Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[GuateGojira]

Warsaw always twist the data and the words of others.

Like you most remember (and all the people that have followed this forum since the beginning), I explained very well why I used the data from Heptner & Sludskii, as it was the only one available with body measurements from the old records. Peter and I had discussions about the reliability of the data, however we get to the conclusion that the measurements were "useful" and at some point, more or less reliable.

However, for that same reason, I only used the measurements from the Siberian Tiger Project in my comparative image, because they are the only 100% reliable and if we compare the old and new sizes, they are about the same, indepently if the "old" measurements were taken "over curves" or "between pegs". Now, if the old sizes result to be taken over curves or not, we can't be sure, as the table of Heptner & Sludskii is full with mistakes, like most of the Russian literature. Is like Valliant said: in the old Russia, there was a thin like between the "story" and the "legend". Warsaw and his twists is the best example of this.

Now, what Warsay is trying to prove is that my image of 2015 include this "old" measurements, which is not the case. He/she is so stupid that he/she can see that the measurements of Heptner & Sludskii are only included in my document of the size of the Amur tiger (the one that I constantly actualize), and are there only for comparison. Sadly, Warsaw is unable to see beyond his/her biased nose.

The experience has show that is silly to discuss with Warsaw, because he/she never listen to the evidence and constantly run in circles, so I stay with the evidence: Amur tigers were measured in straight line and the document of Kerley et al. (2005) clearly say it, as they used Nowell & Jackson (1996) as base for method of the measurements. Reply