• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Thylacines & Thylacoleos: Pre-1936 & Genetic Ethics

Baby Thylacines examined in 3D:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43142347
_100119621_1.jpg
 
Last known photo of the thylacine has been identified today. It's from 1935, and shows him looking very rough. He'd survive for another 3-4 months afterward though. Extremely excited about this.
 
I say if they want to try to bring back the Tas wolf, more power to them. We caused the extinction so we should be responsible with bringing them back. Several animals have been successfully regenerated. But none of them were from extinct specimens.
 
Am rather at a loose end: "non-report" here, about a fascinating but non-cryptozoological book in my possession. "Pre-1936" seems the most appropriate thread; although this post first prompted by Mungoman's telling in the "Post-1936 Sightings" thread, of the struggle of Queensland's Kalkadoon people (hitherto unheard-of by me).

Book concerned, is Back O' Cairns by Ion Idriess, first published 1958: a basically factual memoir of time shortly before World War I, spent by the author in his youth, in the southern Cape York Peninsula area of Queensland -- he put in some years there in rugged "Boys' Own Paper"-type occupations: mining for various product, railway-building, and exploring. "Picture got" from the book, is that the local Aborigines -- unlike the hapless Kalkadoons of the Mount Isa region -- were then holding their own quite well: they were (mostly) "friendly", but continued to run their own show on the lands which they still held; they came visiting now and again, and the whites handled them with caution.

When the book first came into my hands, I had hopes of its containing material about potentially mysterious creatures in this then faraway and little-known region of Australia. Sadly, not so: in part I reckon, because it becomes clear that the author -- while appreciative to some extent, of the splendours of fauna and flora -- is much less interested in the natural world, than in the general "human comedy". In one section of the book, the author tells of an exploring foray in the company of an experienced bushman: sad bushman is quoted at length, in an anecdote about his difficult doings with a "porcupine". One thinks it likeliest, that the creature concerned would have been an echidna; it's to figure, though, that Mr. Idriess is far from being an impassioned naturalist.

No allusions at all, to possible relict thylacines / thylacoleos; or Yowie-type creatures -- all of which some folk in recent decades, have claimed to be around even now, in this remote part of the continent -- as said, stuff of this kind unlikely to have been prominently on the author's radar. In one recounted bit of interaction, involving a threatened fight between (placental) dogs, a local chap is quoted as saying, "A dog bred in this district is a coward if it won't tackle a tiger". The whole quote, no commentary from the author. One suspects that the author, not a wildlife buff, interpreted this as a flight of fancy referring to genuine feline, placental tigers from Asia; but it would be interesting to know what the speaker actually meant to refer to.

As said, this book is a "lemon" cryptozoologically; but I find it an absorbing read in its own right.
 
Am rather at a loose end: "non-report" here, about a fascinating but non-cryptozoological book in my possession. "Pre-1936" seems the most appropriate thread; although this post first prompted by Mungoman's telling in the "Post-1936 Sightings" thread, of the struggle of Queensland's Kalkadoon people (hitherto unheard-of by me).

Book concerned, is Back O' Cairns by Ion Idriess, first published 1958: a basically factual memoir of time shortly before World War I, spent by the author in his youth, in the southern Cape York Peninsula area of Queensland -- he put in some years there in rugged "Boys' Own Paper"-type occupations: mining for various product, railway-building, and exploring. "Picture got" from the book, is that the local Aborigines -- unlike the hapless Kalkadoons of the Mount Isa region -- were then holding their own quite well: they were (mostly) "friendly", but continued to run their own show on the lands which they still held; they came visiting now and again, and the whites handled them with caution.

When the book first came into my hands, I had hopes of its containing material about potentially mysterious creatures in this then faraway and little-known region of Australia. Sadly, not so: in part I reckon, because it becomes clear that the author -- while appreciative to some extent, of the splendours of fauna and flora -- is much less interested in the natural world, than in the general "human comedy". In one section of the book, the author tells of an exploring foray in the company of an experienced bushman: sad bushman is quoted at length, in an anecdote about his difficult doings with a "porcupine". One thinks it likeliest, that the creature concerned would have been an echidna; it's to figure, though, that Mr. Idriess is far from being an impassioned naturalist.

No allusions at all, to possible relict thylacines / thylacoleos; or Yowie-type creatures -- all of which some folk in recent decades, have claimed to be around even now, in this remote part of the continent -- as said, stuff of this kind unlikely to have been prominently on the author's radar. In one recounted bit of interaction, involving a threatened fight between (placental) dogs, a local chap is quoted as saying, "A dog bred in this district is a coward if it won't tackle a tiger". The whole quote, no commentary from the author. One suspects that the author, not a wildlife buff, interpreted this as a flight of fancy referring to genuine feline, placental tigers from Asia; but it would be interesting to know what the speaker actually meant to refer to.

As said, this book is a "lemon" cryptozoologically; but I find it an absorbing read in its own right.

Yet in 1923 Ion Idriess had discussed the north Queensland tiger. Here's the link to the Trove results, http://www.scandikitchen.co.uk/prod...tmC2vJkVf12pWBfUSZkxwKx7PM5D4LFEaAhw6EALw_wcB

I knew I'd heard that name before, but credit to Malcolm Smith's (who we've come across before a few years back) blogfor nailing it down.

http://malcolmscryptids.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-north-queensland-tiger-hunt.html

One major problem in Idriess' account is that he speaks of the animal snarling, which sounds impressive and tigery, but marsupials can't do that. When enacting a threat display they yawn and hiss. At least the Dasyuramorphians do, and this is also the case in their sister group (I think that's what it is now anyway) the Thylacinidae. Of course the thhlacoleos were from an entirely different group again, overwith the wombats and koalas, but I don't think any of them can snarl. Soeither artistic license, or Idriess was the Australian version of William Hitchens.

Interesting point about the dog not being worth its salt etc, but they may have meant tiger cat or quoll. As far as I know there are two speces up there the northern and the spotted tail. And the latter can get pretty big. So perhaps....

Another thing that caught my eye in Smitj's blog is the mention of this 'tiger' liking the moonlight, and in these reports this tiger is framed as being feline, whereas the phrase 'moonlight' immediately made me think of the 'moonlight tiger' cited in the current James Cook university 'thylacine search' currently going on in the Cape York area. But as Mike Williams (who I think you'd get on with really well) points out, this is actually funded as a bettong surveyof the region, not a tiger hunt. But as I've said before, mentally picture a thylacine, now mentally picture a bettong. You can see why they wanted to attach some celebrity to the study which would otherwise probably be largely ignored rather than syndicated internationally.

As for the book itself being a crypto lemon, that's usually the way in my experience. I bought an article on thee thylacine from the Bombay Natural History Society from the 40's written by a Stephen Spurling III, a man who I know visited the zoo and met one, did he bloody mention it though, no he bloody didn't. But then I bought a book from the same era Isle of Mountains which has a beautiful reproduction of the Sheppatd photo, as inthe sick tiger photo. So it's a mixed bag, especially when the likes of Mr Idriess and Mr Spurling don't come upwith the goods.
 
Yet in 1923 Ion Idriess had discussed the north Queensland tiger. Here's the link to the Trove results, http://www.scandikitchen.co.uk/prod...tmC2vJkVf12pWBfUSZkxwKx7PM5D4LFEaAhw6EALw_wcB

That link indeed leads to material about Swedish fermented herring -- nothing at all marsupial-related !

I knew I'd heard that name before, but credit to Malcolm Smith's (who we've come across before a few years back) blogfor nailing it down.

http://malcolmscryptids.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-north-queensland-tiger-hunt.html

One major problem in Idriess' account is that he speaks of the animal snarling, which sounds impressive and tigery, but marsupials can't do that. When enacting a threat display they yawn and hiss. At least the Dasyuramorphians do, and this is also the case in their sister group (I think that's what it is now anyway) the Thylacinidae. Of course the thhlacoleos were from an entirely different group again, overwith the wombats and koalas, but I don't think any of them can snarl. Soeither artistic license, or Idriess was the Australian version of William Hitchens.

Interesting point about the dog not being worth its salt etc, but they may have meant tiger cat or quoll. As far as I know there are two speces up there the northern and the spotted tail. And the latter can get pretty big. So perhaps....

Another thing that caught my eye in Smitj's blog is the mention of this 'tiger' liking the moonlight, and in these reports this tiger is framed as being feline, whereas the phrase 'moonlight' immediately made me think of the 'moonlight tiger' cited in the current James Cook university 'thylacine search' currently going on in the Cape York area. But as Mike Williams (who I think you'd get on with really well) points out, this is actually funded as a bettong surveyof the region, not a tiger hunt. But as I've said before, mentally picture a thylacine, now mentally picture a bettong. You can see why they wanted to attach some celebrity to the study which would otherwise probably be largely ignored rather than syndicated internationally.

