Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Have anybody here seen "Ultimate Animals" in NAT Geo Wild?; Do you believe all those facts of animals ?
Topic Started: Jul 17 2015, 03:21 PM (2,875 Views)
Warsaw2014
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
pckts
Jul 28 2015, 07:56 AM
Here is what Needs to be translated
Posted Image
Posted Image


Thats the account of the Male brown bear being killed.
Are we now discussing if Tigers are capable of killing male bears?
I'll search for more, I remember a Male Tiger killing a male black bear but I think this is the only account of a Male Brown Bear being killed.

Large Sumatran male kills Boar Sun Bear

4 - GOLIATH AND THE SUN BEAR

When working in a remote part of an estate, Denninghoff Stelling saw the largest tiger he had ever seen. He described his head as monstrous. He shot the tiger, but never saw him again. Others found his remains.

It wasn't the only large tiger he saw. On an estate known as 'Bekri', a very large male tiger he called 'Goliath' was one of the tigers he was after. During a number of days, they followed his trail. His pug marks were the largest he had seen. One day, when following the tiger, he came to a place where something had happened:

Posted Image
Posted Image




Here's the rough translation:

" ... We followed the trail for about a hundred yards, when it suddenly stopped. I returned to the last prints ... and saw that the tiger had left the trail abruptly and entered a garden. The distance between the prints become shorter, as if he had advanced slowly. Then they suddenly became wide apart, as if he had taken very long jumps. They stopped at a place where large claws had left many gashes in the ground. This was the place where a fight had taken place. There was blood everywhere. Goliath had won the fight. From the battlefield, something heavy had been dragged to an alang-alang field a hundred yards wide. Directly behind the field, the forest started. We expected to find the remains of the animal killed by Goliath, but only found bear skin, bear claws and gnawed bones. I became enthousiastic. Tigers hesitate to attack bears. The reason is these innocent creatures, very solidly built and armed with strong teeth and dangerous claws, are more than capable to defend themselves ... " (pp. 187-188).

The bear had been completely eaten. In order to get to the giant tiger, Denninghoff Stelling shot a large wild boar. He was to be his next meal. The next day, they found that Goliath had broken the rope and taken the heavyweight in his jaws. He did it in such a way, there was hardly a drag visible. It took Denninghoff and his tracker Oesin some time to get to the place where the giant had decided to start his meal. The wild boar had been completely eaten, but Goliath had not been the only one who had feasted. They found the pug marks of a small tigress close to the boar.

They decided to sit up over the left-overs, lighted the 'belor' and thought it would be wasted energy. To their surprise, Goliath returned to his kill. But he didn't show himself. He made a detour, discovered the machan (called a 'prangong' in Sumatra) and protested for a long time before leaving. But minutes later, still in the prangong, Denninghoff saw him out in the open in a nearby field. The tiger wasn't going to give in and waited for them to leave. When he approached his kill, Denninghoff Stelling, aiming at the only thing he could see, the eye, didn't miss. It proved to be a giant tiger:
Tis is Secondary source materials.Try again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pckts
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Warsaw2014
Jul 28 2015, 01:53 PM
pckts
Jul 28 2015, 07:56 AM
Here is what Needs to be translated
Posted Image
Posted Image


Thats the account of the Male brown bear being killed.
Are we now discussing if Tigers are capable of killing male bears?
I'll search for more, I remember a Male Tiger killing a male black bear but I think this is the only account of a Male Brown Bear being killed.

Large Sumatran male kills Boar Sun Bear

4 - GOLIATH AND THE SUN BEAR

When working in a remote part of an estate, Denninghoff Stelling saw the largest tiger he had ever seen. He described his head as monstrous. He shot the tiger, but never saw him again. Others found his remains.

It wasn't the only large tiger he saw. On an estate known as 'Bekri', a very large male tiger he called 'Goliath' was one of the tigers he was after. During a number of days, they followed his trail. His pug marks were the largest he had seen. One day, when following the tiger, he came to a place where something had happened:

Posted Image
Posted Image




Here's the rough translation:

" ... We followed the trail for about a hundred yards, when it suddenly stopped. I returned to the last prints ... and saw that the tiger had left the trail abruptly and entered a garden. The distance between the prints become shorter, as if he had advanced slowly. Then they suddenly became wide apart, as if he had taken very long jumps. They stopped at a place where large claws had left many gashes in the ground. This was the place where a fight had taken place. There was blood everywhere. Goliath had won the fight. From the battlefield, something heavy had been dragged to an alang-alang field a hundred yards wide. Directly behind the field, the forest started. We expected to find the remains of the animal killed by Goliath, but only found bear skin, bear claws and gnawed bones. I became enthousiastic. Tigers hesitate to attack bears. The reason is these innocent creatures, very solidly built and armed with strong teeth and dangerous claws, are more than capable to defend themselves ... " (pp. 187-188).

