Thylacines (Post-1936 Sightings)

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,311
Points
159
The beast of Craggy Island hasn't been reported since the 20th of March 1998, though it has been discussed many times since. Ultimately being exposed by one of the island's clergy as a hoax perpetrated by a Mr Hudd Hastings to improve the odds of his sheep 'Chris' winning the prestigious 'King of the Sheep' competition.

Though, the variation of the descriptions given at the time do in my opinion closely resemble many modern thylacine reports.
 

Andy Saunders

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
84
Likes
33
Points
19
The beast of Craggy Island hasn't been reported since the 20th of March 1998, though it has been discussed many times since. Ultimately being exposed by one of the island's clergy as a hoax perpetrated by a Mr Hudd Hastings to improve the odds of his sheep 'Chris' winning the prestigious 'King of the Sheep' competition.

Though, the variation of the descriptions given at the time do in my opinion closely resemble many modern thylacine reports.
Mr Hastings must have quite a few Sheep in that case...........
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,311
Points
159
Yes, indeed OR, maybe not in our lifetime?

A major hurdle overcome.
I don't know how long it may them, but I think that this hurdle is a relatively small one in comparison to those that still stand between here and actual cloning. The biggest of which is, as I see it, that the thylacinidae are about 35,000,000 years separate from the rest of the Dusyuramorphia. So how exactly are they going to work out the hormonal control to carry a developing tiger fetus to term in a host animal?
 

Coal

Polymath Renaissance Man, Italian Wiccan Anarchist
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,769
Likes
10,503
Points
279
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,311
Points
159
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
I couldn't agree more. It's too late. In his Book 'The Last Tasmanians Tiger; The History And Extinction Of The Thylacine', Paddle wrote

'The loss of any species is regrettable, primarily because it represents a loss of knowledge. A 3.9 billion year history of life lies behind each species alive today. The contingent events of history have shaped each species differently, representing a different path of evolution; a different way of responding to same environments in which we now interact'.
(Page 238)

And you can't put a fucking plaster on that.
 

Coal

Polymath Renaissance Man, Italian Wiccan Anarchist
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,769
Likes
10,503
Points
279
And you can't put a fucking plaster on that.
I heard of and worked from a similar point about 'cod'. Cod are really a 'shoal of cod' and it transmits behaviour through the successive generations of new 'individual cod', including vital things like migration to warmer waters and vital food sources, behaviours that have been there for millennia. Once you harvest the crap out of them (figuratively), increasing the fry recruitment to bolster the number might not have the effect of restoring 'cod', but rather you'll end up with a lot of scattered 'individual cod' which are comparatively mal-adapted for survival. I guess that's better than not boosting stocks though.
 

Peripart

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,465
Likes
2,720
Points
219
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
I seem to recall that Michael Crichton made just that point in The Lost World (the book, not the film, naturally!). His cloned dinosaurs in that book were disadvantaged as hunters, as they had no way of learning behaviour.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,311
Points
159
Ready for a U turn? I've always been led by what I've always believed was the best interpretation of the evidence, and that always said that the tiger was extinct, now I'm not quite so sure. I'm not saying I've changed my mind, and the evidence still overwhelmingly points toward extinction, but early this morning I finally got to see the most persuasive of the Adamsfield photos (and no I can't post it, it's not mine to share), and whilst I'm not convinced by any means, and think it's not quite as it seems, I have to say that I strongly believe that there's something very unusual in that shot.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
3,966
Likes
6,947
Points
234
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
Yet certain behaviours seem to be instinctive. l used to date a woman who had a Border collie pup. This dog was born and raised in an urban environment and had never seen a flock of any animal, including sheep, the breed’s raison d'être. Despite this, when she also acquired several kittens, the pooch would snap into typical One Man and His Dog operation. He would hunker down watching the kittens, and if one had the temerity to separate from its fellows he’d herd it back into the “flock”.

l seem to remember that his OCD even extended to dismay when remote controls for TVs etc. weren’t grouped to his satisfaction.

maximus otter
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,311
Points
159
Ready for a U turn? I've always been led by what I've always believed was the best interpretation of the evidence, and that always said that the tiger was extinct, now I'm not quite so sure. I'm not saying I've changed my mind, and the evidence still overwhelmingly points toward extinction, but early this morning I finally got to see the most persuasive of the Adamsfield photos (and no I can't post it, it's not mine to share), and whilst I'm not convinced by any means, and think it's not quite as it seems, I have to say that I strongly believe that there's something very unusual in that shot.
It was fun while it lasted, but I'm firmly back in the extinct camp again.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,311
Points
159
Checking in a bit quiet on The Tiger.:(
It's quiet here, but elsewhere it's ticking over. There's been a huge revelation recently regarding the Adamsfield feet photos, they're museum specimens after all. That was the big piece of evidence which has had the tiger scene abuzz for the last 20 years. But probably never filtered out into wider world.
 

