WildFact
›
General Section
›
Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals
Overrated size of Munna aka Langda of Kanha National Park
Overrated size of Munna aka Langda of Kanha National Park
|
Overrated size of Munna aka Langda of Kanha National Park
|
  (07-23-2014, 03:05 AM)'TheLioness' Wrote: Just threw this together rather quickly, konda, munna, banda, out of them all munna is the least impressive, and the picture of konda is 2006,three years before his death. Your cherry picked 3 images that are from completely different places, different angles and nothing to compare them too. Why not use the Munna Image I posted where the jeep is behind him he his muscles are taught and his height is easily seen? You know I can bring up a few waghdoh pictures that will be not nearly as impressive as others. Same with any other tiger, Munna is massive, he is fit, thick, tall, long, his head and paws are large and he has defeated two other massive tigers. Cherry pick one image and try to claim it as fact all you want, it wont change the fact that munna is quoted by tons of eye witnesses as... Largest tiger in Kahna, Huge Tiger, Massive tiger, etc... List goes on and on. No matter if he is slightly smaller or slightly larger than Patewala and Naak male, he is a massive tiger. This is 100% backed be real evidence. Not copy and pasted "comparisions" If we try and compare random images than I guess all the ones bold made show that male lions are the same size as waghdoh, right lioness? 
I'm not cherry picking, i really hate how people say that, i didn't go online and look for the worst picture, it is a picture of him walking, other pictures he may look impressive in than this one yes, but this was the one i choose and the other tigers as well could have pictures showing even better muscular ect.
Eyewitness accounts really mean nothing, it is very hard to judge even for experts, so opinions on their size could be wrong, peter and guate have already poved this, you've never accepted estimates given to lions by lion experts over 220kg and ect, however you believe munna is close to 300kg? Doubtful, he is not impressive to me and others on here, I beleive he falls in the average or slightly above average looking tiger. Konda was larger as well as the two males that killed konda IMO than munna. Killing two other big tigers does not prove he is a big tiger, the other tigers possibly werent as skilled and other factors, prey injury ect. http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/ka...gle/224156 He looks slinder, not as massive and tank like as many other tigers I've seen. I really don't see what is impressive about him? You quote the link 7 tigress picture then when i post male lions that dwarf their lionesses as much and or other tigers as well, you make excuse it depends on the lioness tigress ect. What do you think of Bamera? You think he may be smaller than langda/munna.  *This image is copyright of its original author Here is a nice picture of munna, he does look rather nice and thicker in this picture, however IMO he still looks to be average to me, compared to some other tigers.  *This image is copyright of its original author How do you rank munna over the others?
Munna looks to be "average"
Ok, thats pretty absurd my friend.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd7TEvLJLb8 Watch at :26 second mark. The guy is a beast, he is massive, controls one of the highest tiger populations and largest areas known to exist in india or assam. Defeated numerous other large males multiple times, killed others. He is anything but "average" and I definitely think he is larger than Bamera. Bamera is large but lacks the overall girth that munna has. Munna is thick from front to back, he is just a thick guy. That is where the weight comes to play.  *This image is copyright of its original author Another eye witness account of his sizeMunna Tiger an Epitome by pateluday @ 2013-11-10 – 12:06:20 He is one of the largest male tigers I have seen in the Kanha Park. Munna as he is affably called is about six or seven years and is in prime. He patrols Sal Ghat, DigDola and Saunf Meadow areas of Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh in India. The big cat is so powerful that it wades through areas of other big cats in the park. It has been seen as far as Mukki Range which is about 35 km from Kisli Zone. As a defense mechanism the territory of tigers keep changing, This was my third encounter with Munna the first one was few years back. The tiger has sired many cubs and heads the breeding profile of the tiger reserve. Male tigers have a tough time holding their territory which is always challenged by other dominant males. http://tiger-safari.blog.co.uk/2013/11/1...-16807350/ Another eye witness account Munna "CAT-napping" Munna, the erstwhile dominant male of the Kanha meadows had just settled down for a siesta one late morning. This is an old picture taken in 2010 when Munna was in his prime and still the obvious ruler of the Kanha meadows. In summer 2012, he seemed to have shifted his base to Sarhi and was seen more often in the Sarhi - Dig Dola areas over the last year. One can only guess what made him do that...some believe Munna was eventually pushed out of the meadows by Kankata, an equally old male who suddenly started making his presence felt on the meadows in a big way since the summer of 2012. Kankata was feared dead when the park re-opened for the winter of 2013, however, the good news is that he is still alive and roams extensively and has been sighted nearly everywhere in the tourism zone - Kanha, Kisli, Sarhi, and Mukki! Munna has been sighted this season on Salghat and route 9, however, he no longer has a strong presence on the meadows the way he had from 2009 to 2012. Though he still looks fit in the photos this year, old age could possibly be catching up with him. We also have some young aspirants to the throne of the king of the meadows. As all the three famous giants - Munna, Naak Kata, and Kankata are almost past their prime, probably, one of Munna's own cubs, or a cub of his ferocious and long-time feuding neighbour Naak-kata, or a cub of the cool Kankata could eventually take over the meadows soon. There have been reports of an extremely large young male tiger known as Mundi Dadar male (believed to be son of Naak-kata) lurking around the meadows. Only time will tell who will be ushered in as the new prince of this beautiful kingdom. http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayi...?id=452020 Look at how thick his body is  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author There is no way anybody could seriously call this cat "average" or think that he is "200kg" You're not being reasonable Lioness, Im sorry. Thats two more eye witness accounts that call him massive as well as being the same size as Naak male or Patewal. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]  
