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.
12-22-2018, 01:32 AM( This post was last modified: 12-22-2018, 01:33 AM by Shadow )
(12-21-2018, 10:54 PM)Panther Wrote:
(12-21-2018, 08:06 PM)Shadow Wrote: Yes I noticed and that is the reason for the word "if" in my posting. And 2 years 9 months is almost 3 years old with only 3 months gap. Not impossible at all, that some individual would be a little bit earlier sexually mature. These exceptions occur in every species. That is why we have averages, usual ranges and then outside usual ranges exceptional individuals. So female tigers according to Mazak usually reach sexual maturity at 3-4 years. That can´t be read, that earlier or later is impossible. Nature doesn´t work like that.
So logical conclusion is, that if some tiger has reached sexual maturity in age 2 years 9 months, it is a female, because then there is nothing too extraordinary. If that would be told to be a male, that would raise a lot of questions.
Of course it's a female, if we think logically. Because that age of reaching sexual maturity is closer to female tigers than males. But there's still almost 9 months gap between 2 year 9 months and to average 3.5 years(3 year 6 months).
What I'm telling is that's not a average of tigers reaching sexual maturity, but just a individual as you said!
You have interesting to way to look at that gap. Anyway I am just saying, that I don´t see here any real reason to doubt information from Mazak. There should be many cases of tigers clearly under 3 years old, not only one. That article seemed to be about one tiger being sexually mature a little bit sooner, that usual. When thinking, that article was from 1981 and current information still gives 3-4 years old, I guess, that it can be considered quite ok.