Talk:Thylacine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Thylacine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about Extinct mammals during the week starting 27 February 2006.

Siroxo: Your better image alignment was hell for an 800x600 monitor to render, so I've gone back to the old style. I don't deny that yours looked better for higher resolutions, but usability must come before style, in this case. - Vague Rant 11:46, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Taxidermies or skins in Canadian museums?

Is there and taxidermies or skins in any Canadian collections,and if so where? (Dirrtypittie (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Capitalization

I don't think every instance of the word "thylacine" throughout the article should be capitalized. It is not a proper noun, and in other mammal articles (see Lion, Tiger, Wolf, etc.) only the first instance (the bold one at the beginning of the article) is capitalized. Websites like the Thylacine Museum generally do not capitalize the name whenever it is used. Crotalus horridus 23:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tasmanian Tiger (naming confusion)

I know there been a few changes over this before, but I think most people still call a thylacine a tiger - especially in Tassie. For instance The Mercury would all ways refer to it as a tiger, as do the most of the Tas gov web sites. Not saying we change it everywhere but i think it deserves near equal footing in the first paragraph, rather than stating this was the former name Jgritz 09:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In general, Jgritz, only people who don't know much about animals. No reputable field guide calls it a "tiger". In any case, both "Tasmanian Tiger" and "Tasmanian Wolf" are hopelessly misleading names: apart from being a top-level predator mammal, the Thylacine has nothing in common with these. Nor is it "Tasmanian" - it was an Australian creature which happened to survive in Tasmania for a little longer than elsewhere. Tannin 10:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I know the name is misleading - It's just that most people know it from the name "Tiger". Someone here at work has actually just walked past my monitor (In London - and I know I should be working..) and went "Aahh - a Tasmanian Tiger". Just think that we should give that name slightly more weight in the first paragraph as people may think they've come to the wrong article. I think I'm also still bugged by the way the head of the Aus Musem would pronounce Thylacine :) As for "Wolf" - I've never ever heard anyone use that.

Jgritz 10:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mainlanders call it the "Tasmanian Tiger" and the reason it was simply called "The Tiger" by Tasmanians is because they were already in Tasmania--Mutley 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And just to prove the point further - Search results comparison

The similarities between the thylacine and the wolf is an example of Convergent Evolution

But to be encyclopedic we should call it thylacine and not just "tiger", which is completely different. You'll never see a reliable book call it a tiger. At leats they call it Tasmanian tiger. Dora Nichov 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this can clear up the naming confusion: World - "Thylacine", Australia - "Tasmanian Tiger", Tasmania - "Tiger" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutley (talk • contribs) 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
And more naming confusion! some google searching reveals "Thylacine joey" (official) - 3 links, "Thylacine pup" - 344 links, "Thylacine cub" - 3 links. So while the "Tiger" name is more common the young are thought of as being similar to dogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutley (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Isn't "thylacine" the animal's scientific name? The_Little_One_Smiles

No, it's scientific name is Thylacinus cynocephalus. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Art

Can anyone contribute some links to ancient aboriginal paintings of Thylacines?

Not art but a good photo [[1]]

[edit] Adios Dasyure

In 1900, the animal was one of a group of creatures called Dasyuridae, from the Greek words dasy and oura meaning "shaggy tail." Any one of the Dasyuridae might be called a "dasyure."

Thylacinus cynocephalus means "pouched dog," based on Greek thylax ("a sack," "pouch") and an adjective, cynocephalic ("having a head shaped like that of a dog").

In 1900, the creature was called a "pouched dog" amd the "Tasmanian zebra wolf." It was a pest to the sheepherders' flocks of sheep, consequently, it was killed off.

It dwelt in rocky dens. Sooner or later. earth-moving equipment will collapse and smooth over every rocky den on Earth, so most of the "dasyures" face the loss of their abodes (retreats) (homes). Hasta la vista.

Hasta la vista is the farewell, forever.