Here's Copters friends response on Munna's size compared to Patewala and Naak Kata
"Kshitij Degaonkar That's a difficult question *****. Opinions differ from person to person. All 3 were huge and about the same size. So it's not possible to say for sure who among them is the biggest unless they are actually measured. Even the guides and drivers who have served in Kanha for years and seen all these tigers hundreds of times can't say for certain that a particular individual is bigger than the other. For the naked eye, all are nearly the same. Our eyes can only distinguish between a huge and a not so huge tiger. But if we look at two tigers falling in the huge category, it's nearly impossible to tell which one is bigger. Another factor I feel is that if a tiger is more used to tourists, he is sighted more often. And since more people have seen that individual, there would be more people claiming he is the biggest. Even the guides and drivers might tell you that this tiger is the biggest just to make you feel happy that you saw the biggest one! E.g. In Bandhavgadh's case, they first always called B2 is the biggest and then called Bamera biggest... But the rarely seen Bokha never got his share of honours though in all probability he was bigger than the other two. If you ask my personal opinion on your question, I will say Naak Kata is bigger. But then again, there can be unending debates on this. The only thing we can say is that all three are roughly equally huge and we can't be certain who is the biggest until someone gets a photo with them side by side or if the FD has their measurements." Seems to hold true to everything else I hear. "Our eyes can only distinguish between a huge and a not so huge tiger. But if we look at two tigers falling in the huge category, it's nearly impossible to tell which one is bigger. " At the end of the day, they are Huge and almost impossible to distinguish size from the naked eye. Now I want to know how Red Eye and Bhima would match up with them (size wise) Red eye to me, looks to be largest. But who knows for sure.   *This image is copyright of its original author Another picture of Red Eye walking head on 
As others have said, positioning at the time a photo was taken can have everything to do with the supposed "massiveness" of a particular animal on any given day. As far as I know, Wagdoh has never been weighed or measured. Therefore, Boldchamp's assertions that perhaps some lions rival Wagdoh in size has not been proven with 100% certainty to be wrong.
(08-12-2014, 06:27 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: As others have said, positioning at the time a photo was taken can have everything to do with the supposed "massiveness" of a particular animal on any given day. As far as I know, Wagdoh has never been weighed or measured. Therefore, Boldchamp's assertions that perhaps some lions rival Wagdoh in size has not been proven with 100% certainty to be wrong. What are you talking about? Lions have been weighed, many of them! They are smaller than tigers. This is fact. Tigers are larger on average and at maximums. So obviously a Tiger which is on the upper scale of size for its species is larger than a Lion that is on the upper scale of its size. Lions are smaller than tigers. This is backed by numerous weights, measurements, eye witnesses etc. Don't make this into some L vs T debate, please. It's about Munna and how he compares to other TIGERS of Kahna.
I was not the one who brought up Boldchamp and his comparisons. I am not attempting to make a "vs" point at all. What I am trying to say is that you can't compare these individual animals with each other separately. Unless these particular tigers stand next to each other you can't really compare them.
EDIT: Plus, I said rival not exceed. (08-12-2014, 10:52 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: NONE of these GIANT tigers have been measured or weighed, or am I wrong?Not true  *This image is copyright of its original author If you mean Waghdoh hasn't been weighed, than thats fine. Many huge tigers have been weighed, and if we would accept hunting records from both Lions and Tigers, than the gap really widens. To this day, there is no verified lion weighing over 230kg I believe. Tigers bottom out 227kg scales and 250kg scales. Take into account how many more Lions have been weighed compared to the # of tigers and you really get a idea of how large tigers can be. Also, they have stated that its harder to tell the difference between two huge Tigers compared to a Huge tiger and a not so huge tigers. These guys are eye witnesses and photographers, they see these animals all the time, they are much more qualified to say which may be larger or smaller, but trying to tell the difference between two huge cats without them being near eachother is very difficult. (08-12-2014, 10:50 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: I was not the one who brought up Boldchamp and his comparisons. I am not attempting to make a "vs" point at all. What I am trying to say is that you can't compare these individual animals with each other separately. Unless these particular tigers stand next to each other you can't really compare them. Also, comparing lions to lions and tigers to tigers is the only way to compare them. You cant even compare body measurements because both carry their body and weight very differently. You can only compare a large lion to another large lion and a large tiger to another large tiger. We know large lions are around the 225kg range while large tigers are around the 250kg range. Anything over that weight for either cat would be considered a massive cat for their sub species and probably in the top 5%. IMO |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |