arca
Knight Errant
Posts: 65
|
Post by arca on Jun 2, 2012 14:08:36 GMT 10
The first time I ever read about the thylacine was in Alfred Brehm's Tierleben (Life of Animals), when I was 5-6 years old. I still have those books somewhere, which include two drawings of a thylacine that I may scan, if you all are curious. In the meantime, here's Brehm's text. I don't recall ever seeing it mentioned in terms of old thylacine descriptions, so it could be of some historical interest to those of you who haven't come across it. archive.org/stream/animalsofworldbr00brehuoft/animalsofworldbr00brehuoft_djvu.txt"THE ZEBRA WOLF. The Zebra- wolf or Pouched Dog (Tliylacinus cynoccplialus), the only living representative of a distinct genus, did not come by its name wrongfully, for it really resembles a wild Dog. Its elongated body, the shape of the head, the strong demarcation of the snout, the erect ears, the eyes, the tail, which is carried extended straight behind, all are similar to the corresponding members of the Dog; the limbs are proportionately short, however, and the dentition differs markedly from that of the Dog. The Pouched Dog is the largest of all carnivorous Pouched Animals. Its body is over forty inches long, the tail measures twenty inches and old males are said to become still larger, measuring in all about six feet four inches. The fur is close and loose, of gray-brown hue and marked with twelve or fourteen black transverse stripes on the back. The Pouched Dog is a native of Tasmania. In the first period of European settlements it was very common, to the great detriment and vexation of the cattle breeders, to whose sheep-folds and poultry- yards it paid frequent visits. Later, however, firearms caused it to retreat more and more, and it is now restricted to the interior, where it still exists in considerable numbers in mountainous districts, being most frequently found at an altitude of about three thousand feet above the sea level. During the day it seeks refuge in clefts of rock in dark, deep gulches, nearly inaccessible to Man, or in natural retreats, or deep burrows which it digs for itself, and from which it undertakes its raids. It is a nocturnal animal and to a great extent shuns light. Even if it is not the most savage of all predaceous Pouched Animals, it still exceeds all its family relations in strength and courage and deserves its name for this reason also. The food of the Zebra-wolf consists of all smaller animals that it can subdue, vertebrates or invertebrates, from insects and mollusks to domestic animals. When it is especially hungry, it despises no kind of food and is not even frightened by the sharp, spinous weapons of the Echidna. When the animal extends its raids to the settlements, it is caught in traps or hunted with Dogs. It knows how to take care of itself in an encounter with the latter and displays a savage disposition.
|
|
arca
Knight Errant
Posts: 65
|
Post by arca on Jun 2, 2012 14:15:31 GMT 10
Here's one drawing, which is actually different than the ones I have in my edition. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jun 3, 2012 1:05:34 GMT 10
Thanks for posting that arca, I found the description of their colour especially interesting, as this is something that's been worrying me recently.
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jun 5, 2012 12:48:57 GMT 10
Nice post. It's a new description for me.
I think both Paddle and Guiler discuss the history of the documentation of the thylacine. I'm reminded of this by the reference to molluscs. I think it was Paddle who mostly made the point that for a long time the thylacine was touted as dieting on seafood, based on having seen a single individual on a beach, presumably eating something.
I find it very notable however that invertebrates and insects are mentioned - in light of papers released in the last few years suggesting the thylacine ate smaller prey than formerly thought.
What's more, I noted personally that of the 6 quoll species, only the eastern has the same digitisation (?? meaning - same number of digits on front/rear feet), and that species was described in Sydney as living in sandstone escarpments, from where it would come down to the mudflats at low tide to forage for food. In the same way I wonder if the thylacine shared this habit before European man drove it from the coastal regions.
Thinking about it now, Eastern quolls, despite their digits, can and do jump up onto logs and branches. They are nowhere near as arboreal as spotted-tailed quolls, but they do climb trees. Thylacines, having the same basic foot structure may well have done likewise - and indeed there are enough reports to suggest females did, no matter how much that doesn't sit with our Euro-centric notion of what a "dog-like" animal shouldn't do.
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jun 6, 2012 2:00:09 GMT 10
our Euro-centric notion of what a "dog-like" animal shouldn't do.
Well said, time to stop judging the thylacine against dogs I think.
I find it very notable however that invertebrates and insects are mentioned - in light of papers released in the last few years suggesting the thylacine ate smaller prey than formerly thought.
I'm not too sure about this though, the paper, assuming you mean Wroe et al, also states that Quolls share a similarly wide gape and that it seems to an adaptation to tackle larger prey. Also the dentition fitted an animal that hunted larger prey, to say nothing of its nutritional requirements.
Plus as far as I read it the main finding was that thylacine skulls were under more stress than a canid when pulling back against struggling prey. This though assumes a similar feeding method as dogs, also it was implicit in the paper that they were solitary hunters and ignored the possibility that the forelimbs were used to subdue prey.
