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.
08-12-2014, 09:31 PM( This post was last modified: 08-12-2014, 09:39 PM by Pckts )
(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.
Overrated size of Munna aka Langda of Kanha National Park