The bear had been completely eaten. In order to get to the giant tiger, Denninghoff Stelling shot a large wild boar. He was to be his next meal. The next day, they found that Goliath had broken the rope and taken the heavyweight in his jaws. He did it in such a way, there was hardly a drag visible. It took Denninghoff and his tracker Oesin some time to get to the place where the giant had decided to start his meal. The wild boar had been completely eaten, but Goliath had not been the only one who had feasted. They found the pug marks of a small tigress close to the boar.

They decided to sit up over the left-overs, lighted the 'belor' and thought it would be wasted energy. To their surprise, Goliath returned to his kill. But he didn't show himself. He made a detour, discovered the machan (called a 'prangong' in Sumatra) and protested for a long time before leaving. But minutes later, still in the prangong, Denninghoff saw him out in the open in a nearby field. The tiger wasn't going to give in and waited for them to leave. When he approached his kill, Denninghoff Stelling, aiming at the only thing he could see, the eye, didn't miss. It proved to be a giant tiger:
Tis is Secondary source materials.Try again.
Secondary source?
No its not, its a translation from the source shown just like the other translation that says the tiger killed and ate a male brown bear.


Here you go........
B - LANGS TIJGERPADEN (L. Denninghoff Stelling, The Hague, 1966, 233 pages)
Posted Image

Posted Image

Here's a rough translation of what he saw:

" ... I had Goliath! What a giant and how perfect he was. His skin was beautiful and dark, a clear sign he still was in his prime. There was not a scar visible on his skin, which was unusual for animals of his size. My shot hadn't damaged anything. What a trophy! I couldn't stop looking at him. His head was as large as mine and my torso together and his canines were thick and undamaged. He measured 295 cm. Not as large as the other, second, male I had shot at the estate, but he was close. He was, however, more beautiful and as heavy as a result of his robust built. I estimated he was about twice as heavy as the wild boar ... " (pp. 199-200).

The same day, a little later in the evening, he went to see a friend who had sat up in a different corner of the estate. His tigress had not showed. When he saw Goliath, he said he didn't know tigers could grow to such a size in Sumatra.
Posted Image


Both are accounts specifically stating predation on Male bears, whether you chose to accept them or not is up to you.


Edited by pckts, Jul 29 2015, 01:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warsaw2014
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
"No its not, its a translation from the source shown just like the other translation that says the tiger killed and ate a male brown bear"

You really don't understand what really primary source mean.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pckts
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Warsaw2014
Jul 29 2015, 04:41 AM
"No its not, its a translation from the source shown just like the other translation that says the tiger killed and ate a male brown bear"

You really don't understand what really primary source mean.
Considering they are first hand or letters written from the eye witness means they are...
Primary sources.

"A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:"

They are once again, Primary Sources.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warsaw2014
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
pckts
Jul 30 2015, 02:29 AM
Warsaw2014
Jul 29 2015, 04:41 AM
"No its not, its a translation from the source shown just like the other translation that says the tiger killed and ate a male brown bear"

You really don't understand what really primary source mean.
Considering they are first hand or letters written from the eye witness means they are...
Primary sources.

"A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:"

They are once again, Primary Sources.
Considering they are first hand or letters written from the eye witness means they are...
Primary sources.

"A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:"

They are once again, Primary Sources.


No,
Here's a primary source:Tiger,deer,ginseng" by V.J .Jankovski

http://coollib.net/b/261421/read

Jankowski only wrote that the tiger had eaten the bear . It's weird to me that the original text of Jankowski book does not mention a single word about any signs of struggle between the bear and the tiger .
BTW From the same book:Tiger,deer,ginseng" by V.J .Jankovski

Jankowski described the struggle between Asiatic black bear and large wild boar

Шаг — и я поражен еще больше: поперек секача-кабана, придавив его могучим телом, лежал большой гималайский медведь! Но тут я увидел разодранный, развороченный бок вепря и все понял. Медведь только что драл крепчайшую шкуру секача: вот что я принял за треск древесной коры.

Взял за мохнатое ухо и повернул набок большую лобастую голову. Пуля вошла в затылок и вышла ниже подбородка. Она оборвала жизнь мгновенно, видимо, он не вздрогнул…
http://www.litmir.co/br/?b=181911&p=48
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pckts
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Im just going to copy the link you posted and see what peter says.
Its far to long to go through and translate all of it. I will just have peter say exactly which part he is referring to.

And the source on Goliath is a primary source written from the man who tracked them, saw the remains and killed the tiger.
That is eye witness account and considered a primary source.

I just posted the debate discussion and will let you know what peter states.
Edited by pckts, Jul 31 2015, 05:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warsaw2014
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
"Im just going to copy the link you posted and see what peter says.
Its far to long to go through and translate all of it. I will just have peter say exactly which part he is referring to."

Mazak=secondary source.
Jankowski=Primary sources.That's all.


"And the source on Goliath is a primary source written from the man who tracked them, saw the remains and killed the tiger.
That is eye witness account and considered a primary source. "

This is completely different case (sun bear? and tiger),right?
Anyway

"...There was a full moon on the night of 10 November 1981 when a tigress and two cubs appear to have been walking down the Lahpur vallet nearly 20 kilometres from Jogi Mahal. She must have spotted an adult male tiger walking the opposite direction. Indications existed of the cubs scampering away. The tigress seemed to have conintued towards the tiger then risen and gone to sit in the sandy part of a nearby stream bed. Obviously at this moment the tgiress was doing her best to be affectionate with the male and bid him a rapid farewell before any interaction was possible between him and the cubs.

But it did not work. The cubs seem to have attempted scampering back to their mother, probably finding the insecurity of separation to much to take. At this moment there must have been havoc, and some incredible vocalization was even heard in a guard post some 2 kilometres away. It appears that the male moved in a flash towards the cubs, and the mother was forced to take quick action. With a leap and a bound she attacked the male from the rear, clawing his right foreleg before sinking her canines in and killing him. It was an amazing exmaple og instinctive reaction: a tgiress killing a prime male tiger to save her cubs from possible death. The make must have been caught completelyby surprise and just succumbed. Later the tigress proceeded to open his rump, and eat off his hind leg. Tiger eating tiger: this was a rare example of a fatal interaction between time..."

Smaller female brown bear -shatun killed a much bigger male brown bear in the den

According to А. Н. Формозов "По лисьим и волчьим нарыскам, по следам медведя, рыси идругих крупных хищников"

Бывает и так, что после бескормной осени медведи совсем не ложатся вберлогу и бродят всю зиму, с трудом раздобывая пищу. Таких медведей зовут шатунами. Я знаю случай нападения шатуна - небольшой медведицы - на более крупного медведя-самца, лежавшего в берлоге.
So ,literally everything is possible on rare occasions.
Edited by Warsaw2014, Jul 31 2015, 06:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pckts
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Here you go:

Posted Image




EDIT (August 1, 2015).

After reading the comments below, I decided to translate the (last) part in red for those unable to use the translator in a correct way. Here's the translation:

" ... In order to be as complete as possible, I perhaps have to say that Jankowski (in his letter of May 8, 1970) added that the tiger, a few days before he was shot, had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head, found by Jankowski, remained ... ".

That's it.

Thats from Peter
Edited by pckts, Aug 4 2015, 01:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warsaw2014
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
pckts
Aug 4 2015, 01:18 AM
Here you go:

Posted Image




EDIT (August 1, 2015).

After reading the comments below, I decided to translate the (last) part in red for those unable to use the translator in a correct way. Here's the translation:

" ... In order to be as complete as possible, I perhaps have to say that Jankowski (in his letter of May 8, 1970) added that the tiger, a few days before he was shot, had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head, found by Jankowski, remained ... ".

That's it.

Thats from Peter
Interesting why you repeat exactly the same stuffs from secondary source(Mazak) and completely ignore primary source(Jankowski).