In short in my opinion, except for the solitary habits, too much information was inferred from dogs. Again.
|
|
arca
Knight Errant
Posts: 65
|
Post by arca on Jun 6, 2012 2:54:09 GMT 10
What I find most interesting are the accounts that say the thylacine would defend itself fiercely and that most dogs weren't a match for it. These are mostly from old sources, and so could be part of the myth that Europeans constructed about the animal as a ferocious, bloodthirsty predator. But I do remember reading a story somewhere that a cornered thylacine killed a bull terrier by ripping off a part of its skull with a single bite. If that's true, its very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jun 6, 2012 6:09:07 GMT 10
Personally I've never been terribly convinced by that story. On the flip side I remember another anecdote related by Eric Guiler. He said, although I think he was a long way from convinced, that a fox hound was once set on a captive thylacine and it, the fox hound, backed away in fear. Then they tried a Scots Terrier, which promptly killed the thylacine.
Who knows now?
|
|
|
Post by seth24 on Jun 6, 2012 13:34:15 GMT 10
I read that story too. i think it was in the David owen book. "It just probably goes to show don't mess with the Scots" I don't know whether that story is genuine, as Guiler had reservations. I would not be surprised that the thylacine could kill a dog, especially if it was cornered or put in a threatening situation. I would gather that the thylacine would rear up on its hind quarters and give out a warning sound to that threat. I don't whether there is any recorded articles on agressive behaviour of the thylacine in a threatening situation. ;D
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jun 6, 2012 13:43:29 GMT 10
Quolls share a similarly wide gape and that it seems to an adaptation to tackle larger prey. An additional function might be to serve as a threat display: "Hey mate, my gape's bigger than yours. Back off." You back off. I breed. Wide gape persists. Totally unrelated to predation. This is the thing - I don't think we can pick out a feature and single out its function. Pick out any part of your body and tell me it serves only a single function. Also the dentition fitted an animal that hunted larger prey So does mine and I've eaten frog's legs. Aren't I a fierce predator!? ;D I mean, I would think nothing of seeing a dog (excuse the species choice for comparison!) eating a skink, and if I documented "eats skinks" would I be wrong? No. Would it's dentition indicate it's better adapted to consuming larger prey? Yes. I've seen brushtail possums eating roadkill. All I'm saying is I think there is very little we can define as absolute about thylacine behaviour and any inference from morphology is extrapolation - something I tend to feel cautious about. Plus as far as I read it the main finding was that thylacine skulls were under more stress than a canid when pulling back against struggling prey. To labour the point - I'm sure lions are more adept at tackling prey than Homo sapiens is... yet somehow there's a few more Homo sapiens on this planet. In short in my opinion, except for the solitary habits, too much information was inferred from dogs. Again. It sounds that way. It's a fascinating field really - trying to derive conclusions about the behaviours of extinct species. I love it ;D
|
|
arca
Knight Errant
Posts: 65
|
Post by arca on Jun 6, 2012 14:22:24 GMT 10
I don't whether there is any recorded articles on agressive behaviour of the thylacine in a threatening situation. ;D Unless you count Benjamin biting David Fleay's butt! That's what continues to amaze me about this animal. As far as extinct species go, it's pretty well catalogued and studied, and yet we still know practically nothing about it.
|
|
|
Post by seth24 on Jun 6, 2012 14:43:58 GMT 10
What would have caused "Ben" to bite his butt. other than to say "let me outer here". You are right arca that we still do not know much about the thylacine in its habits and the way it lived in the wild etc. Only studies made by Guiler, Paddle and others have given us,( who were'nt around in those times) some insight into this animal. Back then, especially into the early 20th century, there dos'nt seem to be any effort made to record or study the animal in its natural enviroment.The only effort made towards the animal it seems is hell bent on exterminating it ;D
|
|
|
Post by molloch on Jun 6, 2012 15:39:00 GMT 10
We know surprisingly little about many extant Australia fauna.
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jun 7, 2012 6:45:00 GMT 10
All I'm saying is I think there is very little we can define as absolute about thylacine behaviour and any inference from morphology is extrapolation - something I tend to feel cautious about. But the same can be said about the papers suggesting they went for smaller prey. Seriously though I agree absolutely. I don't know whether there is any recorded articles on agressive behaviour of the thylacine in a threatening situationDidn't Batty say that the he fired after the animal gaped at him. Also didn't Eric Guiler say that there was an incident when a bloke coming home from the pub was attacked by one which he subsequently shot. Again I'm pretty sure he was doubtful if not absolutely dismissive of this story. One last one I remember an account of someone being gummed by an old toothless specimen, though this might have been the pub incident.
|
|
arca
Knight Errant
Posts: 65
|
Post by arca on Jun 7, 2012 8:07:43 GMT 10
The only thylacine attack on record happened around 1900, when one grabbed an old woman's arm while she was washing her clothes in the river. She managed to fight it off pretty easily. I think that's the incident you're referring to.