Yossarian

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
95
Likes
206
Points
39
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
Absolutely.

I used to work in conservation, and "de-extinction" was becoming quite a hot topic at the time, with TED Talks about bringing back the woolly mammoth, and all sorts of grand claims made for bringing back extinct species. Very little thought seemed to be given to the loss of these species' habitats, or to the continuum of millions of years of existence that would have informed their behaviour.

Beyond that, I always found it an incredibly irresponsible approach to the potential of that technology to focus on "bringing back" a long-dead species. Because if that were possible, I think it would wreak havoc on existing conservation efforts, giving the general public the feeling that the loss of species wasn't all that important because we could always just "bring it back" later.

I feel about de-extinction much the same way as I feel about the idea of extant Thylacines, really - it would be remarkable if they were out there, and while I wholly believe that they are extinct, I desperately want to be proved wrong; but while we're in the midst of a mass extinction, seeing countless species die and decline all around us, it's irresponsible to focus our efforts on pipe-dreams about those already lost, rather than fighting to preserve those still with us. It's just chasing ghosts.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,936
Likes
1,311
Points
159
Absolutely.

I used to work in conservation, and "de-extinction" was becoming quite a hot topic at the time, with TED Talks about bringing back the woolly mammoth, and all sorts of grand claims made for bringing back extinct species. Very little thought seemed to be given to the loss of these species' habitats, or to the continuum of millions of years of existence that would have informed their behaviour.

Beyond that, I always found it an incredibly irresponsible approach to the potential of that technology to focus on "bringing back" a long-dead species. Because if that were possible, I think it would wreak havoc on existing conservation efforts, giving the general public the feeling that the loss of species wasn't all that important because we could always just "bring it back" later.

I feel about de-extinction much the same way as I feel about the idea of extant Thylacines, really - it would be remarkable if they were out there, and while I wholly believe that they are extinct, I desperately want to be proved wrong; but while we're in the midst of a mass extinction, seeing countless species die and decline all around us, it's irresponsible to focus our efforts on pipe-dreams about those already lost, rather than fighting to preserve those still with us. It's just chasing ghosts.
Excellent post, I couldn't agree more.
 

VinceWLB

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
34
Likes
24
Points
9
Absolutely.

I used to work in conservation, and "de-extinction" was becoming quite a hot topic at the time, with TED Talks about bringing back the woolly mammoth, and all sorts of grand claims made for bringing back extinct species. Very little thought seemed to be given to the loss of these species' habitats, or to the continuum of millions of years of existence that would have informed their behaviour.

Beyond that, I always found it an incredibly irresponsible approach to the potential of that technology to focus on "bringing back" a long-dead species. Because if that were possible, I think it would wreak havoc on existing conservation efforts, giving the general public the feeling that the loss of species wasn't all that important because we could always just "bring it back" later.

I feel about de-extinction much the same way as I feel about the idea of extant Thylacines, really - it would be remarkable if they were out there, and while I wholly believe that they are extinct, I desperately want to be proved wrong; but while we're in the midst of a mass extinction, seeing countless species die and decline all around us, it's irresponsible to focus our efforts on pipe-dreams about those already lost, rather than fighting to preserve those still with us. It's just chasing ghosts.
What an excellent post.. There is still some faith in mankind with people like you.
 

VinceWLB

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
34
Likes
24
Points
9
Vince, how are you.
Well, it's pretty quiet nothing really new on the Thylacine front other than i recently came to the conclusion that both Adamsfield and Cameron's evidences are a ploy of some sort.
You are spot on when you said that what Cameron said you could find exactly the same in the literature at the time so i think Douglas was actually behind all this..
As for Adamsfield, to be honest i never really have much time for it as for me it doesn't make sense someone would take photos of only the feet.. nothing has really changed since.

I find it a bit depressing when sometimes the only topic there is is about cloning, i can't express politely how i feel about it.
I hope you are doing well m8.
 
Top