Jankowski only wrote that the tiger had eaten the bear . It's weird to me that the original text of Jankowski book does not mention a single word about any signs of struggle between the bear and the tiger .
Also Jankowski never said that the bear was a "very large male "
According to primary source (Jankowski) ,the tiger was 11 feet and 6 inches (1/2 feet) long , but the measurement being taken from the skin when taken off .
Mazak state that the "tiger, was 11.6 'over curves',"

Can you explain to me what tiger skin can be measured "over curves"?Someone here is wrong.

Anyway:
Mazak can be regarded as prime source ABOUT tiger skulls OR size of captive tigers.I have a lot of respect for V.Mazak.
V.Mazak was very good biologists BUT it does not change the fact that :
1.Mazak didn't study bears and tigers in RFE.
2.Mazak not regarded as reliable sources about wild amur tigers.
See chapter 6 * for more details ,why Mazak is not regarded as reliable sources about wild amur tigers.OK
* Chapter 6
Slaght, J. C., D. G. Miquelle, I. G. Nikolaev, J. M. Goodrich, E. N. Smirnov, K. Traylor-Holzer, S. Christie, T. Arjanova, J. L. D. Smith, and K. U. Karanth. (2005). Chapter 6. Who‘s king of the beasts? Historical and contemporary data on the body weight of wild and captive Amur tigers in comparison with other subspecies. Pp. 25–35 in D. G. Miquelle, E. N. Smirnov, J.M. Goodrich (Eds.) Tigers in Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik: Ecology and Conservation. PSP, Vladivostok, Russia (Russian)
Here's link
http://fishowls.com/Slaght%20et%20al%202005.pdf


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pckts
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
No, I simply provided proof of it being described as a Male bear.
Simply as that.
I certainly would not discredit a wildlife expert with first hand experience about a particular topic where its already proven of a bear predation and said to be a male because I didn't like the answer.

You wanted the text where it said that, its been provided.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warsaw2014
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
pckts
Aug 5 2015, 03:06 AM
No, I simply provided proof of it being described as a Male bear.
Simply as that.
I certainly would not discredit a wildlife expert with first hand experience about a particular topic where its already proven of a bear predation and said to be a male because I didn't like the answer.

You wanted the text where it said that, its been provided.
"No, I simply provided proof of it being described as a Male bear.
You're wrong.
Jankowski (primary source) never said that the bear was a "very large male "
Here's whta Jankowski said:
"...Шин говорит: тигр оглушительно рявкнул, опрокинулся, но моментально вскочил и, в три прыжка достигнув леса, исчез, растворился в нем. Некоторое время доносился шум прыжков, ломаемых кустов, потом все стихло. На месте лежки Шин обнаружил кровь, рядом — крупную голову и остаток медвежьей лапы: видимо, властелин отдыхал после обильного завтрака..."

http://www.litmir.co/br/?b=181911&p=49

"wildlife expert with first hand experience about a particular topic where its already proven of a bear predation"

BTW Don't you know that "wildlife expert with first hand experience about a particular topic " Jankowski hunt Asiatic Black Bears mainly for their gall bladders?
Here is description:
"...Я уже знал, что самое дорогое у медведя — желчь. Выпотрошил, снял с печени пузырь, перевязал шпагатом — хороша, чуть не полбутылки! Несу домой, а сам трясусь: ружье-то опять без разрешения брал. Ну вот, спрятал его на всякий случай в стогу соломы до вечера, заглянул в дедову комнату, смотрю — сидит, набивает трубку. Но не кричит, не заметил пропажи. Подсел рядом, поднес ему уголек прикурить, расхрабрился и бормочу: «Деда, а я медведя убил…» Схватил дед по привычке костыль, я зажмурился и жду — сейчас даст по горбу! А он вдруг отбросил палку, тычет бородой в ухо и — полушепотом: «Желчь-то большая, внук?» Большая, говорю, вот она! С того дня разрешил мне старый пользоваться своей пушкой постоянно, открыто, хе-хе-хе…"
http://www.litmir.co/br/?b=181911&p=27
Edited by Warsaw2014, Aug 5 2015, 06:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WaveRiders_
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Warsaw2014
Aug 4 2015, 05:31 AM
pckts
Aug 4 2015, 01:18 AM
Here you go:

Posted Image




EDIT (August 1, 2015).

After reading the comments below, I decided to translate the (last) part in red for those unable to use the translator in a correct way. Here's the translation:

" ... In order to be as complete as possible, I perhaps have to say that Jankowski (in his letter of May 8, 1970) added that the tiger, a few days before he was shot, had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head, found by Jankowski, remained ... ".

