Talk:Beast of Gévaudan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beast of Gévaudan article.
Article policies

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)

The two could never interbreed since they're not closely related. It's a genetic impossibility. There are far more reasonable explanations. --TaeKwonTimmy 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tasmanian wolf and Tasmanian tiger are two different animals.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Tasmanian wolf and the Tasmanian tiger are the SAME animal. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked, and I am wrong. So sorry about that. That's what I get for commenting before I make sure of my data.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (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)
I'm a bit curious as to why this should be categorized as a legendary creature, given that there is numerous historical evidence for the beast's existence. Yes, there's doubt as to what it actually was, but there's not much debate over whether it existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.101.232 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Both categories are acceptable. The animal has since attained folkloric aspects. In any case, at the time of its maraudings there was disagreement as to whether the beast was even flesh and blood. Note that many true aspects of history have passed or become reworked into legend. Cupbearer 21:56, 14 September 2007 (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)

The proof lies in what people want to see. Look at the article on the chupacabra. Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)." Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 14:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says that the beast was about the size of a cow. At Morril Hall in Lincoln, Nebraska they have displays of dire wolves as they are believed to have looked. Those puppies are not the size of a cow, but they are pretty good sized pooches.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2008 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.254.76 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Did it die?

Did the beast actually die Karzack 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

er, yes, eventually... Totnesmartin 18:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
An animal died and the attacks did stop, if it was the same animal is unknown. 81.152.196.94 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo

[edit] Where's the body?

If they killed the beast, what happened to its corpse? Why is its identity such a mystery?
Sadly, they failed to preserve any of it - either because they didn't want to, or because they tried to but did it badly and it decayed anyway. A shame, because nowadays a tuft of hair or a single bone would tell us easily...
Well not exactly, all that's known is that the king's hunter shot a wolf and claimed it was the beast. Although the attacks stopped soon after, there were attacks after the wolf had been shot and it's quite possible that he was just trying to preserve his reputation, so as it's doubtful that the wolf was the beast any information about it is of negliable value. 81.152.196.91 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Elmo
Perhaps, as in the story Rogue Angel: Destiny by Alex Archer, the body was in a cave that got sealed off for some reason.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (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.

You make a good point, but the beast is indeed often referred to as a "she," and that is fact irrespective of it also being bad grammar. Cupbearer 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's most likely caused by literal translation. "She" should be changed to "it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Since it has behavior that could be seen as territorial, it may have been male. Or I could be chasing shadows, and we'll never know.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[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)

No it wouldn't. Its not unheard of for wild animals to claw the clothing off a person in order to expose the edible flesh. I don't have a page number offhand (its been a while since I looked through it), but the memoir, "The Man Eating Leopard of Rudraprayag" describes this in some detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.101.232 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder where this information is coming from. "Most" of the victims were neither decapitated nor naked. Of the decapitated, several had their heads removed by the animal in front of witnesses. Of the naked, several were discovered lying beside the remnants of their clothing, shredded and torn by the obvious wiles of the beast as it fed. Debate the human element by all means, for surely there were many folk taking advantage of the situation at the time, but do not dismiss the number of killings that were conclusively performed by an animal. Cupbearer 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As an argument for the human element, it has never been proven one way or the other in a definitive fashion as to whether or not werewolves have ever existed, and in the traditional werewolf stories they are quite intelligent. Perhaps it was a loup garou, and it had people that it wanted dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Beautor (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Now see here, these crpyto articles are vandalized enough by skeptical extremists without deliberately being made targets (an example of this would be suggesting that the behaviour of the Beast of Gévaudan can be explained with lycanthropy). Add it in when/if shapeshifting between man and animal is verified scientifically as being possible. Bearerofthecup (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure 'skeptical extremists' is a contradiction in terms. The problem here seems to be that this is being treated as a 'crypto article' instead of what it is a 'history article' we're talking about real events with real killings here, so prehaps we should hold off on filling it with information about werewolves an aliens, no? 86.162.139.196 (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the line was supposed to read "skeptics and extremists" - the former camp advocating a series of hoaxes and the latter werewolves (and other explanations unsubstantiated by science). This 'beast' was most assuredly a number of wolves, but an exceptional group to be sure. Try convincing the editors of that, 86.162.139.196, and you'll be destroyed. Remember that on Wikipedia, consensus determines truth, not evidence. Bearerofthecup (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2008 (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).