71.240.0.93 15:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justification for changes

Phrases like "just one" and "amazingly wide gape" would good for a children's encyclopedia, but I thought wiki was aimed at adults. Perhaps I was wrong. Hopfrog

Actually, I agree with most of the changes you made, although for some I don't really care either way. Pengo, I suggest instead of reverting, you make those changes that you feel strongly about based on the current version. Rl 07:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Crikey! 211.30.71.59 08:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent (supposed) sightings

Perhaps someone could add (with 'good' references, I mean) about the abundance of supposed sightings in Tasmania and also recently near the Apollo Bay area in Victoria. Feasibly, there could well be a thylacine in these areas and there have been countless 'sightings', although many skeptics dismiss the animals seen as large feral dogs or dingoes.

  • As a related note, has there been any kerfuffle over the wording in that section? "No reasonable doubt" that its extinct seems like a pretty solid conclusion drawn by the auther. The Aussie government has hired people to look for it as recently as 1985, obviously someone has reason to doubt that its extinct. Maybe some authority that's declared it extinct, or a more NPOV wording like "widely believed" if the former isn't available? WilyD 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] A variety of comments

[edit] Discussion of previous points

I think there is much room for change in this article, and the talk page covers some good points.

Capitalisation - agreed; "thylacine" should not be capitalised throughout the article. I can commit to making this change sometime in the near future. Thank you UtherSRG who quickly pointed me to the standard on this issue - essentially treat as a proper noun.

Alternative name ("Tasmanian tiger") - agreed; in Australia the animal is probably more often refered to as a "tiger" or "tassie tiger" or "tasmanian tiger" in popular culture. In reference texts, the term "thylacine" seems to be favoured, the more rigorously scientific the text is. I do not think the first paragraph indicates that "tiger" is a former name, but the page may have been updated since the comment posted here. Tanin inserted a comment that no reputable field guide calls it a "tiger". I strongly disagree.

Rock Art - I don't have links to hand, but I can search for some.

Dasyure - This is a valid point. The scientific name has undergone many incarnations for a variety of reasons. I have a good text which discusses this (and, as above, can include this here also).

Dramatic Language - agreed; the encyclopedia should present a neutral point of view. This can be incorporated in an overhaul where required.

Sightings - again, agreed; this could be expanded. I have a link to a West Australian scientific paper which summarieses the sightings reported in that state.

There is room, too, for a list of thylacine remains found on the mainland, as there at least two very notable cases - one found in a Nullabor cave (where the discoverer insists it was not there when he explored the cave many years earlier), and another from north-west Western Australia which was initially dated at less than 80 years old and subsquently re-dated to more than a thousand years old.

I have found it very hard to find online references to this specimen, and I originally learned the information many years ago, but I do have information via private correspondence which explains the anamoly. Thus, at present this incident is unverifiable (by me at least), but I can certainly search for references (as I have no doubt about its authenticity).

[edit] New suggestions

In addition to the above, this article could include links to Thylacoleo, expand more on the theories behind Queensland sightings and mention that the thylacine lived in Papua/New Guinea also. The last thylacine, correctly referenced as female, was named "Benjamin" - although that name was given some decades later but then accepted into popular culture; the story behind that is interesting and worthy of note.

Benjamin has to be a male;due to THE FREAKIN' POUCH ISN'T ON IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.119 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


On the point of popular acceptance of "facts" which are in fact fallacies, Robert Paddle in his text has a very thorough dissertation on numerous reported "facts" dating to the 1700s and 1800s, which were popularly and scientifically accepted with very little skepticism. Thus, a description of the changing picture of our understanding of the thylacine, from its discovery to present, may also be an interesting inclusion.

Other significant insights from Paddle include a strong case for the mainland survival of the thylacine into the 1700s contrary to the accepted mainland extinction date of approximately 2000 years before present. A part of that argument includes mainland capture of several Tasmanian Devils and the highlighting of the point that very few scientists are prepared to extend the official range for the devil to include mainland Victoria. This back-references to his arguments about fallacies accepted as fact by both popular and scientific cultures.

I realise (as does Paddle) that the above flies in the face of practically all documentation on either species, but the fact that Paddle has published the argument should warrant it for inclusion as an alternate explanation of our observations.

One other argument that Paddle presents which I feel would merit inclusion here, is that the thylacine was not being out-competed by, or predated on by dingoes; rather, it was being driven to extinction through being hunted by humans. (He goes so far as to say that it is not culturally popular to propose that the Australian Aboriginals should be largely responsible for the species' extinction, which accounts for the blame-shift onto the dingo exlusively; although that's a side-note here in the Talk page and probably is not required in the article).