That's it.

Thats from Peter
Interesting why you repeat exactly the same stuffs from secondary source(Mazak) and completely ignore primary source(Jankowski).

Jankowski only wrote that the tiger had eaten the bear . It's weird to me that the original text of Jankowski book does not mention a single word about any signs of struggle between the bear and the tiger .
Also Jankowski never said that the bear was a "very large male "
According to primary source (Jankowski) ,the tiger was 11 feet and 6 inches (1/2 feet) long , but the measurement being taken from the skin when taken off .
Mazak state that the "tiger, was 11.6 'over curves',"

Can you explain to me what tiger skin can be measured "over curves"?Someone here is wrong.

Anyway:
Mazak can be regarded as prime source ABOUT tiger skulls OR size of captive tigers.I have a lot of respect for V.Mazak.
V.Mazak was very good biologists BUT it does not change the fact that :
1.Mazak didn't study bears and tigers in RFE.
2.Mazak not regarded as reliable sources about wild amur tigers.
See chapter 6 * for more details ,why Mazak is not regarded as reliable sources about wild amur tigers.OK
* Chapter 6
Slaght, J. C., D. G. Miquelle, I. G. Nikolaev, J. M. Goodrich, E. N. Smirnov, K. Traylor-Holzer, S. Christie, T. Arjanova, J. L. D. Smith, and K. U. Karanth. (2005). Chapter 6. Who‘s king of the beasts? Historical and contemporary data on the body weight of wild and captive Amur tigers in comparison with other subspecies. Pp. 25–35 in D. G. Miquelle, E. N. Smirnov, J.M. Goodrich (Eds.) Tigers in Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik: Ecology and Conservation. PSP, Vladivostok, Russia (Russian)
Here's link
http://fishowls.com/Slaght%20et%20al%202005.pdf

I had noticed this your post in August, but did not ask you before about it. Can you clarify to me the issue of the Jankowski's Amur tiger alleged measuring 11 ft 6 inches in the flesh over curves shot in 1943? Was it instead a skin measurement following your suggestion this is what is stated in the primary (Russian) source?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warsaw2014
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
WaveRiders_
Oct 2 2015, 02:55 AM
Warsaw2014
Aug 4 2015, 05:31 AM
pckts
Aug 4 2015, 01:18 AM
Here you go:

[img]http://zapodaj.net/images/80a5e7ada8c46.jpg/img]




EDIT (August 1, 2015).

After reading the comments below, I decided to translate the (last) part in red for those unable to use the translator in a correct way. Here's the translation:

" ... In order to be as complete as possible, I perhaps have to say that Jankowski (in his letter of May 8, 1970) added that the tiger, a few days before he was shot, had killed and eaten a very large male brown bear of which only a leg and the head, found by Jankowski, remained ... ".

That's it.

Thats from Peter
Interesting why you repeat exactly the same stuffs from secondary source(Mazak) and completely ignore primary source(Jankowski).

Jankowski only wrote that the tiger had eaten the bear . It's weird to me that the original text of Jankowski book does not mention a single word about any signs of struggle between the bear and the tiger .
Also Jankowski never said that the bear was a "very large male "
According to primary source (Jankowski) ,the tiger was 11 feet and 6 inches (1/2 feet) long , but the measurement being taken from the skin when taken off .
Mazak state that the "tiger, was 11.6 'over curves',"

Can you explain to me what tiger skin can be measured "over curves"?Someone here is wrong.

Anyway:
Mazak can be regarded as prime source ABOUT tiger skulls OR size of captive tigers.I have a lot of respect for V.Mazak.
V.Mazak was very good biologists BUT it does not change the fact that :
1.Mazak didn't study bears and tigers in RFE.
2.Mazak not regarded as reliable sources about wild amur tigers.
See chapter 6 * for more details ,why Mazak is not regarded as reliable sources about wild amur tigers.OK
* Chapter 6
Slaght, J. C., D. G. Miquelle, I. G. Nikolaev, J. M. Goodrich, E. N. Smirnov, K. Traylor-Holzer, S. Christie, T. Arjanova, J. L. D. Smith, and K. U. Karanth. (2005). Chapter 6. Who‘s king of the beasts? Historical and contemporary data on the body weight of wild and captive Amur tigers in comparison with other subspecies. Pp. 25–35 in D. G. Miquelle, E. N. Smirnov, J.M. Goodrich (Eds.) Tigers in Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik: Ecology and Conservation. PSP, Vladivostok, Russia (Russian)
Here's link
http://fishowls.com/Slaght%20et%20al%202005.pdf

I had noticed this your post in August, but did not ask you before about it. Can you clarify to me the issue of the Jankowski's Amur tiger alleged measuring 11 ft 6 inches in the flesh over curves shot in 1943? Was it instead a skin measurement following your suggestion this is what is stated in the primary (Russian) source?

