Talk:Beast of Gévaudan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Tasmanian wolf
I belive the Beast of Gevaudan was a hybrid offsping of a male Tazmanian wolf [Thylacines Cynocephalus]and a Large female Greywolf wich was Train to kill by men belonging to a cult of that day.The beast was said to have stipes,like a Tazmanian wolf, and it was said to stand on its hine legs able to leap for long distances. it was said to have a bite radius larger then a wolf,and it was said to hunt like a cat with its belly low to the ground. ALL are clasic behavier of a Tazmanian wolf or sometime call a Tazmanian tiger. I belive that it was a Male Tazmanian wolf that sired the offsping {The beast},so as to breed out the fact that the female Tazmanian wolf carried her young in a poch like a kangaroo. IT was comon for the very rich to traval to other countrys to collect exotic animals for their own personal Zoos. Someone must have went to Australia were the Tazmanian Wolf live in abundance at that time in history and breeded the two togather to make the BEAST OF Gevavdan and Train it to kill (Note: this message left by anon user 138.88.176.223 (talk • contribs)).
- Well, the article says the time of the beast's attack was 1764 to 1767. Unfortunately for your theory, Australia was not discovered by westerners until 1770, when Captain Cook found it. So much for the Tasmanian wolf theory :). My best guess is that it was just an wolf that gained much fame due to people's fertile imagination at that time. --Ragib 23:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Also there is no way that a Placental mammal and Marsupial could reproduce. --203.214.84.183 13:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it might reduce clutter and confusion if the movie information were removed, and links to the films' entries be put into a See Also section. Any agreements? Drago 07:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization
I just put this in category:Legendary creatures (and redirected a duplicate page). Couldn't decide, though, if it should go in that category or category:Cryptids. Any thoughts? The Literate Engineer 04:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I say both. If the Beast was genuinely a creature, there is a definite cryptozoological slant to it, as well as it being a legendary creature.Drago 03:38, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] well?
didn't they prove that at least one of the two beasts was a hyena?
- If they did, this is the first I've heard about it. Any links to information on this? Drago 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dire wolf
The article states that the Beast may have been a Dire Wolf, because the dire wolves were larger. But the dire wolf article states that dire wolves were no bigger than regular wolves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.37.114 (talk • contribs).
- This article says "marginally" larger, which agrees with the dire wolf article, which says, "On average it was a little larger at about 1.5 metres (5 feet) in length and about 50 kilograms (110 pounds)."
Coyoty 14:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nessie
The loch ness monster didn't kill a lot of people: i'm not sure if the Gevaudan beast/Nessie comparison is or necessary or usefull, especially since the Gevaudan beast has a very traumatic component that nessie (to my knowledge) doesn't have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.237.254.76 (talk • contribs).
Yes, it looks odd. I deleted. Totnesmartin 15:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conspiracy Theory
Would be wolf hunters (Jean Chastel and sons), with or without external interests, using armored attack dogs. 100 human deaths in 3 years in a very narrow zone makes for a very, very angry lupus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.237.254.76 (talk • contribs).
Did the beast actually die Karzack 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- er, yes, eventually... Totnesmartin 18:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gender of the BEast
It is written in the article that the beast is referred as "her". May be this should be deleted. There is no neutral gender in french. "La bête" is just as feminine as "la voiture" which means "the car". It doesn't say anything about the supposed gender of the beast.
[edit] The article contains wrong facts
"It is to be noted that there is no proof of human involvement, and that all descriptions of the animals killed point to canines". Complete nonsense! Most of the victims were decapitated and naked. Which canine could do that? I suggest someone to complete the article, but a serious work is needed! Moreover, the article has no references and the links are ridiculous! Perhaps it would be better just to delete the article and write a new one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.31.75.80 (talk • contribs) .
- If you can do a better job please do so. Entirely or in part. Thanks for your help! -- Stbalbach 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
what's the source for victims being naked? if so, that would throw out the whole identity of the beast as an animal, suggesting a human element. Totnesmartin 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Creodont
I have doubts about the B of G being a surviving creodont. If the last fossils are from 8 million years ago, then how did one pop up in 18th century France? A carnivore that large and voracious would not have gone unnoticed in the intervening time. Totnesmartin 12:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to take the creodont ref out of the infobox - it's only one theory among many. Totnesmartin 12:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Irish wolfhound
The picture looks similar to an Irish wolfhound. These are the tallest dogs and this one could have gone feral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutley (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
