This isn't accurate at all. The serval and caracal are far too big, and the clouded leopard too small. The first few should go (from smallest to largest) - ocelot, serval, caracal, clouded leopard, lynx. Though pumas are classed as small cats, they are actually larger than leopards, so the puma and leopard should be the other way round. The tiger shown is a Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), though the name given is for the Siberian tiger (P. t. altaica). Smilodon populator, the largest of the sabre-tooths, was actually only about the size of a modern lion, though heavier, and the S. fatalis is too large, though correct in that it's between the jaguar and lion. The largest cats, from right to left, should go - American lion, tiger, S. populator, lion.
Also, most of the scientific names are written incorrectly, with the genus and species both capitalised. Only the genus should be capitalised. Many authorities now place the puma in the genus Puma, rather than Felis, and the snow leopard (Uncia uncia) is listed but does not appear in the line-up.
The one that is closer by the smilodon is a jaguar, you can tell by the spots on it's coat. In their "rosettes" there is often a smaller spot inside, leopards are also paler in color to blend in with the savannah. Hopes this helps :]
Yes, I agree, length wise tigers are longer than lions, tigers have shorter legs but longer bodies. You're basically telling me that a short wide cup has more water than a taller cup. And either way, this scale is an example of cat height, not mass, putting the lion first regardless.
Ace love your work big cats fascinate me have you seen the film ghosts in the Darkness about large Lions in africa. In process of illustrating a modern version of Rudyard Kiplings story how the leopard got its spots. So if you could direct me to stock photos of leopards hunting would greatly appriciate it.
tigers are actually only 3.5 ft tall, shorter than a lions, about the height of a cheetah and leopards are only about 2 ft tall, shorter than a cheetah, about the size of a cougar but really good reference other than that!
not the size of a cheetah, cheetahs are very tall relative to weight compared to other cats so they are 3ft 4'' tall shoulders down, where siberian tigers are the same height. lions are also taller than tigers, standing at four feet tall, but weigh a bit less. cheetahs weigh a lot less because they are built more for speed, and are less muscular in the front legs than tigers. you see, tigers rely on raw size to take down prey, but cheetahs rely on skill and speed. lions also rely on size, but speed is always a benefit in the open plains of the savanna so lions are a bit less weight and more skill than tigers
but this pays off, cheetahs are the most successful of the three by far, with a 50% kill rate, while tigers and lions have around 15% to 20%.
Tigers are bigger than lions are heavier and have much stronger bite force than lions. Lions are only a little taller at the shoulders. But they re smaller in size. You know... the actual size of the entire body not just the height of the shoulders.