







































Variation in body size introduces 
behavioral and adaptive

constraints in morphologically 
similar Felidae species

Dilara Kamrava, Emily Williams, and Alexandra DeCandia

 
GEORGETOWN SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH JOURNAL

Volume Five
Edition One
Fall 2024

46



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 

 

Variation in body size introduces behavioral and adaptive 
constraints in morphologically similar Felidae species 
 
DDiillaarraa  KKaammrraavvaa11,,  EEmmiillyy  WWiilllliiaammss11,,  aanndd  AAlleexxaannddrraa  DDeeCCaannddiiaa11,,22  
  
1 Georgetown University, Washington DC, United States 
2 Center for Conservation Genomics, Smithsonian’s National Zoo and 
Conservation Biology Institute, Washington DC, United States 
Email: dck48@georgetown.edu 
hhttttppss::////ddooii..oorrgg//1100..4488009911//33ssss44ssxx1155  
AAbbssttrraacctt  
Species within the mammalian family Felidae present a unique opportunity to study the relationship 
between interspecies morphological and ecological variation due to their high phenotypic trait 
conservation. Despite a long list of shared characteristics, felids display tremendous diversity in body size, 
with an almost 300 kg difference between the largest and smallest species. However, extensive research 
into potential interactions of body size with other traits across felids as a whole has yet to be completed. 
In this review and collection of exploratory analyses, we examined whether variation in body size 
introduces ecological constraints on how felids use their common traits, particularly regarding ambush 
hunting behavior. We collated and explored metadata about numerous morphological and ecological 
characteristics (including average weight, prey selection and killing strategy, pelage characteristics, habitat 
preference, and conservation status) for all 41 currently recognized species. We found that felid body size 
influences prey selection and primary dispatch strategy, with larger felids employing suffocating throat 
bites while smaller felids preferred nape bites. We also found that larger body sizes seemed generally 
associated with lower prey capture rates, although data collection on more felid species is necessary to 
confirm whether this trend holds across the family. We further documented high variation in pelage 
characteristics and preferred habitat types, suggesting that the near universal need for camouflage in 
ambush predators exerts a stronger influence on pelage color and pattern than body size. Finally, we 
reported a relationship between body size and conservation status, as 100% of large species and 84% of 
small species are currently experiencing population declines. While midsize species fare slightly better with 
only 56% of species showing declines, all felids face significant threats from habitat loss and other 
anthropogenic pressures. By collating metadata and exploring patterns relating felid body size to ecological 
and behavioral traits alongside population trends and conservation status, we aimed to improve our 
understanding of these charismatic and ecologically important animals, while inspiring further study into 
the eco-evolutionary implications of body size. 
Keywords: behavior, conservation, ecology, Felidae, ambush hunting, phenotypic variation 
11..  IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn  
 Species within the mammalian family 
Felidae serve as ambassadors for wildlife 
conservation and, in the case of Felis catus, beloved 
household pets. They are found on almost every 
continent, consistently rank among the most well-

known and charismatic species, and even fuel 
online procrastination in the form of cat videos.1,2,3 
Yet there remain understudied aspects of felid 
ecology, behavior, and conservation that can 
provide further insights into these fascinating and 
enigmatic species.  

47



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

The Felidae family is a monophyletic clade 
derived from a relatively recent common ancestor 
10-15 mya, and is divided into two subfamilies: 
Pantherinae and Felinae (Figure 1).1,4 The 
Pantherinae subfamily consists of seven species in 
the two genera Panthera and Neofelis, which are 
respectively characterized by large and midsize 
cats. In contrast, the Felinae family contains the 
remaining 34 species in 12 genera of varying body 
sizes. There are currently 41 recognized species 
within Felidae, although this number is frequently 
adjusted based on shifting taxonomic 
classifications. For example, the placement of 
jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi) in its own 
genus or within its current sister group Puma 
remains controversial.4 

The Felidae family is distinguished by 
phenotypic trait conservation among its members.5 
In general, felids have a highly similar body type, 
possessing a notably shortened rostrum and a lithe 
body shape that facilitates jumping, speed, and 
agility. With the exception of cheetahs (Acinonyx 
jubatus), all felid species also possess protractile 
claws that passively retract when not in use to allow 
felids to disguise the noise of their movements and 
maintain claw health.6 Excellent night vision 
allows felids to spot prey from a distance during 
their preferred crepuscular hunting periods, and 
during the kill, felids deploy premolars and lower 
molars as carnassial teeth adept at quickly shearing 
through flesh.7,8 The sharp papillae on felid 
tongues rip meat from prey and allow felids to self-
groom, which reduces parasites and dampens 
scent.9 Apart from four species within the 
Panthera genus that can only roar (i.e., P. leo, P. 
tigris, P. pardus, and P. onca), all felid species 
communicate by vibrating elastic vocal cords to 
purr.10 

 
FFiigguurree  11..  CCuurrrreenntt  ttaaxxoonnoommiicc  ccllaassssiiffiiccaattiioonn  ooff  
ggeenneerraa  wwiitthhiinn  FFeelliiddaaee..44 All genera contained felid 
species only belonging to a single size class overall. 