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jun 7, 2012 9:01:11 GMT 10
I read that story too. i think it was in the David owen book. "It just probably goes to show don't mess with the Scots" I don't know whether that story is genuine, as Guiler had reservations. I would not be surprised that the thylacine could kill a dog, especially if it was cornered or put in a threatening situation. I would gather that the thylacine would rear up on its hind quarters and give out a warning sound to that threat. I don't whether there is any recorded articles on agressive behaviour of the thylacine in a threatening situation. ;D I think that story is in Col Bailey's book Tiger Tails - where the terrier killed a thylacine. Between Tiger Tails and Paddle's Last Tasmanian Tiger I think there were several accounts of thylacines being able to kill dogs when attacked by them. Let's not forget the largest male thylacine on record measured 2.9 metres from tip to tip - that's the size of an adult female leopard. Sure they weren't all that size, but they weren't all exactly small either - compare the animal that rears up in its zoo enclosure in one of the film clips.
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jun 7, 2012 9:03:37 GMT 10
All I'm saying is I think there is very little we can define as absolute about thylacine behaviour and any inference from morphology is extrapolation - something I tend to feel cautious about. But the same can be said about the papers suggesting they went for smaller prey. True, but we were talking about Brehm's 1861 account - not morphological research conclusion - of thylacines eating invertebrates
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jun 7, 2012 10:23:42 GMT 10
True, but we were talking about Brehm's 1861 account - not morphological research conclusion - of thylacines eating invertebrates Of course but I took it from this; I find it very notable however that invertebrates and insects are mentioned - in light of papers released in the last few years suggesting the thylacine ate smaller prey than formerly thought.That you were discussing how certain elements in Brehm's account might relate to more recent findings. Findings which, for the same reasons you gave, I find less than persuasive. I think there's a lot of mileage in that discussion, if it's in the wrong place here though and is seen to be taking this particular thread off topic, of course fair enough I understand.
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jun 7, 2012 10:27:14 GMT 10
The only thylacine attack on record happened around 1900, when one grabbed an old woman's arm while she was washing her clothes in the river. She managed to fight it off pretty easily. I think that's the incident you're referring to. Now that you've said that I think that is the toothless one I'm thinking of. Over the years though I've come across several alleged attacks, how true they are or even when they were made up though is anyone's guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 10:42:42 GMT 10
What utter crap!!! Current day thylacines prey on large kangaroos, sheep and calves. Tasmanian farmers have been questioned about the extinction of thylacines and replied that they wished they were. In Victoria kangaroos have been found wiith bodies stripped from hides and the same with calves. The hides have been sleeved off.\I have photos of calves that have been predated Dont go on with the twaddle about doubt of existance, the things are there and have been seen plenty of times. Not everyone is too stupid to not know what they are seeing. Pictures?? how do you potograph a ghost that is only seen for a fleeting moment. But there is little doubt of sightings, once seen never forgotten I have photos of calves that had been predated, and in a manner nothing like that of of a giant feral cat, and nothing like a dog or a thylacoleo for that matter. So what else could it be. No I am not annoyed, just exasperated. BC
|
|
|
Post by molloch on Jun 7, 2012 10:57:23 GMT 10
We seemed to be able to catch them, shoot them and see them ok in the late 1800's. What has changed to make them so elusive in such a short time?
I started a post here about evidence, but I am going to move it to another thread.
|
|
|
Post by mingle on Jun 7, 2012 12:50:52 GMT 10
You know I'd never really thought about that before, but you're right... We seemed to be able to catch them, shoot them and see them ok in the late 1800's. What has changed to make them so elusive in such a short time?
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jun 7, 2012 20:51:20 GMT 10
Hahahaha... I just worked out the answer.
Back then the government *wanted* you to shoot them. Now they're protected and you'd get fined. But those with a vested interest in farming, forestry or mining could very well *still* be catching, shooting them and seeing them on the quiet! ;D (And yes... that's been alleged by some Taswegians too)
|
|
|
Post by dennisw on Jun 7, 2012 23:02:36 GMT 10
In the 1800s you had to declare it or you were not paid your bounty. Even in those days the animal was reputed to be elusive and nocturnal and not easy to find and shoot. I don't know why miners or forestry workers would shoot them but I can see that some farmers might be tempted to quietly off one, it is more likely that they would pick up a bait intended for some other species.
|
|
|
Post by molloch on Jun 7, 2012 23:59:03 GMT 10
These days there is a bounty of a different kind. In the last 10 years there has been more than $2 million in rewards offered, and the royalities from media would increase it substantially.
And still no Thylacine.
|
|
|
Post by exoldrover on Jun 8, 2012 7:21:59 GMT 10
It doesn't look good does it.
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jun 8, 2012 7:54:15 GMT 10
Good point molloch.
Dennis - because if an invertebrate can defer a multi-billion dollar mining industry in the Kimberly, then an iconic dog-like mammal can defer similar industries in Tas. The bounty for it remaining unfounded is worth more than $2m to some.
|
|