do you want to compare in regards to the Lion and Jaguar?
lb for lb what?
lb for lb bite force. Please compare lb for lb bite force for a Jaguar and a Bengal Tiger. Show me how much bite force will a Jaguar have in comparison to a Bengal Tiger if Jaguars are scaled to the same weight as Bengal Tigers.
Please show me the calculation and steps here while you do it and let’s see what the result comes out to be.
Again there is no way to calculate this with accuracy.
There are morphological differences that contribute to a bite force, then interpreting those differences isn't even universally accepted.
For instance,
-The shape of the mandible.
-The muscle attachment opening for the Masseters and temporalis.
-The shape and size of the Sagital Crest
-Canine bending strength and size
-Gape
and so on
If you want to use a simple equation it should be head size in relation to body size.
But again, you will have some Cats that are longer skulls while others are wider, but in terms of bite strength, the width should play a larger role than the length.
04-30-2022, 02:02 AM( This post was last modified: 04-30-2022, 02:40 AM by LonePredator )
(04-30-2022, 01:53 AM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 11:16 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 11:07 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 10:28 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 10:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 09:44 PM)LonePredator Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 09:36 PM)Pckts Wrote:
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
There is nothing to debate, you have the actual weights and measurements presented.
And once again, Isometric scaling is used to estimate, it's not exact while you have actual weights and measurements that are exact.
You scaling the average Jaguar which you don't even know what average is, it sounds like to 120kgs is far less valid than using actual 120kg Jaguars.
Your claim about Tigers and Lions makes no sense.
Funny you mention Christiansen, he literally says the same about jaguars compared to other cats.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
No! A big 220kg HYPOTHETICAL Jaguar would be similar in proportions to a small Jaguar which means its a case of isometric scaling NOT allometric which would only be done when the large animal is completely different in proportions compared to the small animal.
Your comparison is totally pointless because you are comparing a bulkier, extra muscular Jaguar to the average Sumatran Tiger which is not the correct way to make such comparisons.
And it doesn’t matter, I still stand by my initial point. I’m sure the Sumatran tiger still has a stronger bite than those Jaguars but you don’t understand even simple physics.
Now you tell me, how will you compare the Jaguar to a South African Lion in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Answer this question now. You don’t have a Sumatran like Lion, do you? How will you compare these two in pound for pound then.
What are you not understanding here?
Two Jaguars can weigh the same and still have completely different body measurements. Those proportions would be very different depending on the individual.
And what do you want to compare in regards to the Lion and Jaguar?
lb for lb what?
lb for lb bite force. Please compare lb for lb bite force for a Jaguar and a Bengal Tiger. Show me how much bite force will a Jaguar have in comparison to a Bengal Tiger if Jaguars are scaled to the same weight as Bengal Tigers.
Please show me the calculation and steps here while you do it and let’s see what the result comes out to be.
Again there is no way to calculate this with accuracy.
There are morphological differences that contribute to a bite force, then interpreting those differences isn't even universally accepted.
For instance,
-The shape of the mandible.
-The muscle attachment opening for the Masseters and temporalis.
-The shape and size of the Sagital Crest
-Canine bending strength and size
-Gape
and so on
If you want to use a simple equation it should be head size in relation to body size.
But again, you will have some Cats that are longer skulls while others are wider, but in terms of bite strength, the width should play a larger role than the length.
Come on! What are you talking about? We can simply scale the same Jaguar to 200kg by keeping all its body proportions and morphology intact.
It is very simple, the Jaguar will scale by 2 times and the bite force will only increase by around 1.77 times.
What are you talking about? We don’t need to calculate any of that. All of it has already been calculated by that same bite force study so what will you calculate? The force and weight ratio has ALREADY been calculated by that study. All we need to do is scale the weight to 2 times and when that happens the bite force would still be 12% weaker.
We are just talking about a hypothetical pound for pound scenario which means the same Jaguar from that study when scaled to twice the size, it’s bite force will only increase by 1.777 times. This is the simplest possible physics.