Lastly, The Official Searches section refers to Dr Guiler as being considered the world's leading authority on the species, but I'd like to see a reference for that. I feel the tone should be brought down to "a leading authority".

[edit] Conclusion

Being somewhat passionate about the species, I'd love to overhaul this page; right this minute I don't have the time, but I do intend to schedule a good chunk of time to refine the article. I have a few books which I can reference, including Paddle's (mentioned above), Dr Guiler's and Col Bailey's. I also have numerous "field guides" on Australian fauna, including a text which explores the discovery of many Australian mammals including the first and other notable sightings for each species.

I welcome feedback on my comments, preferably before I get stuck into the task! :)

youcantryreachingme 02:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme

Chris.

Postscript; here is an excellent reference which describes the Paddle book and its perspectives on the subject: http://cres.anu.edu.au/environhist/robin-rev1.pdf

I stand by what I said in the assesment. Some of these concerns have been remedied, some have not.--HereToHelp 11:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The recently published 3rd edition of Mammal Species of the World has become the (self-proclaimed) source for official common names. MSW says this is the Thylacine. I've just modified the intro to show three levels of naming (official, local, colloquial), all of them bolded so as to catch the reader's eye. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A note of caution. "Being somewhat passionate about the species, I'd love to overhaul this page" sends up a bit of a red flag to me. When one becomes passionate about something, it is sometimes hard to maintain NPOV. Otherwise, though, I agree with your analysis of what could (and should) be changed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Point taken; but given the list of points I raise and your overall agreement, I think I'll be able to steer clear of non NPsOV. (I've distinguished my own opinions in the above text also)  :) In being "passionate", I'd just love to see more justice done to conveying the diversity of the subject. Again, thanks for the pointers... still new here. youcantryreachingme 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (Chris)

[edit] Capitalisation of Dingo

Now I'm confused. After my recent discussion about the capitalisation of 'thylacine', I was pointed to the standard which says effectively to treat references to distinct species as proper nouns - that is, to capitalise them.

Thus the correct form is to refer to the Thylacine (unlike the paragraph above).

Therefore, given the Dingo is a distinct species and not a collection of different species (or am I incorrect?) - shouldn't its name also be capitalised?

Yet we've just had an edit to remove that capitalisation. Further, since that edit, the person who pointed me to the standard has carried out a further edit - to the very word - without re-introducing the capitalisation.

A quick check at the Dingo article also reveals a lack of capitalisation.

Has everyone skipped the standard, did I misinterpret it, or is the Dingo in fact a term referring to any in a collection of species? (Or, perhaps, dingo falls outside the project which uses the standard! That would explain it! After all, it's not a monotreme or marsupial. In this case, it should still be capitalized here even though the Dingo article does not capitalize it)

youcantryreachingme 04:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (Chris)

Yes, there is a mix of standards... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is split on the standard, but the WikiProjects, in general, overrule it. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no standard, but dingo is never capitalised in normal literature in my experience. That said, unlike with "Wood Warbler", there is no difference of meaning either way, and this debate has been on-going over at the dingo article also. —Pengo 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The convention in mammalian biology is to not capitilise the first letter of the common name (thylacine, dingo ect). If the common name includes a proper noun 'Tasmanian tiger' for example then the first letter is capitilised. If we look at the literature on the thylacine, (or the dingo for that matter) we see that common names of species are not capitilised (see Paddle, R - The last Tasmanian tiger, or any scientific report in edited journals - 'Jones, M.E. and Stoddard, D.E. 1998 'Reconstruction of the predatory behaviour of the extinct marsupial thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) Journal of Zoology 246 239-246') - B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bittervictorian (talk • contribs) .
There's actually a mix of styles, and the move is generally towards that which is adopted here - making common names of species proper nouns. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope Wikipedia's mix of styles changes, then, to begin reflecting what's actually used in scientific literature, as pointed out above by bittervictorian. I just read the thylacine article and its use of capitalization struck me as distracting and sophomoric. Wayward capitalization feels like a below-average third grade book report. (71.205.107.181 14:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Spine

Can anyone point to the reference behind the line 'Thylacine's spine changes suddenly in structure about halfway along the body.' ? I have seen plenty of thylacine skeletons and i don't see how the structure of the spine changes in any way thats different to other mammals. - B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bittervictorian (talk • contribs) .

