Thylacines in Cryptozoology

I can't comment on that video really, because I don't know anything about the prints of thylacines versus canids versus wombats versus whatever else.* One thing I did notice though was the "this is a thylacine/isn't a fox or dog because of the gap between the toes" or "this is an unusual thylacine print because it shows this extra toe which isn't usually in the print" and remarks like that - I'm busy thinking that he presumably doesn't know that the shape of the print in the soil (i.e. the spread of the toes, the showing or not of claws, etc) depends to some extent on the structure and composition of the substrate on which the animal is walking, but then right at the end he makes a comment about that which somewhat negates his previous definitive statements on why these are thylacine prints?

Also, I may have heard this wrong but did he say that fox prints don't show claws, which was why one particular small print had to be a thylacine? As I said, I don't know prints, so is that true about foxes not showing claw marks?


*Something which will also be true of all the people on his Facebook page who will be watching this video saying "this thing about which we know nothing is clearly definite proof".
 
Chlidonias said:
Also, I may have heard this wrong but did he say that fox prints don't show claws, which was why one particular small print had to be a thylacine? As I said, I don't know prints, so is that true about foxes not showing claw marks?
Click to expand...

2420092_89d2ed41.jpg


Or if you prefer....

Cow+Chip-2.jpg
 
oldrover said:
In which a forearm tells Waters and the rest of us all about how to spot thylacine prints.
Click to expand...

Many (the majority even?) of the footprint casts I've seen over the years presented as Thylacine prints are clearly 100% identifiable as from Dogs. They present a typical 'two up, two down' arrangement of the toes. On here also there are several casts apparently from Dogs. The one they feature specifically could also be a dog with splayed toes. The 'juvenile Thylacine' could be anything.

That's not to say I haven't seen casts that are much less easy to explain away and do closely resemble the arrangement of pads and toes as shown by museum Thylacine feet. However, confusion with any of several other Tasmanian marsupials is always a possiblity with these.
 
Chlidonias said:
As I said, I don't know prints, so is that true about foxes not showing claw marks?


*Something which will also be true of all the people on his Facebook page who will be watching this video saying "this thing about which we know nothing is clearly definite proof".
Click to expand...

I guess Foxes are pretty light-footed so probably don't show claws unless it is in softer ground. But whose to say Thylacines weren't likewise?;)

Just the expose of more prints and some fresh discussion, however non- conclusive, is bound to get all those believers very excited.
 
Pertinax said:
Many (the majority even?) of the footprint casts I've seen over the years presented as Thylacine prints are clearly 100% identifiable as from Dogs. They present a typical 'two up, two down' arrangement of the toes. On here also there are several casts apparently from Dogs. The one they feature specifically could also be a dog with splayed toes. The 'juvenile Thylacine' could be anything.

That's not to say I haven't seen casts that are much less easy to explain away and do closely resemble the arrangement of pads and toes as shown by museum Thylacine feet. However, confusion with any of several other Tasmanian marsupials is always a possiblity with these.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I've never really looked at their prints. As, I've come to the sad conclusion there won't be anymore.

I think though that this video hasn't got the impact that'll engage the audience Waters' has attracted.
 
oldrover said:
To be honest, I've never really looked at their prints. As, I've come to the sad conclusion there won't be anymore.
Click to expand...

I have a cast I took from a set of prints I found in sandy soil on my first Tasmanian visit. They were not from a dog and were difficult to ascribe easily to another native species. The prints were spaced widely apart in a long narrow line, a pattern identical to a photo of tracks which appear in Guiler's book, ascribed to Thylacine( which doesn't mean they are of course), and a couple of other photos I have seen of similar sets of tracks.

Most other marsupials make pretty distinctive tracks, either the shape of the prints, or pattern of the tracks( or both.) Tasmanian Devil is one of the easiest to identify by its size and pattern of the parallel hindlegs. Wombat is more difficult but it has a wide, bear-like gait.

I don't know what my cast is from...
 
Pertinax said:
I have a cast I took from a set of prints I found in sandy soil on my first Tasmanian visit. They were not from a dog and were difficult to ascribe easily to another native species. The prints were spaced widely apart in a long narrow line, a pattern identical to a photo of tracks which appear in Guiler's book, ascribed to Thylacine( which doesn't mean they are of course), and a couple of other photos I have seen of similar sets of tracks.

Most other marsupials make pretty distinctive tracks, either the shape of the prints, or pattern of the tracks( or both.) Tasmanian Devil is one of the easiest to rule out by its size and pattern. Wombat is more difficult but it has a wide, bear-like gait.

I don't know what my cast is from...
Click to expand...

Well, it's always possible. I'm in the negative camp, but given who you met over there, I'm assuming it was the seventies or late sixties you'd have taken this track? So, it might have been a different story then.

I can't quite give up on New Guinea though. But I admit, there's not much evidence.
 
oldrover said:
I'm in the negative camp, but given who you met over there, I'm assuming it was the seventies or late sixties you'd have taken this track?
Click to expand...

So am I really...

This was the seventies. I'm not saying its definately from Thylacine of course, it probably isn't, but I try to remain open-minded and (like Chlidonias and many others) I would love to be proved wrong of course.

New Guinea would sound a better bet given its so little explored.

The worst trouble is all this continued confusion/belief in mainland Thylacines.
 
oldrover said:
I think though that this video hasn't got the impact that'll engage the audience Waters' has attracted.
Click to expand...
that is what I was thinking when I watched it. His first two videos were all "yeah, living thylacines!!" and then the third is "now we're going to show some plaster casts of footprints..."

In comparison it is a really dull bring-down.
 
Chlidonias said:
His first two videos were all "yeah, living thylacines!!" and then the third is "now we're going to show some plaster casts of footprints..."

In comparison it is a really dull bring-down.
Click to expand...

He is no doubt trying to keep the momentum of his roadshow going but I agree a return to 'footprints' is not very newsworthy. But just the exposure is probably enough to promote more comments from this army of sudden believers like 'got a really good feeling about this, sure its going to be discovered next week...'
 
Pertinax said:
So am I really...

This was the seventies. I'm not saying its definately from Thylacine of course, it probably isn't, but I try to remain open-minded and (like Chlidonias and many others) I would love to be proved wrong of course.

New Guinea would sound a better bet given its so little explored.

The worst trouble is all this continued confusion/belief in mainland Thylacines.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I've probably said this before, but what bothers me is the way that what little knowledge we do have about the animal is ignored.
 
Still though both, I think Waters is going to run out of steam soon. And realistically, outside of the FB page, is anyone taking any notice?
 
Pertinax said:
The accompanying piece of video shows a Fox even more clearly than usual- apparently not even a mangy one either.
Click to expand...
yes, I genuinely don't understand how anybody can be confused by footage like that. The first animal could be ambiguous (but looks very like a fox to me), however the second one is about as clear a piece of camera-trap footage of a fox as you could hope to get.
 
He's now trying to claim that you can see a white tail tip (as per his latest fox video) on some of the historical photos. This whole thing is about as absurd as it can get.

It's caught up with the ancient Roman thylacine theories. If you haven't come across those, it's that Septimeus Severus had a tiger killed in the Coliseum, and/or that tigers were venerated by early Alexandrian Gnostics.
 
It seems people are popping up all over the place in Australia nowadays 'seeing' Thylacines. I guess the internet and all these muzzy videos and photos is partially to blame, putting the idea into more and more peoples' heads about any unidentified animal(s) that they come across. So its mushroomed into a sort of mass misidentification now. The most recent publicised examples, the young lady in South Australia, and the piece of video from WA ,seem just the latest of many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top