And please don’t say that actual animals aren’t used to estimate bite forces and all that.
In the end, the simple thing is that particular study said a 100kg Jaguar bites with 3/4 the force of a 200kg Tiger. Now we are comparing the exact same things pound for pound and in such a case you simply scale the exact same Jaguar morphology to 200kg and then the bite force would still be 12% weaker than the Tiger’s bite force because the bite force would not increase by the same degree as the weight.
It’s as simple as that. That is simple ‘pound for pound’ comparison. In pound for pound comparisons, the muscular cross section (and the force) would only scale with an exponent of 2 while the weight will scale with an exponent of 3. It’s as simple as that.
This will cause the bite force to lag behind and thus the Tiger would still have a stronger bite.
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
There is nothing to debate, you have the actual weights and measurements presented.
And once again, Isometric scaling is used to estimate, it's not exact while you have actual weights and measurements that are exact.
You scaling the average Jaguar which you don't even know what average is, it sounds like to 120kgs is far less valid than using actual 120kg Jaguars.
Your claim about Tigers and Lions makes no sense.
Funny you mention Christiansen, he literally says the same about jaguars compared to other cats.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
No! A big 220kg HYPOTHETICAL Jaguar would be similar in proportions to a small Jaguar which means its a case of isometric scaling NOT allometric which would only be done when the large animal is completely different in proportions compared to the small animal.
Your comparison is totally pointless because you are comparing a bulkier, extra muscular Jaguar to the average Sumatran Tiger which is not the correct way to make such comparisons.
And it doesn’t matter, I still stand by my initial point. I’m sure the Sumatran tiger still has a stronger bite than those Jaguars but you don’t understand even simple physics.
Now you tell me, how will you compare the Jaguar to a South African Lion in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Answer this question now. You don’t have a Sumatran like Lion, do you? How will you compare these two in pound for pound then.
What are you not understanding here?
Two Jaguars can weigh the same and still have completely different body measurements. Those proportions would be very different depending on the individual.
And what do you want to compare in regards to the Lion and Jaguar?
lb for lb what?
lb for lb bite force. Please compare lb for lb bite force for a Jaguar and a Bengal Tiger. Show me how much bite force will a Jaguar have in comparison to a Bengal Tiger if Jaguars are scaled to the same weight as Bengal Tigers.
Please show me the calculation and steps here while you do it and let’s see what the result comes out to be.
Again there is no way to calculate this with accuracy.
There are morphological differences that contribute to a bite force, then interpreting those differences isn't even universally accepted.
For instance,
-The shape of the mandible.
-The muscle attachment opening for the Masseters and temporalis.
-The shape and size of the Sagital Crest
-Canine bending strength and size
-Gape
and so on
If you want to use a simple equation it should be head size in relation to body size.
But again, you will have some Cats that are longer skulls while others are wider, but in terms of bite strength, the width should play a larger role than the length.
Come on! What are you talking about? We can simply scale the same Jaguar to 200kg by keeping all its body proportions and morphology intact.
It is very simple, the Jaguar will scale by 2 times and the bite force will only increase by around 1.77 times.
What are you talking about? We don’t need to calculate any of that. All of it has already been calculated by that same bite force study so what will you calculate? The force and weight ratio has ALREADY been calculated by that study. All we need to do is scale the weight to 2 times and when that happens the bite force would still be 12% weaker.
We are just talking about a hypothetical pound for pound scenario which means the same Jaguar from that study when scaled to twice the size, it’s bite force will only increase by 1.777 times. This is the simplest possible physics.
And please don’t say that actual animals aren’t used to estimate bite forces and all that.
In the end, the simple thing is that particular study said a 100kg Jaguar bites with 3/4 the force of a 200kg Tiger. Now we are comparing the exact same things pound for pound and in such a case you simply scale the exact same Jaguar morphology to 200kg and then the bite force would still be 12% weaker than the Tiger’s bite force.