Such striking trait conservation among 
felids is particularly notable given their 
cosmopolitan distribution. Felids collectively 
range from the southern tips of South America and 
Africa to the arctic plains of northern Canada and 
Russia. Thus, conserved traits likely serve 
important functions that help cats succeed as 
predatory mammals across multiple latitudes and 
disparate habitat types. For example, felids 
consistently deploy an ambush-like form of 
hunting, where they maintain camouflage and 
silence before making the killing strike, whereas 
canids often rely on strength, speed, or group 
coordination to bring down prey.1,5 Furthermore, 
unlike canids, all felid species barring one (P. leo) 
hunt solitarily.11 The ubiquity of solitary ambush 
hunting strategies is likely to be one of the primary 
drivers behind character similarities, as many of 
these traits are required for their shared prey 
acquisition strategy. 

Despite widescale similarities, felid species 
exhibit high variability in body size. At one end of 

48



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

the spectrum rests the smallest felid, the male 
rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus), which 
barely tops 1 kg; at the other end of the spectrum 
lies the largest felid and third largest terrestrial 
carnivore, the tiger (P. tigris), which weighs an 
average of 280 kg—nearly 300 times the weight of 
the rusty-spotted cat.12 The remaining 39 felid 
species exhibit small, midsize, and large body sizes 
distributed between the two extremes. Such 
conspicuous variation in body size likely influences 
different aspects of felid ecology, behavior, and 
conservation, such as prey capture rate, prey size, 
kill method, pelage pattern, and preferred habitat 
– all of which can affect population viability in 
increasingly human-modified landscapes. 

In the present review, we explored felid 
body size as it relates to felid ecology, behavior, and 
conservation. We first searched through several 
sources in the literature for information on 
phenotypic, behavioral, and ecological traits of 
felids.5,12-15 Focal traits included felid weights, prey 
characteristics, prey capture rates, kill methods, 
pelage patterns, preferred habitat, and 
conservation status. We collated this information 
(with references) in Supplemental Table S1 to 
provide an accessible resource for Felidae 
researchers, and subsequently explored preliminary 
relationships between traits of interest. Although 
previous work has examined felid morphology and 
behavior, much less is known about how 
phenotypic traits may constrain or modify one 
another.16-21 By studying these traits, we can gain a 
more comprehensive understanding of 
interspecific variation within Felidae. This, in 
turn, can inspire further research and targeted 
conservation efforts to protect these charismatic 
and ecologically important animals. 
22..  TTrraaiitt  DDooccuummeennttaattiioonn  aanndd  CCoommppaarriissoonn  

To assess body size, we compiled body 
weights as the expected average weight of a male 
member of each felid species. We subsequently 
grouped genera into three weight-based size 

classes: small (<15kg), midsize (15-50 kg), and 
large (>50 kg; Table 1). We performed this 
classification at the genus level because genera 
within Felidae exhibit a high degree of 
homogeneity in body weight, and there were no 
instances of two species within the same genus 
falling into clearly different size classes. We chose 
lower size limits for midsize species, as felids that 
weigh above 15 kg (though not considered “big 
cats”) possess a distinct body type characterized by 
stocky chests and thicker legs. One exception to 
this pattern is the slim serval (Leptailurus serval), 
which is a midsize cat closely related to stocky 
caracals (Caracal caracal).5 We chose 50 kg for the 
upper size limit of midsize cats because there was 
a significant gap in body weight between the 
largest midsize felid (25 kg, Neofelis diardi) and 
the smallest large felid (50 kg, P. uncia). 
TTaabbllee  11..  CCllaassssiiffiiccaattiioonn  ooff  ffeelliidd  ssppeecciieess  iinnttoo  
wweeiigghhtt--bbaasseedd  ssiizzee  ccllaasssseess  aatt  tthhee  ggeennuuss  lleevveell.. Body 
weights used to classify genera represented the 
average weight of a male in each species.12 Genera 
containing only one species were taxonomically 
named as the species rather than the genus, and 
subspecies were not included in the reported 
species count. 

 
Using the IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species and existing literature, we compiled the 
following ecological information for the 41 
currently documented felid species: main prey 
category, prey size (binary: small or large), primary 
kill method, prey capture rate, pelage color and 

49



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

pattern, preferred habitat, geographic range, 
conservation status, and population trends (Table 
S1). We recorded information about pelage 
pattern since ambush hunting requires felids to 
maintain effective camouflage, and the diversity of 
felid coat patterns and colors reflects the wide 
range of habitats they collectively occupy. Kill 
method refers to which approach felid species 
primarily adopt for dispatching prey, including the 
nape bite, which swiftly severs the spinal cord 
between the vertebrae, or the throat bite, which 
requires the felid to clamp the prey’s windpipe 
closed to suffocate them.5 Finally, we recorded 
each species’ conservation status to assess any 
patterns between current population trends and 
felid body size. 

After summarizing the collated 
information into Supplemental Table S1 with 
references, we imported a modified version of that 
table into R 4.2.1 for preliminary analysis of 
patterns and data visualization.22 Due to small 
within-group sample sizes, we used non-
parametric tests to explore preliminary associations 
between variables of interest. We used Fisher’s 
Exact tests when comparing two categorical 
variables, Kruskal-Wallis χ2 tests when comparing 
a categorical and continuous variable, and 
Spearman’s ⍴ tests when comparing two 
continuous variables, all with a significance 
threshold of 0.05. 

