Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I'd like to revisit this topic having just seen this image in the gallery.
www.birdforum.net
The poster notes 'genuine African wild cat with diagnostic rufous colouring behind his ears. I find this statement to be optimistic at best.
Having been unaware of this feature previously, I had a little look around and found this site which seems fairly reliable. The sites notes the ears as 'characteristic', not diagnostic and, whilst part of the cats head in the gallery is a rufousy colour, the article seems to imply that this colour should actually be on the back of the ears, semantics maybe?
This aside, the animal in the gallery, unless it's not full grown, just does not give that 'long, legged' look which is also said to be 'characteristic of the species, it just looks small to me?
For comparison, here's one I saw in Kruger and yes, I know that animals around human habitation are more likely to be hybrids, the article actually states that there may in fact be very few, if any, totally, pure animals in existence. My animal seems to have the classic, long, legs but lacks the warm ears, or seems to in this poor light. In short, the animal in the gallery has the ears but not the legs whilst mine, has the legs but not the ears.
All comments welcome.
African Wild Cat
Taken at Kruger Park - lucky to spot this fellow just before dawn - genuine African wild cat with diagnostic rufous colouring behind his ears. Pity about the flash effect in his eye.
www.birdforum.net
The poster notes 'genuine African wild cat with diagnostic rufous colouring behind his ears. I find this statement to be optimistic at best.
Having been unaware of this feature previously, I had a little look around and found this site which seems fairly reliable. The sites notes the ears as 'characteristic', not diagnostic and, whilst part of the cats head in the gallery is a rufousy colour, the article seems to imply that this colour should actually be on the back of the ears, semantics maybe?
This aside, the animal in the gallery, unless it's not full grown, just does not give that 'long, legged' look which is also said to be 'characteristic of the species, it just looks small to me?
For comparison, here's one I saw in Kruger and yes, I know that animals around human habitation are more likely to be hybrids, the article actually states that there may in fact be very few, if any, totally, pure animals in existence. My animal seems to have the classic, long, legs but lacks the warm ears, or seems to in this poor light. In short, the animal in the gallery has the ears but not the legs whilst mine, has the legs but not the ears.
All comments welcome.