It’s as simple as that. That is simple ‘pound for pound’ comparison. In pound for pound comparisons, the muscular cross section (and the force) would only scale with an exponent of 2 while the weight will scale with an exponent of 3. It’s as simple as that.
This will cause the bite force to lag behind and thus the Tiger would still have a stronger bite.
It's literally going in circles with you
The bite force is calculated off an estimated body weight. Added to that, these skulls came from captive cats only " We dissected the masticatory muscles of nine species of felids (Table 1), represented by a total of 28 specimens. All but two of the specimens were from Carolina Tiger Rescue (CTR; formerly the Carnivore Preservation Trust)"
Using a weight of 100kg for this particular Jaguar is meaningless, that's not a real 100kg Jaguar from the Pantanal or a 200kg Tiger from India. Their skull morphology is very different to their wild counterparts.
Also, it's not just "lb for lb"
There are numerous factors going into their scaling
"One alternative is to scale masticatory variables to a functionally meaningful anatomical measurement. Mandible length is often used as a scaling variable because it is a rough proxy for the load arm of an anterior bite (Hylander, 1979; Daegling, 2001; Vinyard et al., 2003; Vinyard and Hanna, 2005). If posterior bites are of greater interest, then the distance between the mandibular condyle and a molar could be used (Taylor et al., 2012). Instead of scaling to these variables, we have explicitly included them in the estimate of BF by measuring different hypothetical load arms at different bite points. This allows us to examine BF as a single variable and consider its scaling in relation to body size.
To sidestep the problems of periodic body mass fluctuations, we also use (e.g., in Perry, 2008; Perry and Hartstone-Rose, 2011; Perry et al., 2011) a cranial geometric mean as a proxy for overall body size. BM, JL and GM all yield very similar (statistically indistinguishable) regression results across all of the taxa that we have studied, though this is especially true for the morphologically homogenous Felidae."
"Our results demonstrate that masticatory muscle masses scale isometrically tending toward positive allometry when regressed against body mass and jaw length. The slope is statistically greater than one for all muscles (except the highly variable medial pterygoid) when regressed against a geometric mean of cranial variables. PCSA, and BF scale with significant positive allometry for all three scaling variables. This significance is driven by the exceptionally high correlations of these variables with all three independent variables in this morphologically conservative lineage. Scaling of FL tends towards negative allometry, but there is great scatter in the data and isometry cannot be ruled out statistically. However, FL is slightly less well-correlated with body size, resulting in higher absolute residuals, suggesting the potential for a dietary signal. Indeed a strong signal suggests a relationship between FL and relative prey size. Thus, in the family Felidae, where food material properties vary little, food geometric properties appear to select for muscle architectural properties. In at least one instance (the jaguar), estimated BF appears to signal food material properties—namely this species is capable of consuming more obdurate foods."
(04-29-2022, 12:29 AM)LonePredator Wrote: @Pckts I don’t know why you would do this. Don’t you say the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger? Then we should obviously be comparing AVERAGE specimens of both.
I am saying that pound for pound, the AVERAGE Sumatran Tiger is SHORTER in head-body length compared to the AVERAGE Pantanal or Llanos Jaguar.
Why are you bringing up the 120kg Jaguar and then comparing that one to the average Sumatran Tiger? Obviously if you compare an impressive and bulky Jaguar which eats a ton of protein to sustain his muscles then that might actually be as strong (pound for pound) than the average Sumatran Tiger who only gets a moderate amount of protein but it’s NOT a fair comparison.
BUT when you say “Jaguars are pound for pound stronger” then you mean that the average Jaguar is pound for pound stronger than the average Bengal Tiger. We are comparing average specimen to average specimen of both species BUT you are only making comparisons between impressive Jaguar specimens and average Bengal Tigers. That is not the correct way to do it.