Am kicking myself for non-on-the-ball-ness -- cryptozoology has been mentally on back burner with me lately: I'd totally forgotten about the "Queensland marsupial tiger-cat". Brought back to me by your mentions above; and -- Heuvelmans's On the Track of Unknown Animals (splendidly described by you, in words to the effect of "a marvellous classic -- unfortunately, it's complete bollocks throughout"), of which I have a copy: gives a whole chapter to the QMTC. Heuvelmans cites, as in your Malcolm Smith link, George Sharpe's quasi-encounters (while egg-seeking; and the farmer with the goats and the shot-but-largely-destroyed tiger-cat); and those from Idriess -- the fight with the kangaroo, and the tiger-cat / staghound "lethal draw".

Idriess is mentioned in the Smith link, as long domiciled at Coen in the north of the Cape York peninsula. His shortly-pre-World-War-I doings chronicled in in Back O' Cairns, as cited in my post, were basically three or four hundred kilometres further south -- "as per": in the broad hinterland of Cairns. Clearly, in fact he had plenty of interest in the natural world; just, in Back O' Cairns he seems mostly not to be in that "mode".

... But then I bought a book from the same era Isle of Mountains which has a beautiful reproduction of the Sheppatd photo...

A few years ago, at a chance "charity" used-book venue, I came across a 1963 work, Tasmania: Isle of Splendour, by one Bill Beatty, seemingly an Australian writer on varied Australiana. Just had to get it -- Tasmania fascinates and delights me for assorted reasons. The author gives a short chapter to fauna (illustrated with a photo of a Devil, but none of a thylacine), including several paragraphs on the thylacine; of which he writes: "is the largest flesh-eating marsupial and is on the verge of extinction". He tells in fair detail, of the animal's physical make-up and habits; re a fair bit of this lore, citing "old bushmen". Quoting this guy's final "thylacine" paragraph: "Occasionally one reads a newspaper report that the animal has been seen. Thus, in February 1963, it was reported by a car driver that a Tasmanian tiger loped across the Bass Highway. The newspaper added: 'The sighting strengthens the belief that the tiger still roams the uninhabited forests of Tasmania's rugged north-west coast. The last positive evidence that the animal was not extinct came two years ago, when one was killed at Sandy Cape, on the west coast. Mr. Trevor Buckby, of Redpa, said he saw the animal in his car's headlights crossing the Bass Highway on the Smithton side of Pegaram. It was about 35 to 40 yards from the car.' "

(I'd imagine that these "contacts" are mentioned somewhere in the thylacine correspondence on here; though I don't recall seeing them thus-placed.)
 
That link indeed leads to material about Swedish fermented herring -- nothing at all marsupial-related !



Am kicking myself for non-on-the-ball-ness -- cryptozoology has been mentally on back burner with me lately: I'd totally forgotten about the "Queensland marsupial tiger-cat". Brought back to me by your mentions above; and -- Heuvelmans's On the Track of Unknown Animals (splendidly described by you, in words to the effect of "a marvellous classic -- unfortunately, it's complete bollocks throughout"), of which I have a copy: gives a whole chapter to the QMTC. Heuvelmans cites, as in your Malcolm Smith link, George Sharpe's quasi-encounters (while egg-seeking; and the farmer with the goats and the shot-but-largely-destroyed tiger-cat); and those from Idriess -- the fight with the kangaroo, and the tiger-cat / staghound "lethal draw".

Idriess is mentioned in the Smith link, as long domiciled at Coen in the north of the Cape York peninsula. His shortly-pre-World-War-I doings chronicled in in Back O' Cairns, as cited in my post, were basically three or four hundred kilometres further south -- "as per": in the broad hinterland of Cairns. Clearly, in fact he had plenty of interest in the natural world; just, in Back O' Cairns he seems mostly not to be in that "mode".



