Tasmanian tigers
What a great thread! Why haven't I found it before? I'd be interested to hear what people's backgrounds are, who have contributed to this discussion.
Warning - this will be a long post because I will address many topics raised in this thread.
Who am I? I run the website
Where Light Meets Dark (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com) which is dedicated to examining the evidence for rare fauna. I have poured countless hours into analysing the very videos you have been discussing, in addition to much other research and reading on this topic.
I'll link through to some interesting articles on my site, as I go. (Well at least I hope you find them interesting!)
Someone wrote: "Somehow, I can't get my head around the apparent lacklustre treatment of the subject by wildlife authorities!!?"
Many people responded. Recall too - the thylacine has been listed as extinct since 1986, therefore government resources towards this species will be minimal as they can be better deployed preserving other species known to still persist.
Next, the first video posted here was in Spanish. It was captured by a Mr Gonzales-Sitges in the 1990s in Western Australia. In my brief analysis I concluded this was a fox, but in hindsight it may yet be a dog or dingo. It is certainly not a thylacine. See here:
Gonzalez Sitges thylacine - Where Light Meets Dark (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com)
Someone wrote "No, there were Thylacines held at both the Beaumaris Zoo and later at the Hobart Zoo on the Domain site."
My understanding is that Beaumaris Zoo became renamed to Hobart Zoo. It was in fact still Beaumaris Zoo when thylacines were there, but whenever anyone refers to either name they really mean the same place.
David Fleay did film "Benjamin" (the last captive Tasmanian tiger) at the zoo - in 1933. The animal died in 1936. I have some background on the debate on whether or not this was a female animal, and when it was named, here:
Benjamin The Last Tasmanian Tiger - Where Light Meets Dark (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com)
In summary, as someone wrote, Fleay maintained it was male.
Another interesting article is here:
Thylacine As A Pet - Where Light Meets Dark (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com)
Would the thylacine make a good pet? Read the above link, and you decide. Most of the information comes from Robert Paddle's book, with a few additions from Col Bailey's.
The second video posted here was filmed by Liz and Gary Doyle in South Australia in 1973. Someone wrote "Chris and Zoo Boy (with the same video), that would appear to be a fox with mange." and someone else, reading the comment "I think they said it was filmed in South Australia" wrote "then its a fake."
This video, in my opinion, is one of the two strongest pieces of evidence for mainland thylacines. Let me put it another way. That video (and indeed no video) will never prove the existence of a thylacine. At the same time, every observable feature of the animal in that video is consistent with the morphology of a thylacine.
I have spent a long time analysing this video. See the index to my articles on it, here:
Doyle Thylacine - Where Light Meets Dark (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com)
To summarise, here are the features I found interesting:
1. In every single still-frame, the animal's tail is held rigidly.
2. In every usable still-frame except one, the tail points downwards; in the other usable frame it is horizontal
3. The following body proportions are consistent with the adult male thylacine filmed by David Fleay: the length of the forepaw compared to the length of the neck/chest compared to the distance from the neck to the base of the tail
4. Several still frames show the animal's outline in the shape of a wallaby, even though the animal is in full flight
5. I looked at dozens of still frames of one dog breed (greyhound) running, and that dog breed's tail is far more flexible in every single still frame
The first article concludes: "this analysis has demonstrated that the overall body proportions of the 1973 animal - including the dimensions of the trunk of the body, the head shape, ear shape, ear position, tail thickness, base of the rump, tail posture, forepaw position, forepaw proportion and curviture of the spine - are consistent with that of a thylacine"
However, concerning the "stripes", my second article concludes "All things considered, I believe it is most likely that the apparent "stripes" observed in the 1973 Doyle footage are the result of artefacts introduced by the MPEG delivery format." In other words, the video does not contain enough information to show that without doubt the animal has stripes. This does not mean it does not have stripes, however; just that we can't see them.
My understanding of the history of that footage is that the versions we have available to view are MPEG encodings of a VHS recording of a television broadcast of the original. One day the original footage better turn up!
South Australia? Yes. In the 1960s much farm land was opened up in that state's south-east. As the farmers cleared the forests there was a spate of sightings spanning several years. I believe it's the Australian Geographic issue on the thylacine (although I could be wrong, but I can look it up if you really want to confirm the reference) that contains a map showing all these South Australian sightings.
Col Bailey sighted a thylacine on the Koorong in 1967. In the early 1970s there were 2 sightings independently reported from south east South Australia and an investigation led to two further independent sightings - all within a few weeks of each other, all from within a circle of a couple of kilometres.
But South Australia?? Really?
Yes. Robert Paddle in his book "Thylacine" gives ample evidence for the mainland persistence of Tasmanian tigers at the time of European colonisation. This includes the Victorian naturalist Cambrian documenting that he personally examined the remains of two animals (one recently killed in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, the other, by deduction, from near Lake Albert in the Flinders Ranges). That was the early 1800s.
Tunbridge (also cited by Paddle) testified in her book on mammals of the Flinders Ranges that the Aboriginal people were familiar with the thylacine. One man, aged 100 in the early 1900s (according to Paddle) was said to be the last man to have seen a living thylacine, that done in his childhood.
Paddle also turned up a societal newsletter which reported the early South Australian government issuing a bounty to destroy thylacines in the same manner that the Tasmanian government had done so.