And now you see that Jaguars also take up more length, their chest and belly girth also takes up more space which makes the volume of Jaguars higher. Higher volume means lower density so how can you make the claim that Jaguars are the most ‘dense’???
I am 100% sure that Jaguars and Sumatran Tigers are nearly equally dense because both are made of flesh and bones and the bones of both are most likely equally dense and both have the same concentration of muscle fibers so BOTH are equally dense BUT the one which has MORE BODYFAT will be LESS dense. Bodyfat will be the only factor in determining density of these animals but even then the difference will be negligible.
So my conclusion is that when you scale the average Jaguars to the same weight as the average Bengal Tiger, the Tiger would still have an 11% stronger bite force and if you scale the average Jaguar to the size of the average Tiger, the Tiger would be SHORTER in body length. I can’t say about overall strength because I have not seen any study which determines overall strength of Tigers or Jaguar.
You're not comparing averages of both specimens, you're comparing an average of one specimen to a single individual of another.
On top of that, you're not even comparing the same body weight.
For instance, Adriano who was measured in a straight line and weighed 130kg was 152cm in head and body.
That is 10cm shorter in length than the Sumatran Tiger average and 12kg's heavier.
Crawshaw also measured another in a straight line that was 122kg and it was less than 151cm in length.
So as you can see, Jaguars are going to be shorter in length and shoulder height but they pack more mass. They are the more dense animal overall.
Quote:Why would you cherry pick a bulky jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger? How is your comparison fair? To represent an average Jaguar to compare with an average Sumatran Tiger, the only correct and fair way to do it is to isometrically scale them.
This has nothing to do with cherry picking, these animals are measured and presented. Feel free to present any and all Sumatran Tigers that are comparable. Again it has nothing to do with isometric scaling, you have true numbers right in front of you.
Quote:Even some Bengal Tigers are of normal length but have much higher chest girths which results in higher weight BUT you can’t use those Tigers to show the head-body length to weight ratio of Bengal Tigers because that is NOT the average specimen and average Tigers are NOT that bulky.
And what does it matter? Averages use outliers and runts, they are just a number we like to use but have nothing to do with the actual cats on an individual basis. But generally speaking, a Jaguar will be shorter in length and shoulder than a Sumatran Tiger but will still be comparable in weight. Obviously exceptions exist for either side, but more often if you take 130kg specimens from either, that's how it's going to play out.
Quote:The thing is that the average morphology of Jaguars makes their bodies proportionally longer than a Sumatran Tiger of average morphology. The morphology of Jaguars (heavy populations) makes them about 105kg on average.
Proportional to what?
Sumatrans generally are longer in body at similar weights.
Quote:Similarly, your 120kg Jaguars do NOT represent the average morphology of Jaguars and therefore you cannot use their head-body length to weight ratio for comparison. You have to use the average Jaguar. R
They are all part of the average, you using a single Llanos jaguar holds as much weight as a single 120kg individual. On average, Pantanal Jaguars are going to be 108kg and shorter in length and shoulder height. Unfortunately Sumatrans body weight averages and measurements are much harder to come by.
But generally speaking using Gautes table, they average 117kg and 162cm in body length. And assuming the longest on his table was the heaviest *which it may not be* it was only 140kg and 177cm long while Joker was 165cm the first capture then 179cm over the curves which really would be around 170cm in a straight line and weighed over 140kgs both times.
Another Sumatran Tiger from a hunting record was 180cm over the curves and weighed 142kgs.
So this paints a pretty clear picture, like what I've been saying. Jaguars generally will weigh more at similar lengths and shorter shoulder heights.
Jaguar shoulder height in the pantanal averages around 26.28 inches while Sumatrans generally are around 30'' at the shoulder *limited data exists though*
Long story short, you can compare both are equal lengths and the Jaguar generally will be a little heavier.
Next I'll see what I can get for skulls
WRONG! Everything you said is completely WRONG. I already made it clear above that I am comparing the AVERAGE Sumatran to the AVERAGE Jaguar.