Removed. May be added later if someone can provide a reference (and hopefully a better description than "changes suddenly in structure"!) youcantryreachingme 01:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Chris)

[edit] 2005 Photos have been published

The February 2005 photos taken by Mr Emmerichs of Germany, were published in Tasmania (only) in April 2006.

Recently, scans of the newspaper clippings were published online at Cryptomundo (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/thylacine-photos and http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/thylacine-photo-ov ).

Col Bailey (author of "Tiger Tales" and interviewer of witnesses for nearly 40 years) comments (on Cryptomundo) that the newspaper images were intentionally degraded prior to publication.

A copy of the Tasmanian newspaper article is included in the first Cryptomundo article also... youcantryreachingme 05:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up sightings section?

Is there room for a bit more tidying in the Sightings section?

Firstly, regarding red fox sightings, language such as "in contrast" and "despite only minimal evidence" seems not to maintain a neutral point of view. The procurement of 4 carcasses provides infinitely more evidence of the existence of the fox in Tasmania than does any other evidence for the thylacine.

With all due respect, it would be relatively easy to produce a dead fox to Tasmania (as it would be to bring in a live one). Many people here believe that is what the Fox Free Taskforce has done to maintain continued funding.
Nevertheless, the POV is still not neutral. Your own words here that "many people ... believe ..." etc, carry less emotion than the article. The fact that fox carcasses are being used as evidence to maintain the Fox Free program actually supports the idea that foxes exist in Tasmania. It would be fairer to explain that "many" people believe it is a conspiracy, and to cite references for that claim. Please don't take this response personally; it is not intended that way. youcantryreachingme 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Once people start questioning the relevance of the taskforce and threaten to cut funding another roadkill fox is presented. Foxes are not rare in Australia. There little hard evidence to suggest that the foxes found actually originated from Tasmania. Until someone captures or photographs a live fox in Tasmania there is absolutely no evidence that they exist here in my opinion. --Separationist 06:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Second, is there room for mention of Liz and Gary Doyle's 1973 footage from South Australia which may show a thylacine running across a road? (see http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/naturalhistory/alleged_mainland_sightings_1.htm)

Third, there is Kevin Cameron's series of photographs from Western Australia in 1985. The general consensus is that the photos show a dead animal, and speculation is that he killed it; therefore it is credible evidence that there was a living thylacine in the 1980s, yet because of the legal penalties of killing the animal, Cameron has never disclosed the full story behind the pictures. My argument for including this story is not based on it's merit as evidence for the species' survival, however, but because of the public attention it received in its time.

Any thoughts, suggestions or feedback?

youcantryreachingme 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good pickup on the footage from 1973 it is difficult to say what it is - it could be a mangy Fox. Have a look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FoxInHighPark.JPG unfortunately one of these without a bushy tail would look very similar. (it even has markings that could look similar to stripes from a distance)--Mutley 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Also there is no mention of an attempt to get footprints. They should have checked where it ran for prints.--Mutley 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I maintain a website at www.wherelightmeetsdark.com which is partly dedicated to examining the evidence of the survival of the thylacine. I think it would make a good external link, but I think it's inappropriate to put it there myself; hence - I'm asking whether another author here might take a look and decide whether to include the link.
There is a lengthy (10+ pages) analysis of the Emmerichs photos here: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=2
There is also a lengthy article analysing the 1973 Doyle footage, here: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=19
And during the past week another photo has come out of Tasmania. My analysis on this one is here: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=31
youcantryreachingme 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There continue to be updates to these articles, so I will just post the homepage here and stop using up commentary space: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com 58.178.59.130 14:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Commenting on the evidence of red foxes in Tasmania and exactly what the evidence of foxes in Tasmania really is. To date only carcasses found on roadsides in various stages of decay,scats with traces of fox DNA,and some sixteen hundred unconfirmed sightings are the prime evidence.
Scats and carcasses are easily transported items,sightings are of no consequence unless they are confirmed.
In the past seven years in Tasmania not one fox has been shot,trapped,recovered from one hundred and sixty thousand toxic 1080 baits that have been laid,not even one image of a fox has been taken from thousands of images taken by motion cameras placed at "hot spot" areas across the state.Diplodwatcher (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Two foxes allegedly shot in the state at separate locations in 2001 and were then DNA matched as siblings one since been recognised as a hoax.  Diplodwatcher (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 May 2008 
Diplodwatcher (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top-level predator ?