In German look above

In English:
Posted Image
Source:
A primary source by (Jankowski)
Jul 28 2015, 05:46 AM Post #14
Расстелив шкуру посреди чисто выметенного двора, японец скрупулезно измерил ее длину от носа до хвоста. Вышло одиннадцать с половиной футов — более чем три и три четверти метра!"

According to primary source (Jankowski) ,the tiger was 11 feet and 6 inches (1/2 feet) long , but the measurement being taken from the skin when taken off

BTW
I think you might be interested in this from (page 29)
Posted Image
http://fishowls.com/Slaght%20et%20al%202005.pdf

I underline the first sentence in red, because it seems interesting.
The first sentence:"Большинство морфологических изменений приводимых В .Мазаком (Mazak 1967,1981) касается шкуры и черепа."
P.S "If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Edited by Warsaw2014, Oct 2 2015, 05:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WaveRiders_
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Warsaw2014
Oct 2 2015, 04:32 AM
WaveRiders_
Oct 2 2015, 02:55 AM
Warsaw2014
Aug 4 2015, 05:31 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepPosted Imagehttp://fishowls.com/Slaght%20et%20al%202005.pdf

I had noticed this your post in August, but did not ask you before about it. Can you clarify to me the issue of the Jankowski's Amur tiger alleged measuring 11 ft 6 inches in the flesh over curves shot in 1943? Was it instead a skin measurement following your suggestion this is what is stated in the primary (Russian) source?

In German look above

In English:
Posted Image
Source:
A primary source by (Jankowski)
Jul 28 2015, 05:46 AM Post #14
Расстелив шкуру посреди чисто выметенного двора, японец скрупулезно измерил ее длину от носа до хвоста. Вышло одиннадцать с половиной футов — более чем три и три четверти метра!"

According to primary source (Jankowski) ,the tiger was 11 feet and 6 inches (1/2 feet) long , but the measurement being taken from the skin when taken off


It’s ok for all Mazak’s documents (I have all of them), I meant where did you get the original statement in Russian from Jankowski and the sentence in Russian you now posted. Is it in Slaght et al. (2005)?
Edited by WaveRiders_, Oct 2 2015, 04:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warsaw2014
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
WaveRiders_
Oct 2 2015, 04:51 AM
Warsaw2014
Oct 2 2015, 04:32 AM
WaveRiders_
Oct 2 2015, 02:55 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepPosted Imagehttp://fishowls.com/Slaght%20et%20al%202005.pdf
In German look above

In English:
Posted Image
Source:
A primary source by (Jankowski)
Jul 28 2015, 05:46 AM Post #14
Расстелив шкуру посреди чисто выметенного двора, японец скрупулезно измерил ее длину от носа до хвоста. Вышло одиннадцать с половиной футов — более чем три и три четверти метра!"

According to primary source (Jankowski) ,the tiger was 11 feet and 6 inches (1/2 feet) long , but the measurement being taken from the skin when taken off


It’s ok for all Mazak’s documents (I have all of them), I meant where did you get the original statement in Russian from Jankowski and the sentence in Russian you now posted. Is it in Slaght et al. (2005)?
It’s ok for all Mazak’s documents (I have all of them), I meant where did you get the original statement in Russian from Jankowski and the sentence in Russian you now posted. Is it in Slaght et al. (2005)?


" I meant where did you get the original statement in Russian from Jankowsk"
From Jankowski Book:
http://coollib.net/b/261421/read
Posted Image
" Is it in Slaght et al. (2005)?"
No ,however this is crucial sentence in Slaght et al. (2005):"Большинство морфологических изменений приводимых В .Мазаком (Mazak 1967,1981) касается шкуры и черепа."(On page 29)
http://fishowls.com/Slaght%20et%20al%202005.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply