arca
Knight Errant
Posts: 65
|
Post by arca on May 23, 2013 7:00:23 GMT 10
A lot of interesting sightings listed on this page, but this one stuck out to me as being both recent and fairly detailed: garyopit.com/64-thylacine-sightings/60. 30th December 2008, 6:15 am, 5-37 Broken Head Road, Byron Bay, NSW.
Kim Falconer wrote “I heard a loud sound like a cross between a guttural possum noise and a large dog retching. I ran outside to find my cat facing off with a dog-like creature 4 times its size. I’ve been a vet nurse for 20 years. It was not a dog.
It was about 18 kg, fawn coloured short dense fur. It smelled of musk, like a mild skunk or possum odour. I was 2-3 metres from it for several minutes. The animal’s face was like a dingo/dog/wolf but with rounder ears. There was white around the muzzle and black around the ears.
The body language of this animal was not canine. I kept trying to place it—fox-like face but too large and wrong body shape. It was long in the flank, like a horse. No sex identifiers noticed.
The eyes were very keen, watching in a way domestic dogs do not. The hocks were pronounced and low—it rocked back on them when it loped away. The coat was like a newly sheared sheep in look–a short, uniform length, fawn to light brown, and very dense, not laying flat like a dog or cat or even horse coat. No stripes but a hint of black on legs and ears, white muzzle, like you might see on an elderly dog, black nose. She was in good condition, no ribs showing. The impression was healthy-lean. Her neck was long–the entire body lithe.
It had the strangest tail–very long, like a broom pole. It didn’t taper, or wag. It walked, trotted and loped. It was not afraid of me but backed away whenever I approached closer than 2-3 m.
The tail was the least dog-like feature. It had short fur, very stiff, thick at the base (a long broom handle) and it didn’t act like a dog’s tail. She had a springy-rocking horse gait, moving quickly then holding very still, lifting her head. She didn’t take her eyes off of me. She seemed extremely curious-cautious. Again–no familiar dog body language. It was the vocalization that really threw me. It was not a dog sound she made–nothing like it. More like a retching possum and it was surprisingly loud.
It was an extraordinary experience, being so close to this animal. There’s no doubt in my mind it was a Thylacine, one without stripes (Tassie tigers were reported without stripes in the 1900′s) Apparently they have up to a 40km range which they trek each month.
It was on the outskirts of the Arakwal National Park, the western edge, inland of the creek. She loped away, heading west towards the golf course. I looked for prints. I found fresh faeces that may be it’s (it was not obviously male) and have frozen a sample. I have rung and reported this to my local veterinarian.
|
|
|
Post by mingle on May 23, 2013 12:51:53 GMT 10
Interesting... Matches the Charleville 'thylacine' - which had no stripes (if I recall correctly). Maybe that's why they go relatively unnoticed on the mainland - looking rather like a plain sandy-coloured feral dog?
Although I do remain slightly sceptical of such detailed reports - why would you describe it as "18kg" rather than "1.5m long" and how likely is it that it would stand there for "several" minutes while the witness was a mere 2-3m away? What was the cat doing all this time - just sitting there washing it's whiskers? What happened to the faeces sample?
Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by dennisw on May 23, 2013 13:10:33 GMT 10
A vet nurse of 20 years experience would be a good judge of an animal's weight (it's how they decide dosage), if it was related to the black creature I saw years ago the behaviour does not seem unusual - that one sat and watched me and if I hadn't been so surprised by its appearance I would have shot it between the eyes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 23:44:25 GMT 10
Having taken our 21 kg dog to the vet several times recently and had him weighed by the vet nurse on the electronic scales, I have no doubt that the vet nurse in this case has given a reasonably reliable estimate of the animal's weight. The description tallies with my own sighting in that the thylacine I saw in 1992 had no stripes, but had many of the other identifying characteristics that the witness lists. It would be interesting to know whether the anomalous frequency of sightings in that area is a function of Gary Opit's research in the area, or whether the population density is actually higher for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by saggitarius on May 24, 2013 8:32:29 GMT 10
Quote: "It would be interesting to know whether the anomalous frequency of sightings in that area is a function of Gary Opit's research in the area, or whether the population density is actually higher for some reason."