The article makes this claim, yet, Guiler in his research noted that Tasmanian Devils, Quolls and Wedgetail Eagles all preyed on young thylacines. In addition to this, research shows that wild dogs were sometimes reported to attack and kill thylacines. --Biatch 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the young being eaten stops the species as a whole being considered a top-level predator. As for wild dogs, they were only introduced to Tasmania with Europeans, and were not, in Tasmania at least, part of the thylacine's natural environment. That said, the dingo, which is a wild dog brought to Australia by the Aboriginal people, is thought to have largely displaced thylacines on mainland Australian soil, although this isn't certain. I don't think dingos hunted thylacines so much as were more successful and took over their niche. So again, I don't think that knocks thylacine off the "top dog" position (mind the pun). —Pengo talk · contribs 07:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Lions and cheetahs and other animal's cubs fall prey easily to. It doesn't mean the adults were vulnerable. Thylacine lover 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It would have taken a pack of wild dogs to bring down a full grown Thylacine. Also dogs weren't native to this environment they were introduced. --203.214.40.28 09:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

YOUNG being eaten doesn't mean anything. All animals are vulnerable when they're young, regardless of what they'll be when they grow up -- supposing they do grow up, LOL. And dogs aren't natives, so they can't be included among the NATURAL predators. Thylacine is still top predator. (Or was). Dora Nichov 02:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cloning project update?

Has there been any word about the cloning project since April 2005 because that seems to be the last I ever heard of it. If there is any 2006 update it definately should be added. I Find it hard to believe nothing has been released about the cloning project since it was restarted in April 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.60.129 (talk • contribs) .

In October 2005 Archer announced that 'American researchers with genetic sequencing capabilities' had joined the team.
As with all such announcements from Archer he declined to name them or give further details.
At this writing (Feb 2007) none of the 'group of interested universities and a research institute' Archer claims to be involved in the new project have come forward and identified themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.105.28 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Picture comment

I changed the wording on the comment under the picture showing a reconstructed Thylacinus potens, but it still sounds a little awkward/ambiguous to me - somebody else should probably take a look at it... Inspector Baynes 02:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Discovery"

It was first described in 1808, 5 years after first settlement of the island.
...since the first sighting of the animal.

What, even the Aboriginals didn't know it existed before then?? Davilla 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately they failed to list it in their encyclopedic annals of flora and fauna.  :) 211.30.71.59 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added some more details to the discovery section. It is well known that Thylacine Rock art has been found on the mainland of Australia but has it been found in Tasmania? --203.214.57.154 11:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Maybe there should be an etymology section this could explain what the official name means in English and also include Indigenous names as well. http://www.das-tierlexikon.de/beutelwoelfe.htm --Mutley 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal tag

Paranormal tag removed...--203.214.40.28 09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be suitable for a separate article on Thylacine sightings

[edit] Re "Unconfirmed Sightings"

Regarding the Emmerichs sighting, the wikipedia article currently states "The photographs were said, by those who studied them, to be inconclusive as evidence of the Thylacine's continued existence as they showed only the back of the animal"

I think the expression "by those who studied them" implies more people than it should. The cited article only mentions one person who viewed them: "Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery director Bill Bleathman".