It's quite possible, the beast was regularly discribed as having red fur(other than the tiny 'mexican wolf' no wolves have this colouring) and a white 'heart-shaped' patch of fur on it's chest(yet again, this isn't found on wolves but is sometimes found on domestic dogs like wolfhounds). Also behaviour such as wagging it's tail while it attacked (wolves attack with a straight tail) suggests a large domestic breed of dog like an Irish wolfhound. Even it's lack of fear towards humans suggests a domesticated animal(feral or otherwise). 81.152.196.94 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo
i asked above but i'll ask again here, in case anyone knows. if the beast was killed, why is its breed such a mystery? did chastel kill it but forget to bring the corpse back, or has everyone just taken his word that he killed it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.4.232 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Wouldn't a wolfhound have gone for the throat?Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No they don't (well not the ones from ancient times). Have a look at the article for Irish Wolfhound —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.150.20 (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"It has also been shown that when hunting animals, the wolfhound would bite the neck and crush the spine, killing the creature." Straight from the wolfhound article, from the area where it talks about back in Roman times.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wrong category?

I am unaware of any instance in which the beast ate it's victims flesh rather than merely killing them, does anyone have any source which states that the beast was a maneater? If not it doesn't belong in 'Category:Famous Maneating Animals'. 217.43.27.180 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo

You're right, I've removed it from this category. Masaruemoto 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the two of you have never read Richard H. Thompson's Wolf-Hunting in France in the Reign of Louis XV or other works on the subject. Many of the victims were discovered partially devoured (and in some cases the evidence suggests that they had been eaten to the last bone). One thing I've never done on Wikipedia is fool around with categories, though.
I can insert the necessary information if no one has any objections.
Cupbearer 05:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's a lion!!

Wolf? Hyena? Creodont???? What the hell! Look at the picture of the right, it's a lion with no doubt!

  • It has a clear mane over head, shoulders and torax.
  • 5 fingers, yet it only walks on four. All fingers have the large curve claws of a feline, and the beast is said to make thuds. This is consistent with a feline and not other type of carnivore.
  • The tail is long and curves upright, like any member of the Panthera genus.
  • There is a tuft at the end of the tail!
  • The long tongue, supposely to suck up the blood of its victims. Lions lick the blood over their hair after killing a victim, in order to clean up it.
  • A large male lion is consistent with the large size ("like a young bull calf"), speed (up to 90 km/h in short distances) and unusual strenght that the beast was said to be. They can easly root away arms, heads or cut human bodies in two, thing that a wolf cannot do. Plus, the witnesses, who were familiar to wolves, said that it didn't look like any of them, and the hunters who chased the beast used anti-wolves useless tactics.

This picture and other similar works strongly look like how an artist would draw a lion after the description of people who had not seen a lion before - like the peasants of Gevaudan. Of course, there aren't lions in Europe, so the beast would be introduced by man... and what happen to lions who are bred by man? They lose their natural instinct to fear/avoid humans. If a lion escaped, or was released at some point in central France, it would not have large game animals to prey but would find humans abundant, weak, stupid, slow and easy to kill compared to other animals. And everybody knows that after a lion kills a human, it develops a clear tendence to do it again. Remember the Tsavo maneaters.--Menah the Great 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the problem that the victims didn't resemble typical big cat kills, and the sexualized stripping and mutilation of the corpses strongly implies a human element which would be more problematic with lions. But it does tie in better with the physical descriptions and behavioural patterns of the beast than it does with wolves, hyenas or alot of the other creatures suggested. If you can find sources with other people making the case for the beast being a lion and citations for the evidence backing up this theory then there's nothing to stop you from adding it to the explainations section. 81.152.196.91 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Elmo
There's one big problem with this theory: lions were indeed already well known in Europe at that time. Countless Coat of Arms are bearing lions and there were menageries all over France showing lions. Although a lot of peasant might never have seen one, it is unthinkable that all those people involved in the hunting would not have identified a lion. 84.167.164.36 09:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that the Gevaudanais had been pastoralists for centuries, and since the wolf was an absolute staple of their culture there is no reason to doubt their identification of the Beast as such. Bearerofthecup (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong color.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nude Victims?

People keep saying on this page that the victims of these attacks were found nude. Not even that movie, from what I've read, seems to imply that. Wondering where people get this idea. --IronMaidenRocks 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the victims were found to be nude, mostly because their clothes had been shredded or seemingly removed by the animal as it killed and ate. Cupbearer 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from top of page

For what it's worth...