But you are comparing a BULKIER than average Jaguar to the average Tiger so your comparison is nonsensical in itself.
And don’t you understand isometric scaling, do you? Rather than using a 120kg, bulkier than average Jaguar specimen, I isometrically scaled THE AVERAGE Jaguar to 120kg. Do you understand that?
You obviously are unable to comprehend the concept of isometric scaling so there is no point in arguing further.
Even Bengal Tigers can reach 280kg and American Lions also were often 280kg but American Lion would be LONGER at that weight, does that mean Bengal Tigers are more robust? No!! Not at all because Ngandong Tigers were still longer in length than American Lions.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be offensive but you don’t seem to able to understand even simple physics.
Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
I would recommend you to check out Christiansen and Harris weight estimation studies, that might give you an idea about how isometric scaling works.
There is nothing to debate, you have the actual weights and measurements presented.
And once again, Isometric scaling is used to estimate, it's not exact while you have actual weights and measurements that are exact.
You scaling the average Jaguar which you don't even know what average is, it sounds like to 120kgs is far less valid than using actual 120kg Jaguars.
Your claim about Tigers and Lions makes no sense.
Funny you mention Christiansen, he literally says the same about jaguars compared to other cats.
Quote:Okay answer this question. How will you compare the average male Jaguar with an average male BENGAL Tiger in terms of ‘pound for pound’? Jaguars don’t even reach the 210-220kg weight so you tell me how you will make this comparison.
But this isn't needed, once again we have a Tiger and Jaguar that already exist in comparable weights.
You need to let go of this stance, you have verifiable data shown, it doesn't get more exact than that.
No! A big 220kg HYPOTHETICAL Jaguar would be similar in proportions to a small Jaguar which means its a case of isometric scaling NOT allometric which would only be done when the large animal is completely different in proportions compared to the small animal.
Your comparison is totally pointless because you are comparing a bulkier, extra muscular Jaguar to the average Sumatran Tiger which is not the correct way to make such comparisons.
And it doesn’t matter, I still stand by my initial point. I’m sure the Sumatran tiger still has a stronger bite than those Jaguars but you don’t understand even simple physics.
Now you tell me, how will you compare the Jaguar to a South African Lion in terms of ‘pound for pound’. Answer this question now. You don’t have a Sumatran like Lion, do you? How will you compare these two in pound for pound then.
What are you not understanding here?
Two Jaguars can weigh the same and still have completely different body measurements. Those proportions would be very different depending on the individual.
And what do you want to compare in regards to the Lion and Jaguar?
lb for lb what?
lb for lb bite force. Please compare lb for lb bite force for a Jaguar and a Bengal Tiger. Show me how much bite force will a Jaguar have in comparison to a Bengal Tiger if Jaguars are scaled to the same weight as Bengal Tigers.
Please show me the calculation and steps here while you do it and let’s see what the result comes out to be.
Again there is no way to calculate this with accuracy.
There are morphological differences that contribute to a bite force, then interpreting those differences isn't even universally accepted.
For instance,
-The shape of the mandible.
-The muscle attachment opening for the Masseters and temporalis.
-The shape and size of the Sagital Crest
-Canine bending strength and size
-Gape
and so on
If you want to use a simple equation it should be head size in relation to body size.
But again, you will have some Cats that are longer skulls while others are wider, but in terms of bite strength, the width should play a larger role than the length.
Come on! What are you talking about? We can simply scale the same Jaguar to 200kg by keeping all its body proportions and morphology intact.
It is very simple, the Jaguar will scale by 2 times and the bite force will only increase by around 1.77 times.
What are you talking about? We don’t need to calculate any of that. All of it has already been calculated by that same bite force study so what will you calculate? The force and weight ratio has ALREADY been calculated by that study. All we need to do is scale the weight to 2 times and when that happens the bite force would still be 12% weaker.