There are others, such as Nick Mooney of the Department of Primary Industries and Water who disagreed:

"One man who sighted the tourist’s photos, Tasmanian biologist Nick Mooney, is convinced of their veracity. They show, he says, a flesh and blood thylacine" (Ruby Lang, as reproduced at: http://www.strangenation.com.au/Articles/tastigerhunt.htm) and "Wildlife expert Nick Mooney said while the image was "very much like a thylacine", the photograph needed to be authenticated before any action could be taken." (SMH, 2005: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Tourist-claims-to-have-snapped-Tasmanian-tiger/2005/03/01/1109546854027.html) and "NICK MOONEY: In the picture we can see some features of a thylacine, enough that the image is to me quite clearly a thylacine, whether the picture is authentic or not is a completely different issue." (radio interview with ABC, at: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1312642.htm)

The wikipedia sentence as it now stands generalises the experts' opinions too much: "The photographs were said, by those who studied them, to be inconclusive as evidence of the Thylacine's continued existence as they showed only the back of the animal" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.59.130 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I've added another reference from one you've given above but not changed the statement - it says the pictures are inconclusive: neither definitely fakes nor definitely genuine. Since nobody has claimed the pictures are conclusive evidence, I think the statement is broad enough to cover both the complete skeptics and the almost convinced. We could expand the sightings section further but it would unbalance the article. Yomanganitalk 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate the reply, and the speedy response. I guess part of my point was that the reason why the photos weren't accepted as genuine wasn't universally because everyone agreed they showed too little of the animal - Mooney being the contrast who acknowledged it was quite clearly a thylacine. Mooney's issue was whether the images were fabrications. Col Bailey also saw the images first hand and concurred with Mooney that they depicted a thylacine: "It was clearly a Tasmanian tiger featured in the image, there was no doubting that," (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/tiger-photos-the-real-story/ under "Angry that no one appeared to believe his story")... but you're right; I don't know how to word that without blowing out the article. I'll leave it with you, and won't chase up the issue any more after this! :) youcantryreachingme 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I see what you meant now. I reordered the sentence so it no longer cites the subject of the photo as the direct reason for it being inconclusive. Yomanganitalk 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks :) I appreciate your patience and courtesy. 203.53.146.214 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNA degradation

As written, the article states that efforts to analyze thylacine DNA were thwarted by degradation of the DNA in samples due to the ethanol preservative. However, ethanol does not cause DNA degradation, nor do either of the citations contain a statement to that effect. No one, I think, regards the degradation as having been caused by the preservative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.249.52 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Agree that the statement is misleading.
Ethanol destroys the structure of the chromosomes but does not, of itself, degrade the DNA. In fact it helps to preserve it somewhat by protecting it from bacterial digestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.105.28 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

If thats true then why cant they clone it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.22.239 (talk • contribs).

The DNA is very badly degraded. Just not by the ethanol.
Not knowing how to reassemble it into chromosomes doesn't help either.
Also there are no live thylacine cells to inject a reconstructed cell nucleus into. Even more so than the Tasmanian forests it once roamed, the environment that thylacine DNA evolved in was the organelles of thylacine cells. The chances that a cell from a related animal would suffice was always going to be very remote.
All Archer's team ever succeeded in doing was using PCR to duplicate some thylacine DNA sequences a few dozen base pairs long. A bit like announcing an expedition to Mars, then climbing up on a ladder and saying "Look, I'm getting closer!". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.104.74 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually the Tasmanian Wolf (I just like saying that more then Thylacine) is on a list of animals that are priority for being brought back from extinction because we actually have their DNA intact, and there are 2 samples that are not damaged. My profesor is actually studying this right now. Some of the animals we maybe able to bring back in the next 20 years are the Quegga, Passenger Pigeon, Caspian Tiger, Dire Wolf, Wooly Mammoth, and a few others including that we were respondsible for making extinct. However, with the wooly mammoth it would actually take 25 to 30 to have pure breed wooly mammoths starting off from a hybrid. (It's rough but then again they're cloning alot of things that they are not telling the public about like the cloning of the cat wasn't supposed to be let out) lol. Mcelite (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

[edit] Typo in English spelling of Greek?