It is important to note that our study is not 
a formal meta-analysis and does not meet the 
requirements for a systematic review of metadata.23 
Instead, our main objective was to explore whether 
felid body size may constrain or modify felid 
ecology, behavior, and conservation through 
preliminary analyses of collated information. We 
therefore used figures and statistical analyses to 
identify potential patterns that may motivate 
future comparative analyses inspired by the present 
study. Our study is limited in scope, and there are 
a number of additional ecological, physiological, or 

morphological factors not examined here that may 
influence the relationships reported. However, in 
collating numerous traits from the literature into a 
freely accessible table (which, to our knowledge, is 
among the first of its kind), our study provides a 
comprehensive resource for mammalogists 
interested in pursuing further research on the 
relationship between felid body size and numerous 
eco-evolutionary factors. These may include (but 
are not limited to) hunting behavior and prey 
choice, habitat preference and pelage 
characteristics, and conservation status of trends, 
each of which are explored below. 
33..  HHuunnttiinngg  BBeehhaavviioorr  aanndd  PPrreeyy  CChhooiiccee  

We first examined the relationship 
between body size and hunting behavior. Here, we 
found that several aspects of foraging ecology were 
associated with felid size. As might be expected, 
larger felids tend to target larger prey such as 
ungulates, whereas midsize and small felids target 
a range of smaller species like leporids and rodents, 
respectively (Fisher’s Exact Test, p < 0.001; Figure 
2a). This relationship makes intuitive sense, as 
large felids are able to better overcome prey 
defenses. Large prey in particular present 
formidable opponents – for instance, giraffes 
(Giraffa camelopardalis) have been known to 
severely injure and even decapitate hunting lions 
(P. leo) with their powerful kicks.24,25 Larger prey 
are also more likely to attract other competing 
predators. For example, cheetahs hunting for food 
have had their cubs targeted and killed by nearby 
hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) and lions.26 As larger 
felids are better able to overcome these challenges 
posed by large prey and competitors, they can 
obtain higher calorie kills as a result. Small to 
midsize felids likely vary their prey choice 
accordingly, focusing on the smaller to midsize 
prey that they are better equipped to dispatch. 

Interactions between felid predators and 
their prey are not just informed by the 

50



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

circumstances preceding an attack, but also by the 
attack itself. We therefore explored whether felid 
size significantly influenced how these predators 
deliver the killing blow to their prey. Dispatch 
methods include the swift nape bite or the 
suffocating throat bite.5 Nape bites are 
advantageous because the prey is dispatched 
quickly, whereas throat bites require prey to be 
subdued for several minutes while slowly 
suffocating.27 The inability to perform a killing 
nape bite arises when the felid’s teeth are not large 
enough, or its bite force not strong enough, to 
crack open the prey’s cervical vertebrae and sever 
the spinal cord. This situation arises when the prey 
animal is relatively large compared to the felid. We 
might expect that small felids, which primarily 
hunt small mammals and rodents, can more easily 
deliver a killing nape bite. In contrast, large felids 
exclusively targeting ungulates as their main prey 
are faced with significantly thicker and sturdier 
prey vertebrae. As such, we might expect larger 
felids to kill their prey by wrapping their jaws 
around the prey animal’s neck and slowly 
squeezing the windpipe closed.27 Examination of 
the collated metadata presented herein supported 
these expectations, as we observed significant 
associations between felid size and primary kill 
method. Large felids use throat bites as their 
primary kill method, and small felids exclusively 
use nape bites as their primary kill method 
(Fisher’s Exact Test, p < 0.001; Figure 2b). Mid-
size felids adopt both approaches, likely due to 
their intermediate size. Classification of primary 
prey into binary size classes (small and large) 
confirmed that larger prey species were more likely 
to receive throat bites, whereas small prey were 
dispatched using nape bites (Fisher’s Exact Test, p 
< 0.001; Figure 2c), with predators targeting a mix 
of small and large prey often using either approach. 

 
FFiigguurree  22.. MMaaiinn  pprreeyy  aanndd  pprriimmaarryy  kkiillll  mmeetthhoodd  
ddiiffffeerr  bbeettwweeeenn  ffeelliidd  ssiizzee  ccllaasssseess. (A) Large felids 
primarily target ungulates as their main prey, 
whereas midsize and small felids primarily target 
midsize and small prey, respectively. The primary 
kill method adopted by felids was significantly 
associated with (B) felid size class (Fisher’s Exact 
Test, p < 0.001) and (C) the size of their prey 
(Fisher’s Exact Test, p < 0.001) 

The final facet of hunting behavior that we 
examined in the context of felid size was hunting 
success. We collected prey capture data for the 14 
felid species with information available where prey 
capture rate was measured as the proportion of 
successful prey captures out of the total observed 
number of attempts.5,28-34 Using log-transformed 
felid weights, we found that prey capture rate 
appeared to show a generally negative trend as felid 
size increased (Spearman’s S = 645.630, ⍴ = -0.419, 
p = 0.136; Figure 3a), with that trend also seeming 
to appear when felids were grouped into size 
classes (Kruskal-Wallis test, χ2 = 1.679, df = 2, p = 
0.432; Figure 3b). However, it is important to note 
that neither of these results meet the criteria for 
statistical significance, and should not be 
interpreted as conclusive. At present, our statistical 
analyses of felid prey capture rate faced limitations 
due to low intragroup sample sizes; for instance, 
out of a possible 25 small felid species, data on prey 
capture rates was only available for four.   