It would be a bit of both. We had a flood of thylacine sightings in the Briagolong and Loch Sport areas of Gippsland in the early 1990s. Until there was publicity of a major sighting in the local paper and a few follow up stories involving various researchers and Peter Chappell of Rare Fauna Research, no-one had mentioned thylacines in the area. The publicity about the research gave people the confidence to make reports (www.coombermedia.com for some instances) and also highlighted that the two districts had a dense population of thylacines. I say had because I fear that Fox-off baiting has had a big effect. Sighting have dropped off in recent years to virtually nil.
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on May 27, 2013 7:24:36 GMT 10
Maybe we shouldn't worry too much about the way in which sightings increase after media publicity. Think of it this way - a person has had a weird sighting at some stage in their life. It's not their day to day occupation to think about it. They hear it on the media and think "oh yeah, something like that happened to me too" and realise someone else might be interested in hearing the story. I wouldn't say it's the *sightings* that increase, per se, but the *reports*.
|
|
|
Post by seth24 on May 27, 2013 10:50:53 GMT 10
spot on chris. i think the less, to a certain extent, through 'certain media out lets, that the less they are involved is a good thing. I think in the case of tiger sightings, once certain media get hold of this, all "hell" breaks lose. As you said, this in turn brings about a sudden 'rush' of reported sightings from 'everywhere' and 'anywhere', which in some cases is not a bad thing if that particular sighting has merit. I think in the tigers case one must 'tread' carefully in as far as the media are concerned, mainly for the well-being of the animal. ;D
|
|
|
Post by molloch on May 27, 2013 11:44:21 GMT 10
I am extra skeptical of sightings where the stripes weren't seen. Maybe under some circumstances you wouldn't notice the stripes (night road crossing, severe mange, etc), but a clear continuous sighting like this you would.
We have no hard evidence of Thylacines without stripes. All the thylacines known to science are striped - and to my knowledge only word of mouth suggests otherwise. Given that mainland Thylacines and Tasmanian Thylacines are both known to have stripes, not having stripes would be quite unlikely. These stripes evolved for a reason, increased camouflage, species recognition, etc; and they vary between individuals so they are likely not an "all or nothing" genetic switch. Losing them would not just be a variation in individuals, it would need to be selected against and the breeding lines kept separate from striped Thylacines.
|
|
|
Post by tygeresque on May 27, 2013 12:18:22 GMT 10
.....
|
|
|
Post by molloch on May 27, 2013 12:46:40 GMT 10
I have seen very photos of very young animals, certainly still pouched young, which had clear stripes: The only thylacine with no defined stripes that I know of is one that was on display in the museum of Brighton, but this one looks pretty faded to me: The idea of stripes appearing when they get older is unlikely for a number of reasons. Animals which have pattern appear as they get older do so because the pattern occurs on their guard hairs, rather than their under hair, which don't grow through until later, but in thylacines this pattern is on the under hair. This would not differ between individuals.
|
|
|
Post by tygeresque on May 27, 2013 14:01:40 GMT 10
most of my thylas are born pure white, whiter than new born lambs, and
the only colour on them are their black eyes and nose
even the claws are almost see through
at the moment we have one pure white female wandering about .her mate is pale grey with dark grey stripes.....she has pouch young which will hop out in about 6 weeks
she looks like a white lab but longer in body, neck and head. my first sighting of her was 3 years ago , so she is 5 now
but I am probably seeing what's not there
|
|
|
Post by molloch on May 27, 2013 14:05:33 GMT 10
Send me a photo and I'll have a look for you. Happy to be proven wrong. Edit: This sounds a bit snarky, it wasn't meant to. Scientifically, what we know about the Thylacine is that it was striped. The variation in the stripes and the fact that they appear in "neonatal" pups, means that the stripes are unlikely to fade in over time, or be missing in some individuals. I understand that your observations differ, and I have never seen a Thylacine in anything other than photos, fossils or museum specimens*, but if you can show me some evidence to the contrary, I'd happily change my mind. For now, I am more skeptical of sightings where the observer did not see stripes under favourable conditions. The scientific position on Thylacinus cynocephalus, is that it was striped. *....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2013 17:38:16 GMT 10
Always interested to hear of sightings of unstriped thylacines, last count is that 9% of reports are of unstriped individuals. For those of you whom I have not already bored with the details, the thylacine I saw in west Gippsland was about the colour of the dark coffee I've just put in the percolator. There were no stripes, except for faintly marked darker patterns in the face. There was no question as to the identification of this animal; readers may be aware that I am a Science graduate, former teacher of Animal Identification, ARFRA committee member for nearly ten years and have been spotting foxes in this area since I was a kid. Few people are better qualified to make an identification in these circumstances, and few are fortunate as I was to have the opportunity to observe the animal for about five minutes, from around 90m. Tygeresque I'm interested in your comment about young Victorian thylacines being unstriped; what is your evidence for this?