"The common name derives directly from the genus name, originally from the Greek θύλακος (thlakos)" -- The English here should read "thylakos" or "thulakos", not "thlakos", right? -- Writtenonsand 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thylakos. Thulakos seems incorrect in this context. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrotal pouch

Note B reads: "The scrotal pouch is almost unique in marsupials — the only other species to have this feature is the American Water Opossum, Chironectes minimus.". But isn't the American Water Opossum a marsupial too? Rocksong 05:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The opossum you mention is a marsupial. The author will have to clarify if they meant that the thylacine and opossum are the only marsupials with a scrotal pouch. --Peta 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha. I (mis)interpreted "unique in marsupials" to mean "unique to marsupials". My mistake. Rocksong 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't be ALMOST unique. That's like being almost pregnant. Unique is a binary state chrisboote 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Got around the 'almost unique' phrase - simply don't use it. GrahamBould 08:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course you can be almost unique. You can't be more unique, rather unique or partially unique (though you can be unique in some respects). Unique can not be graded but it isn't unmodifiable. Fowler even states such modifiers as really, quite and absolutely can be used with unique. I think removing almost unique here makes the note more confusing as it somewhat disconnects the note from the subject, so I've put it back. Yomanganitalk 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki links

By convention, only the first reference to a subject needs to be linked to its article. I've removed several wiki-links that were duplicated in the article. This is covered in one of the many Wikipedia guides; if for any reason my edits are controversial, I'll find the guide that explains this. Gregmg 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of bot that can do this automatically?--Mutley 09:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That thought occurred to me, but I only saw a handful of redundant links so I felt it was easier to just make the corrections than to try to employ a bot for the task. Gregmg 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tassie Cashing In on 'Tiger Image

I personally find it offensive that Tasmaia uses the Thylacine image as extensively as it does - especially on it's coat of arms. They didn't even protect the species until 1936 - 50 odd days before the last known one died. I have lived in Tassie, and they don't seem to feel much sense of shame or grief about it at all. The story of the decimation and extinction of the Thylacine is typical of much of the stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry that only the human race seems capable of - Chris

I've never been to Tasmania so I have no comments specific to this topic. But I will say that it is hard to read this page without feeling disgusted about some aspects of human nature. It's hard to believe that the last known member of this species died of neglect. -- Andrew Parodi 10:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to the article; please save comments/personal thoughts for forums. Thanks! (MaytrixInk)
I'm not the one who started this section. I merely responded. If this is irrelevant then this section should be delete. (By the way, Wikipedia talk pages are full of personal thhoughts and comments.) -- Andrew Parodi 10:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links question

Gregmg removed an external link to www.wherelightmeetsdark.com with the following comment: (→External links - Removed link with no information pertinent to this article.)

Would the following URL be better?

http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=fatcat&fatcat[user]=viewCategory&fatcat_id=47&module_title=announce

(note - wikipedia breaks the link when rendering it, above)

This filters the content on that site for articles related to examining the evidence for the ongoing survival of the thylacine, including the 1973 Doyle footage, 1990s Gonzales-Sitgez footage, 2005 Emmerichs photos, 2006 Chaotika photo and 2007 Livingstone roadkill sighting, in addition to discussing the idea of thylacines being released on mainland Australia. youcantryreachingme 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The site doesn't seem to give any hard factual data.... just a non-scientific interview with someone who thinks they might have seen a roadkill Thylacine. Doesn't impress me. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree (and should clarify I am the site owner - I will not add the link myself for obvious reason, but I will argue here that it merits inclusion.) You probably missed the "Children" links at the top of that page.
The site contains -
  • 20 articles relating to Klaus Emmerichs' Feb 2005 sighting, including perhaps the most comprehensive publicly published analysis of any photographic evidence for extant thylacines,
  • details of the author's meeting with Klaus Emmerichs and Birgit Jansen and report of seeing the photos first-hand,
  • 2 articles relating to Chaotika's publication of a 2006 photograph of a thylacine pup including a comprehensive analysis of the photographic evidence,
  • 6 articles relating to the 1973 film footage of a thylacine taken in South Australia by Liz and Gary Doyle, including 2 comprehensive analyses of every usable frame taken from two versions of the film,
  • 1 article relating to the 1990s Gonzales-Sitgez footage shot in Western Australia, including an analysis of that footage,
  • the first Google Earth tour of post-extinction thylacine sightings, now containing upwards of 50 sightings,
  • A summary of the life, death and resurrection of the thylacine cloning project including discussion of the related documentary film, as well as
  • Discussion of the evidence for an early 19th century mainland release of thylacines, and
  • The Livingstone interview (road kill) article you mentioned.
I hope the fact that the site encompasses the broader themes of conservation, wildlife photography and evidence for other rare fauna hasn't led to the impression there is not substantial thylacine content. youcantryreachingme 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Still doesn't impress me. Find a peer-reviewed scientific paper discussing the possibility of the existence of present day Thylacines. That would be notable to include. Until then, this is just pseudo-scientific hogwash and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"hogwash" - I take it NPV doesn't apply on talk pages. Still, your point is taken.
What is a reliable source?, Aspects of reliability - Scholarly and non-scholarly sources. I believe the site satisfies these two requirements for source reliability: "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and "Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable".
Sources - Self-published sources (online and paper). This guideline suggests self-published material may be acceptable if produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly). Given this research is not my profession, I accept the site does not satisfy this guideline.
External Links - What to Link - Links to be considered. Despite failing the previous guideline about source material for articles themselves, this guideline specifically addressing the External Links section argues "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources [are to be considered]".
External Links - Links to be avoided. In this guideline, personal webpages are to be avoided, "except those written by a recognized authority." Therein, I believe, lies the debate. In the absence of peer-reviewed scientific literature examining the veracity of purported photographic and film evidence for the continued existence of the thylacine, there is no other (to my knowledge) published methodical examination of such evidence and the site is known for this work. Point 13 in the same section suggests a deep link is more appropriate due to the broader content of the site as a whole, hence the subjet of this talk page addition.
The exclusion of this site whilst retaining the inclusion of a self-published book by an unknown author in the same list of links is inconsistent. Of course, I would prefer both sites remain in the list as are they both authoritative on their respective avenues of enquiry.
I will leave it to the readers of this talk page to decide for themselves, and won't argue the point ad infinitum. In the meantime, please be courteous. youcantryreachingme 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Extinct

