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.
Big Boys, some with manes on their belly, some with their arms showing others with blonde or black etc.
Very random manes in captivity, its pretty interesting to look at.
Rare Giant Oarfish Filmed in Mexico. While kayaking in Baja, Mexico on a trip organized by Un-Cruise Adventures, guests filmed two giant oarfish. The oarfish were around 15 feet each making for a truly spectacular sight.
Deepest Fish Ever Found. A new species of Snailfish was discovered at record depths in the Mariana Trench. At around 8143 meters this is the deepest dwelling fish in the world.
03-29-2015, 11:48 PM( This post was last modified: 03-29-2015, 11:50 PM by Kingtheropod )
(02-27-2015, 10:53 PM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 01:08 PM)'Apollo' Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:43 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Well, the other three other pics were also claimed to belong to the 850 pounds Baikal.
BTW, @Kingtheropod has also claimed that the 850 pounds figure was weighed during the age of 12, so it was definitely not his prime weight.
Both are two different tigers.
If you look at the stripe patterns, they are completely different.
The possibilities are
1) Both the tigers may had the same name.
2) Or one tiger could be Baikal and the other one may be mislabelled as Baikal
Regarding the size and weight, Im pretty certain that the first tiger is definitely prehistoric in dimensions because in the pictures we have humans next to it for scaling, but Im not sure about the second tiger because there is no points for scaling.
But these pics were taken by @Kingtheropod himself, and he claimed that tiger was enormous Baikal.
I don't think he can be mistaken as that tiger was indeed recognized as the huge one when he was taking the photo for him.
Hello Grizzly
I would like to mention that I did not get those pictures from me, I got them from a zoo website which said the name was Baikal.
(02-27-2015, 10:43 AM)'GrizzlyClaws' Wrote: Well, the other three other pics were also claimed to belong to the 850 pounds Baikal.
BTW, @Kingtheropod has also claimed that the 850 pounds figure was weighed during the age of 12, so it was definitely not his prime weight.
Both are two different tigers.
If you look at the stripe patterns, they are completely different.
The possibilities are
1) Both the tigers may had the same name.
2) Or one tiger could be Baikal and the other one may be mislabelled as Baikal
Regarding the size and weight, Im pretty certain that the first tiger is definitely prehistoric in dimensions because in the pictures we have humans next to it for scaling, but Im not sure about the second tiger because there is no points for scaling.
But these pics were taken by @Kingtheropod himself, and he claimed that tiger was enormous Baikal.
I don't think he can be mistaken as that tiger was indeed recognized as the huge one when he was taking the photo for him.
Hello Grizzly
I would like to mention that I did not get those pictures from me, I got them from a zoo website which said the name was Baikal.
Is there any possiblity with more than one tigers share the same name as Baikal?
(06-09-2015, 04:27 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I just stated in the other thread that it's unlikely that animals get truly get fat in the wild, I guess there may be some exceptions...
*This image is copyright of its original author
Bears absolutely get fat, especially ones that have become habituated with human junk. But what are the needs for a bear?
Put on as much weight as possible for hiberanation, being fat is a must for survival. A predator who doesn't hiberanate needs to be in hunting shape year round, they don't get obese.