51



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

 
FFiigguurree  33..  PPrreeyy  ccaappttuurree  rraatteess  sshhooww  aa  nnoonn--
ssiiggnniiffiiccaanntt  iinnvveerrssee  rreellaattiioonnsshhiipp  wwiitthh  ffeelliidd  bbooddyy  
ssiizzee.. As felid size increases, prey capture rate seems 
to decrease non-significantly when measuring size 
as (A) log- transformed felid weight (Spearman’s 
S = 645.63, ⍴ = - 0.419, p = 0.1359) and (B) 
categorical size class (Kruskal-Wallis test, χ2 = 
1.679, df = 2, p = 0.432). Small sample size may 
have contributed to the non-significance to this 
trend, as only 14 species had available data on prey 
capture rate. 
 We recommend additional data collection 
in this area, as the emergent trends examined 
herein with 14 species likely reflect a larger-scale 
trend observed within Felidae. It makes intuitive 
sense that larger felids may have lower prey capture 
rates than smaller felids. This may be caused by 

prey defenses, but could also relate to ambush 
hunting behavior, as it is harder to hide larger cats. 
We see evidence of this universal need for crypsis 
among felids in the wide array of pelage patterns 
across size classes that aid in camouflage. For 
example, tigers rely on their distinctive stripes to 
blend into the background.35 While smaller felids 
also rely on pelage patterns for camouflage, they 
often occupy concealed spaces that require no 
visual exposure to the prey, such as tree holes and 
small burrows abandoned by other fossorial 
species.36 The implication of varied ambush 
success means that the hunting attempts of many 
large felids may be foiled before they even begin, 
potentially explaining why species like tigers have 
lower success rates. We recommend further study 
of the relationship between felid size and prey 
capture rates as data is collected for additional 
species in order to assess whether the observed 
trend represents a true reality. 
44..  PPeellaaggee  CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss  aanndd  HHaabbiittaatt  PPrreeffeerreennccee  

Given the importance of camouflage for 
successful ambush hunting, we next explored the 
relationship between felid size, pelage 
characteristics, and habitat preference. Across size 
classes, felids exhibited a broad array of pelage 
colors from sandy beige (Lynx pardinus) to 
chestnut (Catopuma badia) to orange (P. tigris), 
with some small felids exhibiting high intraspecific 
variation (F. catus; Figure 4a). Pelage patterns 
similarly varied across size classes, with plain 
pelage consistently poorly represented (Figure 4b). 
Although fine-scale habitat preference (i.e., 
whether felids are primarily arboreal, scansorial, or 
terrestrial) was not dependent upon felid size class 
(Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 0.805), it was associated 
with pelage pattern (Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 
0.047). For example, rosetted patterns typified 
arboreal or scansorial felids; out of eight felid 
species with rosetted pelage, only one was 
terrestrial (Leopardus guttulus; Table S1). This 
suggests that the need for habitat-specific 

52



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

camouflage – rather than overall felid size – exerts 
a stronger influence on pelage characteristics. This 
bears out when considering pelage in each felid 
species’ unique contexts. For example, the sand 
cat’s (Felis margarita) light sandy striped pelage 
provides ample camouflage within the North 
African and West-Central Asian deserts it 
inhabits.27 In contrast, arboreal and scansorial cats 
living in forests often have disruptive dark-spotted 
or blotched pelage patterns, which match dappled 
light coming through vegetation. 

 
FFiigguurree  44..  FFeelliiddss  ddiissppllaayy  aa  wwiiddee  vvaarriieettyy  ooff  ppeellaaggee  
ccoolloorrss  aanndd  ppaatttteerrnnss  aaccrroossss  ssiizzee  ccllaasssseess.. (A) Pelage 
colors golden, sandy, tawny, and gray can be found 
in species of all body size classes, with additional 
colors present in a subset of felids. (B) Pelage 
patterns plain, spotted, and rosetted can similarly 
be found in species of all body size classes, with 
additional patterns present in a subset of felids. 
Over 50% of midsize felids have spotted pelage. 

As such, we see that the adaptive value of 
different pelage colors and patterns can vary by 
environmental context. This has high relevance to 
felid ecology and evolution, as felids are known to 
occupy a wide variety of contexts. On a broad 
geographic scale, species within Felidae exist on 
almost every continent and in numerous habitat 
types including forests, shrublands, grasslands, 
savannas, deserts, inland wetlands, and rocky areas 
(Figure 5). While we observed some patterns 
relevant to size class (e.g., all large cat species can 
be found in shrublands and grasslands), we also 

observed a remarkable range of habitat types 
within species, and particularly within large-
bodied species. For example, Sumatran tigers (P. 
tigris sondaica) inhabit tropical rainforests where 
monthly average temperatures never dip below 
22°C, while the Amur tiger (P. tigris tigris) 
inhabits areas of northeastern China where 
temperatures can plunge as low as -53°C in the 
winter.37 The range of pumas (P. concolor) spans 
most of the Americas, with the South American 
cougar (P. concolor concolor) occupying the 
Amazon rainforest and Andes mountains while 
the North American cougar (P. concolor cougar) 
inhabits spaces from Central America to the Rocky 
Mountains in British Columbia.38 In fact, large 
leopards (P. pardus), lions (P. leo), cheetahs (A. 
jubatus), and jaguars (P. onca) all possess multi-
continental distributions across their subspecies; 
except for the jaguar, which is monotypic.39 
 In contrast to these broad-reaching 
distributions of large felids, almost one-quarter 
(24%) of small felids are exclusively found in the 
forests of Southeast Asia, with some species, such 
as the bay cat (C. badia), restricted to only one 
island.4,5 Additionally, the Andean mountain cat 
(L. jacobita) is only found in the rocky hills of the 
Andes mountains, and the kodkod (L. guigna) is 
limited to shrubland and forest in southern 
Chile.39,40 On average, small felids tend to be more 
specialist in their habitat requirements than wider-
ranging large felids, which can have important 
implications for the conservation monitoring and 
management of species within each size class. 
 