I think that the hybrid theory is the correct theory: a Tiger fecundated by a Lion, an experience that has already took place, results in a hybrid which has the growing hormones not regulated...he grows until he dies. the same thing could happen with the "Gévaudan Beast". A mix between a Tazmanian Wolf and a big house dog could have really created such a creature: fearless against humans, trainable, big, ferocious, bloody, with powerful jaws...it was a genetic coincidence that gave birth to such a fantastic predator! It would be amazing studying that beast!

Try reading the discussions before blurting this stuff, whoever you are. Mind you, isn't "fecundated" a great word? Totnesmartin 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

do u know how to start a new topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.110.142 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes type this in at the bottom of the page
==New topic==

("New topic") being whatever your comment is about. Another way is to click the "+" tab at the top of the discussion page and go from there. WP:TALK is a page all about how to use talk pages. Hope this helps! Totnesmartin 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to the "Beast of Seven Chutes"

I do not think that the reference to the "Beast of Seven Chutes" at the bottom of the page (under "Possible photo same type of creature!") is noteworthy. It does not remotely look like the descriptions of the Gévaudan Beast, modern or past. I think that it should be removed, unless there arguments to keeping it there.

While we are at it, there was something in the news some time ago and I couldn't help thinking about the Beast of Gévaudan. This beast was killed in Maine:

http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=1436
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14383883/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208683,00.html

Too small and on the wrong continent to be related in any way to the beast. What do you think?

[edit] Contradiction

...perhaps lending further credence to the reports that the Beast was seen in the company of a human.
No recorded testimony implies the presence of a man nearby.

Which is correct? Octane [improve me] 06.11.07 1459 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Much of this material is also covered in the article on Antoine de Beauterne.--Wetman 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep them separate. A merge will give undue weight to the activities of Antoine de Beauterne while playing down the contributions of other notable figures who were also in the field.
Once I complete the articles on Duhamel, d'Enneval, and Jean Chastel the amount of information will be too great to catalogue effectively in a single article. Better to keep this page more focused on the animal itself, maybe adding a section on the victims (I can handle that since I have a complete list), etc. Let readers go to each article if they want additional information. If this article covered all of the aspects of the Beast without any links you would wear out your scroll key getting to the end.
Since this issue is listed in WikiProject Paranormal and WikiProject Cryptozoology, and the talk pages are still seeing conspiracy theorists every now and again, it might be better to keep the biographies separate, since they present only facts and not speculation, unlike the Beast's article.
Plus, they're biographies to begin with. Biographies shouldn't just be filed together with the events that befell the person they describe, especially when the biography is longer than the article on the event in question, otherwise the amount of information present is unbalanced.
Bearerofthecup 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesonychia

Though not mentioned in this article, the Mesonychia entry thinks it might be one of those (and that it has hooves).Originalname37 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The REAL Beast

People, I think may have found the beast. The beast is Hemicyon. And here are some reasons.

  • The beast sure as hell can't be a dog (or a Canis) because dogs are more pack hunting animals and there wasn't a species of dog as big a cattle.
  • It's not a hyena because there no hyena species that has a tail long as a lion's.
  • Hemicyon fits the description of the beast.
  • And as for the cats, the killing don't match and the snout too long.--4444hhhh (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh my! Look, the beast is eating a kind unicorn! --->
The conjecture and WP:OR going on throughout this talk page violates the purpose of talk pages, and I am inserting the Template:talkheader on this page to encourage the discussion of the article, as opposed to discussion of the topic of the article. • Freechild'sup? 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was it an inspiration?

Was the Beast the inspiration for Beauty and the Beast? Both supposedly happened in France, and it would not be the only time that a prior story has caused a story to be written (see: Arthurian legend and Lucius Artorius Castus).Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this beast the inspiration for The Beast of Craggy Island in Father Ted? (Tk420 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Father Ted = great show. But no, the inspiration for Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale (hijacked by Disney of course). Bearerofthecup (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The question was intended to ask about whether or not the fairy tale could have been inspired by the Beast. I am sorry that I did not state this in my original post.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The first written version of that fairy tale predates the Wolf of Gévaudan. The oral version could possibly be centuries older. So, no, it could not have been the inspiration. Bearerofthecup (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another theory

It seems that it could have been a wolf with a genetically altered coloration, possibly a slight case of mange to explain the tuft on the tail, and Proteus Syndrome to increase the size, without the normal side effects. (The Proteus Syndrome is what the Elephant Man had) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Beautor (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. Now all you have to do is provide a source. By the way, the Elephant Man was hardly an athlete. One would expect a wolf with proteus to be a weak creature barely able to stand or even breatheDark hyena (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French Poodle

After careful cosideration of all the relevant information, we have concluded that la bete was most likely a...

