I have never seen this photo before either, and I think have seen pretty much all the Thylacine photos there are, I reckon. Once again the light patches below the eyes and around the muzzle are noticeable as they are in most 'shady' photos of Thylacine.
I have never seen this photo before either, and I think have seen pretty much all the Thylacine photos there are, I reckon. Once again the light patches below the eyes and around the muzzle are noticeable as they are in most 'shady' photos of Thylacine.
According to Guiler's book on the Thylacine which lists all known captive Thylacines in Zoos and their dates, there appears there was no Thylacine at London in 1908. So its odd that a photo appears in that issue.
There was a male between 26.3.1902 until 17.1.1906.
The next was then a female from 12.3.1909 until 5.12.1914.
Prior to the 1902 one,several others arrived between 1886- 1891,for which death dates aren't given, but its unlikely one would still have been alive more than 17 years later in 1908.
According to Guiler's book on the Thylacine which lists all known captive Thylacines in Zoos and their dates, there appears there was no Thylacine at London in 1908. So its odd that a photo appears in that issue.
There was a male between 26.3.1902 until 17.1.1906.
The next was then a female from 12.3.1909 until 5.12.1914.
Prior to the 1902 one,several others arrived between 1886- 1891,for which death dates aren't given, but its unlikely one would still have been alive more than 17 years later in 1908.
I agree; there was no thylacine at London Zoo in 1908.
Guiler’s book “Thylacine: The Tragedy of the Tasmanian Tiger” (1985) is a very nice volume, but the list of zoo thylacines is not complete; he misses out the first two London Zoo specimens, for example, which is a surprise as these have been well documented elsewhere.
Guiler’s list also omits the Paris (Jardin des Plantes) thylacines.
A more comprehensive list of zoo thylacines is provided in "Der Beutelwolf" (Heinz F. Moeller; 1997)
I agree; there was no thylacine at London Zoo in 1908.
Guiler’s book “Thylacine: The Tragedy of the Tasmanian Tiger” (1985) is a very nice volume, but the list of zoo thylacines is not complete; he misses out the first two London Zoo specimens, for example, which is a surprise as these have been well documented elsewhere.
Guiler’s list also omits the Paris (Jardin des Plantes) thylacines.
A more comprehensive list of zoo thylacines is provided in "Der Beutelwolf" (Heinz F. Moeller; 1997)
I don't know why the Thylacine is still in the 1908 guidebook, but there are more examples for animals in the guidebook, which were not in the collection at that time, so the javan rhino or the sumatran rhinos have apperead in the guidebooks years after their death.
Perhaps they featured them as 'unusual animals previously held in the collection' though I don't imagine that would have engendered much interest to visitors.
I imagine most of the Thylacines went largely unnoticed by visitors anyway, particularly when they were asleep.