In fact, Paddle also discusses mainland Tasmanian devils from South Australia and Victoria, for which there was *no* corroborative evidence (neither European nor indigenous) and yet today we have at least 4 examples at Museum Victoria collected from the wild between 1912 and 1991. See my sister site for photographs of the museum specimens, at
Mainland Devils
Taking two European and one indigenous account of mainland thylacines in the early to mid 1800s, and then the spate of sightings as forests were cleared in the 1960s-70s, is it not conceivable that the tiger persists in SA? You decide.
There is one other interesting video that has not been mentioned - from Charleville, Queensland, 1994. I have not posted much on my site about it but a screengrab is here:
Charleville Thylacine - Where Light Meets Dark (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com)
You should be able to find it on You Tube.
I have had 2 qualified scientists confirm that the hip structure of marsupials is very distinct from placentals. Basically marsupials give birth to young which are the size of jelly beans; placentals give birth to much much larger young. Each has said to me that that footage has enough information to clearly show a marsupial hip structure. I am no expert in this regard and can't make any judgement myself until I understand these differences more fully, but I can say that two experts have found this to be the case for this mainland footage.
Even without a scale in that video, tell me what other marsupial is quadrupedal, with a gait as shown in that clip? I won't go into the early European accounts of thylacine-like sightings originating from Queensland, suffice to say - again - there is anecdotal evidence the species may have persisted there (not to mention the Indonesian sightings from the 1990s which are further north).
Another interesting mainland account: Part-Aboriginal tracker Kevin Cameron was hired by the West Australian government to investigate a spate of thylacine sightings in the early 1980s. He turned up a series of photos of what appears to be a young thylacine that had been recently killed; possibly shot. Full story available here:
Cameron Thylacine - Where Light Meets Dark (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com)
When questions started to be asked, he refused to provide any further information - some say fearing the punishment for killing a thylacine.
The sighting in Tasmania in 1982 was made by South African wildlife biologist Hans Naarding. The Government kept it under wraps for 2 years while they searched, with (now) DPIW biologist Nick Mooney leading the effort. No further evidence was forthcoming.
Someone wrote "Thirdly, if most of the sightings in tasmania are to be believed, then it implies the animals are not THAT uncommon. if thats the case, how come nobody has come accross ANY substantial proof of the animals existance in recent times? thylacines are not ghosts. they are real animals."
Just last year the Short-eared Dog turned up on a camera trap deployed in South America as part of a research project on jaguars. See here:
WLMD Newswatch - Short-eared dog caught on camera trap - Where Light Meets Dark (www.wherelightmeetsdark.com)
That animal is about half the weight of a thylacine. A fact-sheet on the species says that no roadkill is known of this animal because it avoids humans. Also, in 1990 the animal had not been sighted - by Westerners or natives - for over 20 years.
I agree the thylacine is twice the size; Tasmania is probably far smaller than the habitat of the short-eared dog and 73 years is a lot longer than 20.
Let me quote another contributor before I go on with this point:
"and lastly, thylacines were extirpated in a relatively short period of time, with relative ease by farmers who feared they would prey on their stock."
That's the point exactly. The bounty ran for 100 years. We have artificially selected for those thylacines most disposed towards avoiding humans, just like the short-eared dog. *If* the thylacine survived past 1936, then surely those individuals that survived are those most likely to avoid us.
Further - trappers were so successful precisely because they were hunting, not photographing. They would lay snares by the thousand in order to capture a few tigers. Necker snares (see the online thylacine museum) were quickly constructed by bending over a sapling, and adding a noose and trigger. Done. Now spend a few months laying dozens of snares a day and presto - you're bound to catch thylacines.
Further, there are accounts of thylacine trappers stating that it was very very rare indeed to see a thylacine in the wild. These are people whose livlihoods are made from hunting the beast! They never see them - just lay the traps to catch them.
Further - dogs were also used to detect thylacines but you are not permitted to bring dogs into National Parks today.
I have just returned from an expedition to search for the thylacine in Tasmania. It was based in the remote south-west. The one reasonable criticism levelled against the effort was that animals are opportunistic - they'll grab a free feed whenever they can. In other words, if the thylacine persists in the south west, then surely it should be attracted to the walking trails where tourists and other hikers are bound to drop scraps of food.
In response I suggest (as above) that we've selected for thylacines that avoid humans more than ever. But secondly - I travelled a range of locations and I can safely say from this small effort, that there were far more signs of animal activity the further away from tourist walking trails that you went. Perhaps Tasmanian wildlife doesn't care so much for human food. And of course - almost obligatorially - there are in fact sightings made by walkers in the south west. Certainly there were reports from 1952 and also from car drivers more recently than that.
Again in response to the last quote - there was a sighting from the south west in 1932, and then evidence from the first expeditions in 1937 onwards.
Lastly, someone wrote: "I've always presumed they were a night animal, like the Tasmanian Devil. One of the films shows one obviously sunbathing and I've read other references to that behaviour too."
Yes - they were nocturnal, preferring to hunt on dusk and dawn, but they would also sometimes just sun themselves during the day - much like a dog.
So what's my opinion? It's probably a lot more possible that thylacines persist than what people give them credit for. Not certain, of course, but certainly possible.
Chris.
)