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.
02-23-2015, 11:06 PM( This post was last modified: 02-23-2015, 11:28 PM by Amnon242 )
(02-23-2015, 09:59 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:
(02-22-2015, 02:03 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:
(02-22-2015, 10:20 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: However, not all scientists were influenced by Mazák and his biased idea that Amur tigers were the only giants.
V. Mazak wrote that amur tigers are the biggest, but according to him bengal tigers were the same league. For instance he wrote "not only amur tigers, but also bengal tigers are definitely bigger than lions".
Yes, but he also said that "It thus seems that the species has reached its maximum size in the living subspecies P. t. altaica". However, now we know that this is incorrect, in modern and prehistoric times.
Yes, he said that amur tigers are the biggest. But that statement is different from "Amur tigers were the only giants."
Mazak: Big Cats and Chetahs (1980): "Biggest tigers live in India, particularly in famous Kuamon, and in particular in northern area of (tigers) expansion, in Manchuria and South-eastern Siberia".
"Indian tiger is a big form of tiger....famous Bachelor of Powalgarh belonged to this subspecies - we mentioned this tiger in connection with the potential size of tigers".
I feel the need to defend Mazak, because his above mentioned book introduced me the world of big cats :-)