|
|
|
Post by molloch on May 27, 2013 19:24:46 GMT 10
This photo sort of looks like your description, Plez,: but I think it is just an artefact of the photo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2013 23:33:14 GMT 10
Thanks Molloch, although as you say it's a bit difficult to say whether the thylacines in the pic have stripes or not. If I recall correctly Eric Guyler's book stated that (Tasmanian) thylacines had between 13 and 23 stripes, presumably going on available skins and photos. The one I saw was broadside on for some time, and if it had stripes they would have been clearly visible, as the faint markings on the face could be seen from my observation point. So I guess the issue to be resolved is whether these unstriped thylacines are actually that, or perhaps a closely related, but hitherto undescribed, species or subspecies.
|
|
|
Post by tygeresque on May 28, 2013 1:44:50 GMT 10
I have seen many white young and was quite amazed that thyla young in
Tas were striped in the pouch
most females which I have observed are reddish-brown with faint stripes and males are pale grey with dark grey stripes
their young are always white without a hint of a stripe but by 2 years old the coat colour and stripes are almost complete
I do not confuse foxes with my female thylas as they are twice the size of a fox ie.. almost twice as long in the body excluding tails and they move differently from foxes
adult female ( over 5 years old ) weight is around 25kgs + and males (over 6 years ) weigh approx. 50kg+
the size for Tas thylas is much smaller if reports on size are accurate.
as I have no qualifications - uni degrees etc -but many years of observations (25 years this October) ....are my observations imaginary or not to be believed?
|
|
|
Post by greatdane on May 28, 2013 2:22:42 GMT 10
I´m with Molloch on this one: Thylacines are/were striped! Is it possible there is colour morph? sure that´s always possible. But please remember a Thy with no stripes look allot like a Dingo superficially, and I´m not questioning your diagnostic ability, Plessiosaur As an avid hunter I also think of light and lack of same that can give strange images. An ex: Wild Boars of Europe (not to be confused with feral hogs), which are almost black in winter, can "disappear" even in an open field in the strong light of full moon, which has happened to me, only to "reappear", when moving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2013 9:39:02 GMT 10
I have seen many white young and was quite amazed that thyla young in Tas were striped in the pouch most females which I have observed are reddish-brown with faint stripes and males are pale grey with dark grey stripes their young are always white without a hint of a stripe but by 2 years old the coat colour and stripes are almost complete I do not confuse foxes with my female thylas as they are twice the size of a fox ie.. almost twice as long in the body excluding tails and they move differently from foxes adult female ( over 5 years old ) weight is around 25kgs + and males (over 6 years ) weigh approx. 50kg+ the size for Tas thylas is much smaller if reports on size are accurate. as I have no qualifications - uni degrees etc -but many years of observations (25 years this October) ....are my observations imaginary or not to be believed? Would it be asking too much for you to produce photographic evidence? Extreme claims (several, large thylacines plus young, with different coat patterns?!) require extreme evidence.
