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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 2 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thread Closed 
Overrated size of Munna aka Langda of Kanha National Park

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#68
( This post was last modified: 08-11-2014, 10:23 PM by Pckts )

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.
 

 




Messages In This Thread
RE: Overrated size of Munna aka Langda of Kanha National Park - Pckts - 08-11-2014, 10:23 PM



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB