There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
07-18-2014, 02:29 AM( This post was last modified: 07-18-2014, 02:32 AM by Pckts )
I didn't just show buffalo, I showed direct quotes from indiannaturewatch, wild tiger watch , prathap and Kahna tigers.
I never said Munna was larger than any kaziranga tigers or Waghdoh, nor does anything that you showed say they are larger than munna or vice versa.
And nothing is said of Patewala or Naak Kataa being larger than Munna.
I have showed a couple that said munna is larger than both, though.
Lastly, you agree with Kshitij ?
Really, they just said bamera is up there with Waghdoh. Which we all know is not true, considering the many eye witnesses who say Waghdoh is far larger than bamera.
If anything, Kshitij seems more biased for Bamera than anything else, if he/she is trying to say that bamera is the same size as Waghdoh.
Not only that, have they seen Munna, Naak, or Patewala, considering they use the word "surely" and "right up there with" shows that they don't know either. What qualifications do they have that makes you think they know more than anybody else listed?
Overrated size of Munna aka Langda of Kanha National Park
