When Rogers was putting together his collection for the Liverpool Zoo of the 1930s the following appeared in the L'pool Post & Mercury 11 Dec 1928:-
"in addition to the animals I have at Stanhope-street, I have four royal Bengal tigers, two hyenas, three leopards, a Canadian bear, tiger-wolves and ostriches on deposit at the Dublin Zoological Gardens and at Belle Vue, Manchester."
Tiger-wolves?
And hyenas listed separately ....
Perhaps the 'hyenas' were Hyaena brunnea and the 'tiger-wolves' H hyaena?
Thoughts?
(And can anyone shed light on what was at Dublin and/or B Vue at the time?)
"in addition to the animals I have at Stanhope-street, I have four royal Bengal tigers, two hyenas, three leopards, a Canadian bear, tiger-wolves and ostriches on deposit at the Dublin Zoological Gardens and at Belle Vue, Manchester."
Tiger-wolves?
And hyenas listed separately ....
Perhaps the 'hyenas' were Hyaena brunnea and the 'tiger-wolves' H hyaena?
Thoughts?
(And can anyone shed light on what was at Dublin and/or B Vue at the time?)
The reference to “tiger-wolf” is intriguing but I still think it is highly improbable that there was another thylacine (in addition to the last London Zoo specimen) in the UK at this time. It seems more likely that this is a reference to a hyaena.
Moreover, although intuitively “tiger-wolf” seems a more appropriate name for striped hyaena it should be noted that this is actually an old name for spotted hyaena.
Personally I'd be very surprised if this was true, as Pertinax says though it is possible. Also this isn't the only tale of a previously overlooked survivor in a zoo very late in the day. Will Cramp, then a young regular at Hobart Zoo, says that in the mid thirties another animal passed through there on its way to Westbury Zoo.
Thylacines were rare and sought after in those late times, but I don't think they ever impacted much on the public conscious here or back in Tasmania. After all, and despite what you sometimes hear, the last specimen's death doesn't even get a mention in the Hobart Mercury until the following year, and then it's only a passing mention.
Thylacines were rare and sought after in those late times, but I don't think they ever impacted much on the public conscious here or back in Tasmania. After all, and despite what you sometimes hear, the last specimen's death doesn't even get a mention in the Hobart Mercury until the following year, and then it's only a passing mention.
At this time there were warnings, both from scientists within Tasmania, and outside, of the imminent extinction(?) Thylacines were facing. But they were only a tiny voice compared to the vast majority. However by the time Thylacines were also widely known as being very rare, that did provoke some morbid curiosity locally- if one was caught, the news quickly spread round the district and people immediately converged, sometimes even blocking the roads(!), just for a glimpse of this curiosity. Others were exhibited( for a small fee) in cages in travelling fairs around the State too. That rather goes against the apparent lack of interest seemingly shown by most people to the last ones in Zoos.
Last edited:
Makes you wonder doesn't it, I think the phrase 'local curiosity' is probably pretty much on the money.
I do notice though that in either the 'Museum' site or in Paddle's book, there's a part where they question how the last specimen could have been acquired by the zoo without more public attention. Leading to speculation about some sort of under the counter deal. I think the lack of mention in the Mercury for six months after its death, argues against the need for any of that sort of speculation.
Isn't there an interview out there with Alison Reid in which she remarks on the lack of interest the creature generated in Hobart.
I do notice though that in either the 'Museum' site or in Paddle's book, there's a part where they question how the last specimen could have been acquired by the zoo without more public attention. Leading to speculation about some sort of under the counter deal. I think the lack of mention in the Mercury for six months after its death, argues against the need for any of that sort of speculation.
Isn't there an interview out there with Alison Reid in which she remarks on the lack of interest the creature generated in Hobart.
Its in the 'Museum'. The theory being that by 1933 Hobart Zoo was already struggling and facing adverse public opinion, and possible closure- its suggested another( the last) Thylacine may have been acquired(secretly) at that late stage to try and boost attendance.
But Alison Reid did say something about lack of interest in them as an exhibit, which would seem to be at odds with that theory. But it is strange its arrival wasn't reported given it was the first one they had for some time.
To pull this back to the title of the thread and Chester, I am convinced the lady writer's memory was at fault here.