|
|
|
Post by saggitarius on May 28, 2013 13:07:24 GMT 10
If I recall correctly Eric Guyler's book stated that (Tasmanian) thylacines had between 13 and 23 stripes, presumably going on available skins and photos. Does anyone know of a photo of a thylacine with 20 or more stripes? It would look a totally different animal to one with the normal 13-14 stripes which we normally see in the historic photos. I imagine it would almost look like a brindle dog. I don't think I recall seeing any Gippsland thylacine sightings where stripes were not seen. I have a couple of reports where stripes not mentioned but by the fact that people called it a Tasmanian Tiger, I think it can be assumed that these animals had stripes too.
|
|
|
Post by molloch on May 28, 2013 13:44:16 GMT 10
I can't recall the bit in Guiler's book, but he might have been counting stripes where the stripe bifurcated as being 2 stripes.
|
|
|
Post by saggitarius on May 29, 2013 9:34:44 GMT 10
I had to look up bifurcated. Some of you fellows are a bit too technical for me.
From what I can see through, the only place where the stripes start to divide in along the spinal ridge and then only on 2-3 of the stripes, not all. I can't see any way to get to 23 stripes as mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on May 29, 2013 13:45:04 GMT 10
Molloch - what do you make of Kevin Cameron's photos? The morphology seems very consistent with thylacine but the stripe pattern seems paler and unlike anything from Tasmania. He claimed to have photographed it in Western Australia.
|
|
|
Post by molloch on May 29, 2013 16:31:07 GMT 10
I really don't know what to make of the Cameron photos. The animal looks faded - live animals don't fade... The photos are somewhat bleached, though and the contrast is poor. Too many variables.
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on May 30, 2013 17:38:52 GMT 10
Faded? Or pale colouration consistent with the unverifiable mainland sighting accounts? The photos are from the 1980s - film, and then printed in a magazine. I'd say they're about the same quality as any other photos from the 1980s. Here is an "unfaded" eastern barred bandicoot: Here is a "faded" one: cv.vic.gov.au/data/13290/zoo_eastern%20barred%20bandicoot.jpgIs the faded one not alive? I just simply think you can't write off Cameron's photos on the basis of colouration. Likewise I don't think you can write off eye witness accounts on the basis of non-visible stripes. Anyone here ever kept fish? Colouration is always touted as a feature to be ignored when determining species. And most notably, I find it interesting that Cameron's photos - from the mainland - actually show an unexpected (and faded/pale) striping pattern which is *consistent* with mainland sighting reports.
|
|
|
Post by dennisw on May 31, 2013 14:53:19 GMT 10
Colour in photographs can vary quite a bit depending on lighting, film (or digital media), shutter speed, lens, exposure and many other factors including processing or editing. Colour is a factor that I try to ignore as a guide because of these factors.
|
|
|
Post by molloch on May 31, 2013 15:53:19 GMT 10
With fish, we have a range of patterns and colours which are well known - which are controlled by a different genetic pattern than in mammals, by the way. Coat pattern can be controlled by a number of factors, both genetic and epigenetic and even temperature (cats are epigenetically influenced, snow-shoe hares are temperature controlled, etc). In thylacines, we have samples from two disparate populations (Nullarbor and Tasmania) which show the same basic coat colour, and very little variation in pattern, contrast or colour. We also see some changes between individuals on the number and pattern of stripes. Therefore the patterning is likely an ancestral trait.
We certainly can't rule out colour in supporting the Cameron photos, however when we have to construct theories to explain unconfirmed sightings, we are in dangerous territory. For example, imagining the existence of a non-striped thylacine in order to support 2nd degree observations is a bad thing. This is why Occam's razor is often brought up in discussions. To support this thylacine sighting we need to propose a Thylacine which is lighter in colour and not striped. This sounds ok, but this animal is completely unknown to science, it means that all the thylacines we have preserved, painted, drawn or photographed, or drawn on caves are of the striped form, by chance.
Is there more chance of a non-striped thylacine avoiding all concrete evidence, or is there more chance of the observer mis-identifying an animal, such as a dog or fox. We have plenty of foxes identified as Thylacines, observations are often unreliable. If we propose changes to what we know to fit unconfirmed sightings, this just validates the next mis-sighting.
|
|