 

53



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

 
FFiigguurree  55..  TThhee  mmaajjoorriittyy  ooff  ffeelliidd  ssppeecciieess  ccaann  bbee  
ffoouunndd  iinn  ffoorreesstt,,  sshhrruubbllaanndd,,  aanndd  ggrraassssllaanndd  
hhaabbiittaattss.. Each bar represents the percentage of 
total felid species (black) or the percentage of small 
(blue), midsize (green), and large (yellow) felid 
species found in each habitat type.  
55..  CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn  SSttaattuuss  aanndd  TTrreennddss  

Across all habitat types and size classes, 
felid species face the risk of local extirpation and 
range-wide extinction. According to the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature, 
the majority (71%) of large felid species are 
currently listed under a threatened category (i.e., 
Vulnerable or Endangered; Figure 6a). In contrast, 
44% of midsize felid species and 36% of small 
felids were classified under threatened categories; 
yet all size groups had at least one Endangered 
species (Table S1). Overall trends place midsize 
felids as faring the “best” of the size classes, as 66% 
of midsize species are classified as Least Concern. 
However, population trends provide reason for 
concern, as roughly 80% of felid species are 
currently experiencing population declines. Large 
felids are particularly at risk, as 100% of species in 
this size class have decreasing population trends 
(Figure 6b). Small felids exhibit a similar trend, 
with 84% of species experiencing population 
declines and only one species (P. bengalensis) 
exhibiting stable population trends. Midsize felids 
again seem to be faring the “best” of the three size 
classes, as three out of the four felids with stable 
population trends are classified as midsize. 
However, over 50% of midsize species are 

nonetheless experiencing population declines, 
underscoring the troubling population trends 
exhibited across all three felid size classes. 

 
FFiigguurree  66..  FFeelliidd  ssppeecciieess  ooff  aallll  ssiizzee  ccllaasssseess  aarree  
eexxppeerriieenncciinngg  ssiiggnniiffiiccaanntt  ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn  
cchhaalllleennggeess.. (A) The majority of large felid species 
are listed in a threatened category (i.e., Vulnerable 
or Endangered) by the IUCN Red List, with a 
significant proportion of small and midsize species 
also listed as threatened. (B) All large felids exhibit 
decreasing population trends, with 84% of small 
felids and a little over 50% of midsize felids 
similarly decreasing. 

These troubling conservation trends may 
relate to the factors previously considered in this 
review. For example, if large felids have lower 
hunting success rates than smaller species, big cats 
will necessarily require a larger territory in order to 
access a wider berth of prey and avoid resource 
competition. This reveals a potential driver for 
decreasing population trends observed in every 
large felid species, as undisturbed, contiguous 
habitat is diminishing quickly. For example, it is 
estimated that there will be no remaining suitable 
habitat for Bengal tigers (P. tigris tigris) in 
southern coastal Bangladesh by 2070.41 For jaguars 
(P. onca), habitat fragmentation was found to be a 
greater threat than habitat loss; out of 28 surveyed 
subpopulations separated by fragmentation, only 
two were found to be viable in the long term.42 
While small and midsize felids may be able to 
survive in smaller home ranges (possible due to 

54



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

higher hunting success rates), habitat loss and 
fragmentation threaten their long-term viability, 
as well. For example, species inhabiting one or a 
few isolated areas have few to no options for 
dispersal should their habitat be destroyed or 
modified for anthropogenic use. 

Yet even if the extent of a species’ range is 
not impacted, other factors can seriously decrease 
the quality of available habitat and reduce the 
available area where a species can thrive. Pollution, 
in particular, affects small and midsize felids by 
increasing disease and spreading risks across wide 
swaths of habitat. For example, fishing cats (P. 
viverrinus) that partially rely on estuary mangrove 
habitats were found to be threatened by heavy 
metal contamination.43 Similar dynamics were 
found in urban-dwelling bobcats (L. rufus), where 
exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides led to 
increased disease severity.44-46 As apex predators, 
felids are especially susceptible to bioaccumulation, 
which can be heightened for small felid species 
(e.g. P. bengalensis) that primarily prey on 
secondary consumers such as birds or fish. These 
effects are particularly striking in urbanized areas, 
where felids can experience increased exposure to 
toxins amid additional threats, such as car strikes, 
poaching, illegal snares, and culling for the pelt 
trade.47,48 This latter threat poses a large risk to 
felids of all size classes, as many fall victim to the 
trapping and fur industries due to their elaborate 
pelts.49 Irrespective of the specific underlying 
cause, the decreasing population trends observed 
across all size classes are concerning for Felidae 
species and their interacting partners, as felids 
often important roles as apex predators in their 
ecosystems by promoting interspecies coexistence 
and revitalizing habitats in unexpected ways.50-53 
66..  CCoonncclluussiioonn  
  In the present review, we examined the 
potential role that felid body size plays in hunting 
behavior, habitat preference, and conservation 

status. We collated information from the scientific 
literature regarding numerous ecological variables 
– such as prey characteristics, capture rates, kill 
methods, pelage patterns, habitat preferences, and 
population trends – and populated a summary 
table containing all 41 currently recognized Felidae 
species (Table S1). We reported preliminary 
relationships between felid size class and preferred 
prey, prey size, and kill method, with all size classes 
exhibiting a diverse array of habitat preferences 
and pelage characteristics. Finally, we reported 
concerning population trends across all three felid 
size classes, with 100% of large felid species, over 
50% of midsize felid species, and over 80% of small 
felid species exhibiting population declines.  