...French Poodle, as the tuft and face are characteristic of the species.

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.212.52.194 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues?

The sentence "The areas in the world today where wolf attacks are still a common occurrence are usually poverty-stricken with a general lack of predator control technology" is problematic. Wolf attacks are not "common" anywhere - they are known in Asia, but still rare. The statement is sourced, but the source (Abundant Wildlife Society) is an organization opposing wolves (if you hit the "back to main page" link on the bottom of the essay, it's a web site talking about how wolves are a big game-killer, hurt game populations, etc. It's very biased against big predators.

Also, it should be clarified just how unusual a "killing spree" like this would be for a wolf. As far as I know, there is no case like it anywhere. I don't know how to put this into the article without pushing my personal POV that it couldn't have been a wolf, though - could anybody help? Vultur (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's tempting to unleash PC rhetoric on this subject, especially for folk who want to whitewash the wolf's reputation. Your perception of wolf behaviour is accurate, but only for modern wolves (and more so New World wolves). Hostility toward humans was very common among Old World wolves in past centuries. "Killing sprees" are certainly rare today, but were all too regular a thing in Europe prior to population decimation through hunting. For example, there are five links at the bottom of the page dealing with "man-eaters" that were roughly contemporary with the Wolf of Gévaudan. Many such wolves existed, and I am in the process of adding them all to Wikipedia. These include two "killing sprees" that had occurred in Gévaudan prior to the 1764-1767 attacks, each of which produced a death toll greater than that of the subject of this article. Up until the mid-19th century these events were cyclical and repetitive, and it's incorrect to portray them as anything but. Bearerofthecup (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bah

I love this subject but the article is trash. Just look at the sources! Occultopedia. Cryptozoology websites. What tripe. The only decent citation here is Derek Brockis. I move that the article be entirely rewritten to include only information from Brockis (and Thompson from Antoine de Beauterne). It's high time that this nonsense about hyenas, wolf/dog hybrids, and conspiracies finds its way into the garbage where it belongs. This article should NOT have a place in the Paranormal or Cryptozoology WikiProjects. All of the real research, the real scholarly research, has concluded that the animal(s) in question was nothing more than a pack of especially vicious wolves. There were necropsy records, for crying out loud! As for everything else, it needs to go. This article resembles a GeoCities website.

P.S. - Added neat new picture!

Bearerofthecup (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. However, I have no learning in this topic. Perhaps more information taken from your "Wolf hunting in France" book would help? Dark hyena (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I could do the rewrite, but I'm wondering if I should bother. The crypto freaks and werewolf people would revert mercilessly. Anyone who's read the talk page would be afraid to touch this subject.
Bearerofthecup (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonesense. As long as you provide your source, no one will touch it. You have my support anyway, so I'll see to it that no crypto-fascist 12 year olds try anything. Use this as a starting point; [1]

And this for later additions; [1] Dark hyena (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT;

Why not show a scanned page from the text stating that wolves were culprits? You know, for the benefit of the users on the talk pages, just to prove what you're saying is not invented.

Plus, the Derek Brockis site, though well intentioned, was bad science.

Incidentally, the hyena species, which hunts as much as it scavenges, is genetically more similar to cat than dog, being of the feline family Feloidea, which certainly opens up the possibility of a terribly formidable cross-breed, such as hyena and big cat.

Another candidate for cross-breeding with wolf might be the Lycaon - a carniverous wild hunting dog still active, and feared, in Africa. It is perhaps a little small but is very savage and cunning. A cross with a wolf would be a formidable animal and a litter of them loose in a district could well be taken as an abnormal phenomenon. http://www.labete.7hunters.net/bete3.htm

Complete bullshit. Both scenarios are totally impossible, simply because, similarities aside, the species are from separate genuses, ergo, that is not enough genetic similarity to produce a hybrid. It's about as asinine as suggesting that a human can successfully crossbreed with a marmoset.Dark hyena (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beast or Beasts?

Both this and the Antoine article mention multiple wolf culprits, including the Beast's mate and cubs. Should the article be renamed Beasts of Gevaudan? Dark hyena (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)