Tiger Directory

[Pckts]

(10-28-2015, 01:06 AM)Shardul Wrote:

(10-26-2015, 09:28 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-25-2015, 04:20 AM)Shardul Wrote: Apart from this particular poster on tigernation, I haven't seen anyone making such claims as Munna being much bigger than Waghdoh & Bamera. Not just that, I haven't seen such blatant cheerleading of one particular tiger anywhere, even on the immature AVA forums.

Two people who have seen the same tiger might not agree on the size. But when one tiger is being called consistently bigger than all, by multiple photographers who have seen tigers in multiple reserves, then maybe we can take their word. eg, Waghdoh. 

I too have seen wild tigers, in Ranthambhore and in Kanha, yet I don't have such strong opinions on size.

It seems no one on tigernation seems to know anything better and hence no one challenges this poster and take his opinion on everything as gospel. They have let  one person hijack their website which is why I stopped going there because it has turned into one giant Munna/Banda jerkfest.

I agree for the most part, Tigenation hasn't been updated in quite some time. But a few of the posters there are good, I truly think Kay is definitely one of them. He contributes many photographs and very rarely gets caught up in the debate of individual tigers.
So I take his word about Kahna males being larger than Bandhavargh males, but I have heard from a few that the males there aren't quite as large as else where. But that being said, I would still put Bheema up there with any tiger, hes huge. And very few tigers have carried as impressive of a body as bamera, in terms of muscle definition.

Most of us know by now that every area has there own version of "Waghoh"

The tiger that is bigger than all the others.
But like you stated, someone who has been to many reserves, word, will carry more weight than a one time traveler, obviously.

That being said, I have heard from Kanwar and Anjan that Munna is very large tiger, but other than that, its pure speculation. So at the end of the day, I assume he is a large male, nothing more, nothing less.


Edit: Also, I love Kahna and Ranthambhore Tigers, both look to be large cats in their own way. Do you notice any different in size between those two locations of Tigers?

To me, Ranth tigers have slightly smaller heads than Kahna tigers but Ranth body frame look to be very tall and athletic, Kahna also looks to be tall but a little more robust. To my naked eye of course, and only through video, not like I have seen them in person.
Unfortunately

I only saw one adult male in Kanha, rest were cubs. This was in April 2012. The guide called him the Kisli male. I saw him from close on the side of the road, less than 500 mtrs from our forest rest house near the Khatia gate. He didn't look like any Kanha tiger I had seen in photographs on the internet, and I had a good look at his face. He was big, taller than both t24 & t25. Not longer though. Big head and big paws. But it was just one individual. So I am not in a position to make a comparison between RTR and Kanha.

Btw, Kay is a woman :)

Oh my mistake, please don't tell her I have been calling her a man, haha

So the Kisli male was Taller than T24 or T25 but not as long. Very interesting as I considered T24 and T25 very tall tigers, one would have to assume that "Kisli  male" would come in around the 240kg mark just like T24 than. Great info Shardul, thanks for sharing. Reply