Our findings regarding the relationship 
between felid body size and numerous aspects of 
their ecology, behavior, and conservation suggest 
that body size does influence eco-evolutionary 
dynamics between felids and their prey. While we 
identify several important patterns, our results 
should be considered preliminary and are meant to 
inspire future research that considers additional 
variables and species-level data. At the time of this 
study, small and midsize cats had considerably 
lower amounts of available data compared to large 
cats. This was exemplified by prey capture rates, 
where we collated information for 4 small felid 
species and 5 large felid species, despite small 
species outnumbering large species 25 to 7. This 
discrepancy in data availability may be due to small 
cats’ elusive nature, distribution in remote 
locations, or small numbers. However, their 
further study is critically important, as the more we 
know about each felid species, the better informed 
our conservation actions can be. This is particularly 
relevant given the sobering population trends 
reported herein across all three size classes. 
 Despite the stated limitations of this study, 
the relationship between felid body size and 
numerous ecological traits has not previously been 
reviewed to this extent. Our study therefore 

55



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

represents an important step towards a more 
comprehensive understanding of species within 
Felidae and the many associations between their 
body size and ecology, behavior, and conservation. 
As the majority of felid species experience 
population- and species-level threats, their 
continued study – particularly for chronically 
understudied small to midsize cats – is paramount 
to designing effective conservation strategies and 
enabling long-term persistence of felids. We hope 
these qualitative analyses and summative table of 
collated metadata present a valuable resource to the 
Felidae research community and inspire further 
study and conservation action of these charismatic 
and ecologically important species. 
RReeffeerreenncceess  

1. Feldhamer, G.A., Merritt, J.F., Krajewski, C., 
Rachlow, J.L., Stewart, K.M. (2020). 
Mammalogy: Adaptation, Diversity, Ecology. 
Fifth Edition, Johns Hopkins University 
Press, Baltimore. 

2. Macdonald, E.A., Burnham, D., Hinks, A.E., 
Dickman, A.J., Malhi, Y., Macdonald, D.W. 
(2015). Conservation inequality and the 
charismatic cat: Felis felicis. Glob Ecol 
Conserv 3: 851–866. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.04.006 

3. Myrick, J.G. (2015). Emotion regulation, 
procrastination, and watching cat videos 
online: Who watches Internet cats, why, and 
to what effect? Comput Human Behav 52: 
168–176. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.001 

4. Kitchener, A.C., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., 
Eizirik, E., Gentry, A., Werdelin, L., 
Wilting, A., Yamaguchi, N., Abramov, A. V, 
Christiansen, P., Driscoll, C.A., Duckworth, 
J.W., Johnson, W.E., Luo, S.J., Meijaard, E., 
O’Donoghue, P., Sanderson, J., Seymour, K., 
Bruford, M.W., Groves, C., Hoffmann, M., 
Nowell, K., Timmons, Z., Tobe, S.S. (2017). 
A revised taxonomy of the Felidae. The final 
report of the Cat Classification Task Force of 
the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. Cat 
News (11). 

5. Sunquist, M., Sunquist, F. (2002). Wild Cats 
of the World. University of Chicago Press, 
Chicago. 

6. Bryant, H.N., Russell, A.P., Laroiya, R., 
Powell, G.L. (1996). Claw retraction and 
protraction in the carnivora: Skeletal 
microvariation in the phalanges of the Felidae. 
J Morphol 229(3): 289–308. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
4687(199609)229:3<289::AID-
JMOR4>3.0.CO;2-U 

7. Ewer, R.F. (1998). The Carnivores. Cornell 
University Press, Ithaca. 

8. Wittenberg, P.A. (1995). Phylogenetic, 
behavioral, and dietary constraints on felid 
masticatory morphology. Thesis: Duke 
University. 

9. Goździewska-Harłajczuk, K., Barszcz, K., 
Klećkowska-Nawrot, J., Hamouzová, P., 
Čížek, P., Kuropka, P., Kvapil, P. (2023). 
Comparative study of lingual papillae, lingual 
glands and lyssa of the tongue of selected wild 
felids (Carnivora, Felidae) in biological 
aspects. Biology 12(4): 516. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12040516 

10. Hast, M.H. (1989). The larynx of roaring and 
non-roaring cats. J Anat 163: 117. 

11. Krofel, M., Kos, I., Jerina, K. (2012). The 
noble cats and the big bad scavengers: effects 
of dominant scavengers on solitary predators. 
Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66: 1297–1304. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1384-6 

12. Lamberski, N. (2015). Felidae. Fowler’s Zoo 
and Wild Animal Medicine, Volume 8: 467. 

13. Mattern, M.Y., McLennan, D.A. (2000). 
Phylogeny and speciation of felids. Cladistics 
16(2): 232–253. 
https://doi.org/10.1006/clad.2000.0132 

