You're picture in the middle on the bottom row on the first page of the animal curled up looking at the camera, isn't a thylacine. Check some topics on the forum and you'll find out the story behind the picture
.ZSL London Zoo North Mammal House
- Thread starter oldrover
- Start date
You're picture in the middle on the bottom row on the first page of the animal curled up looking at the camera, isn't a thylacine. Check some topics on the forum and you'll find out the story behind the picture
.
oh snap! It's funny seeing that directly next to photos of actual thylacines isn't it?You're picture in the middle on the bottom row on the first page of the animal curled up looking at the camera, isn't a thylacine. Check some topics on the forum and you'll find out the story behind the picture
.
very well, I have removed my post and he can wonder.... 
Thanks for posting your photographic list. I think there are at least half a dozen of Thylacines at London on there. There is one new photo I haven't seen before- a Thylacine in one of the Hobart Zoos(with the familiar large chickenwire netting background) which seems to be holding something in its mouth.
The topleft photo on the 2nd page is the 1930 Wilf Batty Thylacine after he shot it, but before it actually died. It is apparently dead in the other one.
Regarding more recent public requests for new photos within Australia/Tasmania, I think there may have been.
Unfortunately there is no reliable trace of this animal(or pair's) origin within Tasmania- a number of those that reached Zoos are well-documented regarding their place/date of capture and subsequent history. But not this one.
Do you know what (or some of them) other species were exhibited in the North Mammal House(s) at ZSL during the last Thylacine's tenure?
You're picture in the middle on the bottom row on the first page of the animal curled up looking at the camera, isn't a thylacine. picture
No! damn and it was the only colour one I had.
Seriously though it's pretty well known photo these days, as is its background. In the past I've linked to it and asked people to idetify it, after attaching the clues that it's the top predator on a large island in the Southern Hemisphere, is critically endangered and is often cited as an example of convergent evolution. I sometimes put in an extra clue about how you can't see how ferocious it is because it's facing the wrong way.
Last edited:
Which number is that? Do you have any I don't by the way.
Incidentally as I'm sure you know, the photo of the dead animal curled up with its head on its hind legs isn't to be confused with this more commonly seen photo;
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...vvK8XeVYVyPbquqs1CQsuFg1k0cpTZa0pQdrbMjaS8fgA
I didn't realise it was known outside zoochat
, but it is a good one to test if people pay attention although I would use actually the original which would trick many people anyway.At the risk of sounding like a prat I did actually spot what it was straight away, but it is a really nice and well done photo.
It's a funny thing but elsewhere on the web there almost seems to be an entire artistic sub genre of photo shopping fossas to look like thylacines.
It's a funny thing but elsewhere on the web there almost seems to be an entire artistic sub genre of photo shopping fossas to look like thylacines.
Yes there's a few on the Museum website that I've never seen anywhere else.
I'm not sure whether this should have a separate thread or not but I came across this on another website this morning;
The Last Tiger in the Zoo - ABC Tasmania - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
Well worth a listen, not everything he says is correct according to the literature.
One thing that got my attention though was his talk of the animal sent to Westbury Zoo during the time that Benjamin* was in captivity. I've never really followed which zoos they were sent to, but this animal doesn't seem to be covered on the Museum site. Seems unlikely but not impossible.
*Used as an abbreviation.
I'm not sure whether this should have a separate thread or not but I came across this on another website this morning;
The Last Tiger in the Zoo - ABC Tasmania - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
Well worth a listen, not everything he says is correct according to the literature.
One thing that got my attention though was his talk of the animal sent to Westbury Zoo during the time that Benjamin* was in captivity. I've never really followed which zoos they were sent to, but this animal doesn't seem to be covered on the Museum site. Seems unlikely but not impossible.
*Used as an abbreviation.
Definately worth listening too. As you say, factually there are some errors-the Thylacines at Washington didn't breed there, the mother had pouch young on arrival. The only Zoo that may have bred them- from mating onwards, was one instance at Melbourne Zoo.
He seems to have good recollections of Hobart Zoo so sounds perfectly genuine- unlike 'Frank Darby' (from whom 'Benjamin' got its name). I have seen no other references to a Thylacine at Westbury Zoo though either.
There are recent threads specifically for the Thylacine in both the General and Wildlife Conservation Forums if you want to discuss the subject further rather than on this thread.
Couldn't find the other threads I'm afraid so...
It's a great interview but it raises a few questions, such as the way he keeps referring to the thylacine, as well as saying it was originally paired up with a female. Could this be the same female bought in 1930? Or could it be the result of the last animal being mistaken for one of the earlier pair made up by the above mentioned female and her male companion which died shortly after capture. After all if he visited the zoo between 1930 and 36, a period in which he should have seen at least one thylacine die and another be introduced, it's strange that as I say he just refers to the thylacine. I think this wants clearing up whilst we've potentially got a first hand witness.
It's a great interview but it raises a few questions, such as the way he keeps referring to the thylacine, as well as saying it was originally paired up with a female. Could this be the same female bought in 1930? Or could it be the result of the last animal being mistaken for one of the earlier pair made up by the above mentioned female and her male companion which died shortly after capture. After all if he visited the zoo between 1930 and 36, a period in which he should have seen at least one thylacine die and another be introduced, it's strange that as I say he just refers to the thylacine. I think this wants clearing up whilst we've potentially got a first hand witness.
I don’t have a definitive list detailing every species that was kept in the North Mammal House during the five-and-a-half years the last ZSL thylacine was in residence.
However, checking contemporary guides, animals also kept in the North Mammal House during this period include:- tree kangaroos, lemurs, baboons, cheetahs, dhole....
I suspect that;
1. His memories are a little clouded, given his advanced age, and so some tendency for muddling.
2. For the purposes of the interview, he was referring to the 'last one' though his memories may have been drawn from more than one during his time there. It seems pretty certain now that the last one was the male captured in 1933 and when brought to the Zoo, was the the only one there, until his death in 1936.
3. He also referred at the end to the far-carrying 'yodelling call' which is also described in Paddle's book as an 'undulating cry' and apparently a contact call used by solitary animals to locate others.
4. I haven't forgotton your Bounty Scheme map from Guiler's book- just haven't got around to it yet.