I think we should add this for the conservation status:

Image:Status none PE.svg

From: User:4444hhhh

Nope. No creditable organization claims it is anything other than extinct. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"No", to that. I've read a lot of sources saying "probably extinct" and "extinct as far as we know". That's much more like: "we don't know, but the few facts we have - if any - doesn't support the idea that it still exists". Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a small possibility it isnt, anyway but here in Australia it is considered extinct. Enlil Ninlil 07:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links section getting out of hand

Further to my earlier point - www.wherelightmeetsdark.com was dropped as "hogwash", despite being arguably the most comprehensive online methodical look at post-extinction thylacine sighting evidence. This was in contrast to the inclusion of a self-published book by an anonymous author who himself claims a thylacine sighting - totally contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.

And now I see that a general discussion forum on thylacines makes the grade!

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather see *all* these links stay there, as they are in fact probably the most relevant sites on the topic. But I still don't see the justification for dropping WLMD.

[edit] Investigation reopened

I just read an interesting article that says that some are investigating evidence that it may still exist. Here is the link: http://www.livescience.com/animals/070703_tasmanian_tiger.html Maybe this update should be included. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The samples they are analysing are already mentioned in the article. I'd prefer to wait for the test results before including the information, rather than give a blow by blow account from start to finish. Yomanganitalk 12:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dying Breed

Something to add to cultural references? see here--Mutley 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video in the public domain?

Anyone know anything about Australian copyright laws? I do know that images created before 1955 are in the public domain there, but what about video? If similar, we could maybe upload this video to Commons and have it here:[2] Funkynusayri (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] picture

maybe we should use "Thylacinus.jpg" on the page: Thylacinus it is the same image but it is colored but is a bigger size.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Why taken off FA list for 25 April 2008?

I saw the Thylacine article on the FA page earlier today and thought "Excellent!". Went back to read it a few hours later and it was replaced with the ocean sunfish article. Why is that? Ossipewsk (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask User talk:Raul654. Gimmetrow 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I might just do that. Ossipewsk (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated ?

The article says in a picture caption: "The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated." But surely they have a common ancestor, like all other living things on Earth. Maybe it is better to be brief than painstakingly accurate, but to say they're unrelated is really misleading. -- 18.33.1.81 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Cultural Reference Section

1. This is a trivia section masquerading as something "cultural". It's bogus, it's trivia. 2. Most of the entries in this section have VERY tenuous links to the animal - and many of them are just viral marketing and spam for commercial products.

This section needs to be removed and the spam deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.226.185 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)