14. Rinaldi, A.R., Rodriguez, F.H., Carvalho, 
A.L., Passos, F.C. (2015). Feeding of small 
Neotropical felids (Felidae: Carnivora) and 
trophic niche overlap in anthropized mosaic 
landscape of South Brazil. Biotemas 28(4): 
155–168. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-
7925.2015v28n4p155 

15. Skinner, J.D., Chimimba, C.T. (2005). The 
mammals of the southern African sub-region. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

16. Day, L.M., Jayne, B.C. (2007). Interspecific 
scaling of the morphology and posture of the 

56



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

limbs during the locomotion of cats (Felidae). 
Journal of Experimental Biology 210(4): 642–
654. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02703 

17. Lanier, D.L., Dewsbury, D.A. (1976). A 
quantitative study of copulatory behaviour of 
large Felidae. Behavioural Processes 1(4): 
327–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-
6357(76)90014-0 

18. Mellen, J.D. (1993). A comparative analysis 
of scent-marking, social and reproductive 
behavior in 20 species of small cats (Felis). 
Am Zool 33(2): 151–166. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/33.2.151 

19. Peters, G., Tonkin-Leyhausen, B.A. (1999). 
Evolution of acoustic communication signals 
of mammals: friendly close-range 
vocalizations in Felidae (Carnivora). J Mamm 
Evol 6(2): 129–159. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020620121416 

20. Randau, M., Goswami, A. (2017). 
Morphological modularity in the vertebral 
column of Felidae (Mammalia, Carnivora). 
BMC Evol Biol 17: 1–12. 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0975-2 

21. Sicuro, F.L., Oliveira, L.F.B. (2011). Skull 
morphology and functionality of extant 
Felidae (Mammalia: Carnivora): a 
phylogenetic and evolutionary perspective. 
Zool J Linn Soc 161(2): 414–462. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-
3642.2010.00636.x 

22. R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and 
environment for statistical computing. R 
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Viena, 
Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL 
http://www.R-project.org/. 

23. Haddaway, N.R., Bethel, A., Dicks, L. V, 
Koricheva, J., Macura, B., Petrokofsky, G., 
Pullin, A.S., Savilaakso, S., Stewart, G.B. 
(2020). Eight problems with literature reviews 
and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 4(12): 
1582–1589.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-
020-01295-x 

24. Hayward, M.W., Kerley, G.I.H. 2005. Prey 
preferences of the lion (Panthera leo). J Zool 
267(3): 309–322. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836905007508 

25. Pickard, A.R., Holt, W. V, Green, D.I., 
Cano, M., Zoo, T., Rose, P., Roffe, S. 
(2014). Clawing their way to the top: Lion vs. 

giraffe! Newsletter of the IUCN SSC Giraffe 
& Okapi Specialist Group 44: 19. 

26. Hunter, J.S., Durant, S.M., Caro, T.M. 
(2007). To flee or not to flee: predator 
avoidance by cheetahs at kills. Behav Ecol 
Sociobiol 61: 1033–1042. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0336-4 

27. Kitchener, A.C., Van Valkenburgh, B., 
Yamaguchi, N., Macdonald, D., Loveridge, 
A. (2010). Felid form and function. Biology 
and Conservation of Wild Felids: 83–106. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266
753114_Felid_form_and_function 

28. Funston, P.J., Mills, M.G.L., Biggs, H.C., 
Richardson, P.R.K. (1998). Hunting by male 
lions: ecological influences and socioecological 
implications. Anim Behav 56(6): 1333–1345. 
https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0884 

29. Ganguly, D., Adhya, T. (2022). How fishing 
cats Prionailurus viverrinus (Bennett, 1833) 
fish: describing a felid’s strategy to hunt 
aquatic prey. Mammalia 86(2): 182–189. 
https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2020-
0133 

30. Herbst, M., Mills, M.G.L. (2010). The 
feeding habits of the Southern African 
wildcat, a facultative trophic specialist, in the 
southern Kalahari (Kgalagadi Transfrontier 
Park, South Africa/Botswana). J Zool 280(4): 
403–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7998.2009.00679.x 

31. Hilborn, A., Pettorelli, N., Caro, T., Kelly, 
M.J., Laurenson, M.K., Durant, S.M. (2018). 
Cheetahs modify their prey handling behavior 
depending on risks from top predators. Behav 
Ecol Sociobiol 72: 1–10. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2481-y 

32. Ivan, J.S., Shenk, T.M. (2016). Winter diet 
and hunting success of Canada lynx in 
Colorado. J Wildl Manage 80(6): 1049–1058. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21101 

33. Lamichhane, B.R., Kadariya, R., Subedi, N., 
Dhakal, B.K., Dhakal, M., Thapa, K., 
Acharya, K.P. (2016). Rusty-spotted Cat: 
12th cat species discovered in Western Terai 
of Nepal. Cat News 64: 30–36. 

34. McGregor, H., Legge, S., Jones, M.E., 
Johnson, C.N. (2015). Feral cats are better 
killers in open habitats, revealed by animal-

57



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

borne video. PLoS One 10(8): e0133915. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133915 

35. Godfrey, D., Lythgoe, J.N., Rumball, D.A. 
(1987). Zebra stripes and tiger stripes: the 
spatial frequency distribution of the pattern 
compared to that of the background is 
significant in display and crypsis. Biological 
Journal of the Linnean Society 32(4): 427–
433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-
8312.1987.tb00442.x 

36. Happold, M., Happold, D.C.D. (2013). 
Mammals of Africa. Bloomsbury, London. 

37. Luo, S.-J., Liu, Y.-C., Xu, X. (2019). Tigers 
of the world: Genomics and conservation. 
Annu Rev Anim Biosci 7: 521–548. 

