Panthera pardus
Creators: name: O'Regan, Hannah J.
name: Steininger, Christine
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Carnivora
Felidae
Panthera
Panthera pardus

description: Panthera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758)   
(Leopard)  
 MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Postcranial. CD 3277, left proximal radius (Table 3); CD 7369, left radius – distal epiphysis only (Table 3); CD 1526, right ulna – distal epiphysis only; CD 1956, patella; CD 5957, 3rd Metatarsal (Table 3); CD 3836, 4th Metatarsal (Table 3); CD 8288, and CD 1537, both 1 st phalanges.   
DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMIC ASSIGNMENT  
 Forelimb   
 CD 3277 is a proximal radius. It is smaller than the East African Dinofelis specimens illustrated in Werdelin & Lewis (2001) although the angle between the shaft and head is similar. The Kromdraai Megantereon radii (KB 5333O and KB 5336) are both larger and have a more robust radial tuberosity than is seen in CD 3277. A distal radial epiphysis (CD 7369) has a large ulnar facet, indicating that is it not a cheetah, and overall shape of the carpal facets is squarish, whereas it is more rectangular in Dinofelis and Megantereon. Morphology of the radius, both proximally and distally appears to be quite variable in modern leopards, particularly the outline and depth of the proximal articulation, but CD 3277 and CD 7369 are both most similar to modern leopards. An isolated distal epiphysis from a right ulna (CD 1526) is also assigned to P. pardus, as the styloid process in Dinofelis is much more bulbous and Dinofelis is larger overall.   
 Hindlimb   
 CD 1956 is a tear-drop shaped patella with some damage to the dorsal surface. It is substantially smaller than KB 5377, a patella described as cf. Megantereon from Kromdraai B. No Dinofelis patellae were available for study, but CD 1956 is very similar to a modern leopard (AZ 420) and is therefore been referred to that species. Two metatarsals have also been referred to P. pardus. CD 5957 is a complete right 3rd metatarsal, broken into three pieces. It is very gracile in comparison with Dinofelis, of a similar length but slenderer. The posterior facet of the MT4 articulation is curved, in DN17 it is not curved, while in KB 5334B (Megantereon whitei) it is flat and angled medially. Again the morphology of the leopards appears to be highly variable, but for a medium-sized felid this specimen is much more like P. pardus than any of the other similar sized species. CD 3836 is the proximal articulation plus 1/3rd of the shaft of a left 4th metatarsal. It has some slight pathological bone growth on the dorsal surface and the articulation for the 5 th metacarpal. Despite this it is clear that it is neither Dinofelis nor Megantereon – Dinofelis (DN 14) has a much more rounded articulation for the 3rd metatarsal, while this articulation is flatter and the proximal articulation is a little larger in Megantereon (KB 5339C). CD 1537 is a complete 1 st phalanx with a small chip from the dorsal surface, while CD 8288 has a small amount of damage on the distal condyle. Both are very good matches for modern leopard.
description: Published as part of O'Regan, Hannah J. & Steininger, Christine, 2017, Felidae from Cooper's Cave, South Africa (Mammalia: Carnivora), pp. 315-332 in Geodiversitas 39 (2) on page 325, DOI: 10.5252/g2017n2a8, http://zenodo.org/record/5206125