We are just talking about a hypothetical pound for pound scenario which means the same Jaguar from that study when scaled to twice the size, it’s bite force will only increase by 1.777 times. This is the simplest possible physics.
And please don’t say that actual animals aren’t used to estimate bite forces and all that.
In the end, the simple thing is that particular study said a 100kg Jaguar bites with 3/4 the force of a 200kg Tiger. Now we are comparing the exact same things pound for pound and in such a case you simply scale the exact same Jaguar morphology to 200kg and then the bite force would still be 12% weaker than the Tiger’s bite force.
It’s as simple as that. That is simple ‘pound for pound’ comparison. In pound for pound comparisons, the muscular cross section (and the force) would only scale with an exponent of 2 while the weight will scale with an exponent of 3. It’s as simple as that.
This will cause the bite force to lag behind and thus the Tiger would still have a stronger bite.
It's literally going in circles with you
The bite force is calculated off an estimated body weight. Added to that, these skulls came from captive cats only " We dissected the masticatory muscles of nine species of felids (Table 1), represented by a total of 28 specimens. All but two of the specimens were from Carolina Tiger Rescue (CTR; formerly the Carnivore Preservation Trust)"
Using a weight of 100kg for this particular Jaguar is meaningless, that's not a real 100kg Jaguar from the Pantanal or a 200kg Tiger from India. Their skull morphology is very different to their wild counterparts.
Also, it's not just "lb for lb"
There are numerous factors going into their scaling
"One alternative is to scale masticatory variables to a functionally meaningful anatomical measurement. Mandible length is often used as a scaling variable because it is a rough proxy for the load arm of an anterior bite (Hylander, 1979; Daegling, 2001; Vinyard et al., 2003; Vinyard and Hanna, 2005). If posterior bites are of greater interest, then the distance between the mandibular condyle and a molar could be used (Taylor et al., 2012). Instead of scaling to these variables, we have explicitly included them in the estimate of BF by measuring different hypothetical load arms at different bite points. This allows us to examine BF as a single variable and consider its scaling in relation to body size.
To sidestep the problems of periodic body mass fluctuations, we also use (e.g., in Perry, 2008; Perry and Hartstone-Rose, 2011; Perry et al., 2011) a cranial geometric mean as a proxy for overall body size. BM, JL and GM all yield very similar (statistically indistinguishable) regression results across all of the taxa that we have studied, though this is especially true for the morphologically homogenous Felidae."
"Our results demonstrate that masticatory muscle masses scale isometrically tending toward positive allometry when regressed against body mass and jaw length. The slope is statistically greater than one for all muscles (except the highly variable medial pterygoid) when regressed against a geometric mean of cranial variables. PCSA, and BF scale with significant positive allometry for all three scaling variables. This significance is driven by the exceptionally high correlations of these variables with all three independent variables in this morphologically conservative lineage. Scaling of FL tends towards negative allometry, but there is great scatter in the data and isometry cannot be ruled out statistically. However, FL is slightly less well-correlated with body size, resulting in higher absolute residuals, suggesting the potential for a dietary signal. Indeed a strong signal suggests a relationship between FL and relative prey size. Thus, in the family Felidae, where food material properties vary little, food geometric properties appear to select for muscle architectural properties. In at least one instance (the jaguar), estimated BF appears to signal food material properties—namely this species is capable of consuming more obdurate foods."
You are making it exceedingly complex even though it’s the simplest possible thing. When we compare the bite force pound for pound, we do it the way I described. That’s it.
But you aren’t able to understand simple physics so I can’t tell you anything else.
Why don’t you simply show your calculation right here? I already did the simple calculation and showed you that the Tiger would still have a 12% stronger bite even at equal weights.
Do you have any calculations of your own? If you do then show me your calculation right here. Show me what the bite force of the Jaguar would be at 200kg bodyweight. But if you don’t have any of that to show then this argument is pointless.
This is the simplest physics but you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this.
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