38. Gay, S.W., Best, T.L. (1996). Relationships 
between abiotic variables and geographic 
variation in skulls of pumas (Puma concolor: 
Mammalia, Felidae) in North and South 
America. Zool J Linn Soc 117(3): 259–282. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-
3642.1996.tb02190.x 

39. Day, L.M., Jayne, B.C. (2007). Interspecific 
scaling of the morphology and posture of the 
limbs during the locomotion of cats (Felidae). 
Journal of Experimental Biology 210(4): 642–
654. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02703 

40. Johnson, W.E., Culver, M., Iriarte, J.A., 
Eizirik, E., Seymour, K.L., O’Brien, S.J. 
(1998). Tracking the evolution of the elusive 
Andean mountain cat (Oreailurus jacobita) 
from mitochondrial DNA. Journal of 
Heredity 89(3): 227–232. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/89.3.227 

41. Mukul, S.A., Alamgir, M., Sohel, M.S.I., 
Pert, P.L., Herbohn, J., Turton, S.M., Khan, 
M.S.I., Munim, S.A., Reza, A.H.M.A., 
Laurance, W.F. (2019). Combined effects of 
climate change and sea-level rise project 
dramatic habitat loss of the globally 
endangered Bengal tiger in the Bangladesh 
Sundarbans. Science of the Total 
Environment 663: 830–840. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.38
3 

42. Zanin, M., Palomares, F., Brito, D. 2015. 
The jaguar’s patches: Viability of jaguar 
populations in fragmented landscapes. J Nat 
Conserv 23: 90–97. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.06.003 

43. Harika, T.L., Al-Ghanim, K.A., Riaz, M.N., 
Krishnappa, K., Pandiyan, J., Govindarajan, 
M. (2023). Fishing cat scats as a 
biomonitoring tool for toxic heavy metal 
contamination in aquatic ecosystems. Toxics 
11(2): 173. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020173 

44. Riley, S.P.D., Bromley, C., Poppenga, R.H., 
Uzal, F. a., Whited, L., Sauvajot, R.M., 
Service, N.P., Monica, S.. (2007). 
Anticoagulant exposure and notoedric mange 
in bobcats and mountain lions in urban 
southern California. Journal of Wildlife 
Management 71(6): 1874–1884. 
https://doi.org/10.2193/2005-615 

45. Serieys, L.E.K., Armenta, T.C., Moriarty, 
J.G., Boydston, E.E., Lyren, L.M., 
Poppenga, R.H., Crooks, K.R., Wayne, R.K., 
Riley, S.P.D. (2015). Anticoagulant 
rodenticides in urban bobcats: exposure, risk 
factors and potential effects based on a 16-
year study. Ecotoxicology 24(4): 844–862. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-015-1429-5 

46. Serieys, L.E.K., Lea, A.J., Epeldegui, M., 
Armenta, T.C., Moriarty, J., Vandewoude, S., 
Carver, S., Foley, J., Wayne, R.K., Riley, 
S.P.D., Uittenbogaart, C.H. (2018). 
Urbanization and anticoagulant  poisons 
promote immune dysfunction in bobcats. 
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological 
Sciences 285(1871). 
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2533 

47. Abdukadir, A., Khan, B., Masuda, R., 
Ohdachi, S. (2010). Asiatic wild cat (Felis 
silvestris ornata) is no more a ‘Least Concern’ 
species in Xinjiang, China. Pakistan Journal 
of Wildlife 1(2): 57–63. 
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/49688 

48. Ghoddousi, A., Hamidi, A.K., Ghadirian, T., 
Assadi, S.B. (2016). The status of wildcat in 
Iran – a crossroad of subspecies. Cat News S 
10: 60–63. 

49. Smith, N.J.H. (1976). Spotted cats and the 
Amazon skin trade. Oryx 13(4): 362–
371.  doi:10.1017/S0030605300014095 

50. Kamler, J.F., Stenkewitz, U., Sliwa, A., 
Wilson, B., Lamberski, N., Herrick, J.R., 
Macdonald, D.W. (2015). Ecological 
relationships of black-footed cats (Felis 
nigripes) and sympatric canids in South 

58



Georgetown Scientific Research Journal 
 

 

Africa. Mammalian Biology 80: 122–127. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2014.11.00
4 

51. LaBarge, L.R., Evans, M.J., Miller, J.R.B., 
Cannataro, G., Hunt, C., Elbroch, L.M. 
2022. Pumas (Puma concolor) as ecological 
brokers: a review of their biotic relationships. 
Mamm Rev 52(3): 360–376. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12281 

52. Sarasola, J.H., Zanón-Martínez, J.I., Costán, 
A.S., Ripple, W.J. (2016). Hypercarnivorous 
apex predator could provide ecosystem 
services by dispersing seeds. Sci Rep 6(1): 
19647. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19647 

53. Wallach, A.D., Izhaki, I., Toms, J.D., Ripple, 
W.J., Shanas, U. (2015). What is an apex 
predator? Oikos 124(11): 1453–1461. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01977 

59