A few years ago, at a chance "charity" used-book venue, I came across a 1963 work, Tasmania: Isle of Splendour, by one Bill Beatty, seemingly an Australian writer on varied Australiana. Just had to get it -- Tasmania fascinates and delights me for assorted reasons. The author gives a short chapter to fauna (illustrated with a photo of a Devil, but none of a thylacine), including several paragraphs on the thylacine; of which he writes: "is the largest flesh-eating marsupial and is on the verge of extinction". He tells in fair detail, of the animal's physical make-up and habits; re a fair bit of this lore, citing "old bushmen". Quoting this guy's final "thylacine" paragraph: "Occasionally one reads a newspaper report that the animal has been seen. Thus, in February 1963, it was reported by a car driver that a Tasmanian tiger loped across the Bass Highway. The newspaper added: 'The sighting strengthens the belief that the tiger still roams the uninhabited forests of Tasmania's rugged north-west coast. The last positive evidence that the animal was not extinct came two years ago, when one was killed at Sandy Cape, on the west coast. Mr. Trevor Buckby, of Redpa, said he saw the animal in his car's headlights crossing the Bass Highway on the Smithton side of Pegaram. It was about 35 to 40 yards from the car.' "

(I'd imagine that these "contacts" are mentioned somewhere in the thylacine correspondence on here; though I don't recall seeing them thus-placed.)

The fermented herring; I know your interest in football is every bit as keen as mine but a friend of mine from Warwickshire said, as a throw away comment, that she'd eat this surströmming if England lost its match with Sweden. I intended to make sure she kept her word. No idea how I managed to mix the links up, I suppose I must have been chatting to her while replying. Sorry. As it happens I am very curious to try this.

Here though is the correct link

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=&exactPhrase=Mr j l idriess&anyWords=&notWords=&requestHandler=&dateFrom=&dateTo=&sortby=

As for the thylacines in Bill Beaty's book, the Bass Highway certainly rings bells but Sandy Cape isa very well known case. It involved two fisherman camping out at Sandy Cape on the north-west coast, Laurie Thompson and Bill Morrison. I've heard if it from time to time, but these days if there's a tiger involved my absolute cut off date for any in depth checking is 7/9/1936 as that's the last time we have a body (where that body ended up though is another matter, so we should say what we actually have is documented evidence (attached below) of a dead tiger. Although coming this year is a paper which suggests that there might finally be an answer to what happened to the last captive's mortal remains. I'm eager to read it, but so far catious).

Anyway, Bill and Laurie manage to aciddentally club a tiger to death one night when it's raiding their bait supply. In the morning they look and find a dead juvenile male streched out on the sand. Now they're out in the sticks and so realising the importance of what they've found, what do they do? Yes that's right, they carry on fishing. Which turns out to be a mistake because when they get back to their camp, you will never guess what happened, someone had only come and stolen the body! Talk about oppurtunist crime. I think that's the only time I've heard of a story like this, what about you?

What is original in this case though is what happened next, according to Michael Sharland they looked around and found hair and blood samples which they submitted for analysis? At the time the 'experts' agreed that the hair was from a tiger, or so Sharland reported. Yet in 1998 according to Guiler and Goddard the hairs were described as 'possibly' thylacine, and in 1980 Morroson had changed his story anyway, and claimed it was in fact a devil they'd killed. (Quotes for thus appear on the website of Chris Rehberg, Where Light Meets Dark)

This is one of the many reasons I stop in September 1936.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20170908-142815.png
    Screenshot_20170908-142815.png
    678.5 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
The fermented herring; I know your interest in football is every bit as keen as mine but a friend of mine from Warwickshire said, as a throw away comment, that she'd eat this surströmming if England lost its match with Sweden. I intended to make sure she kept her word. No idea how I managed to mix the links up, I suppose I must have been chatting to her while replying. Sorry. As it happens I am very curious to try this.

The picture one generally gets, is that surstromming (can't do fancy foreign accents on letters these days) is utterly vile unless you're Swedish -- and quite often, even if you are. Jamie Oliver reckons it delicious -- but he's weird in assorted ways... I too wouldn't mind trying it, just in case of its turning out against all expectations, to be a real treat.

As for the thylacines in Bill Beaty's book, the Bass Highway certainly rings bells but Sandy Cape isa very well known case. It involved two fisherman camping out at Sandy Cape on the north-west coast, Laurie Thompson and Bill Morrison. I've heard if it from time to time, but these days if there's a tiger involved my absolute cut off date for any in depth checking is 7/9/1936 as that's the last time we have a body (where that body ended up though is another matter, so we should say what we actually have is documented evidence (attached below) of a dead tiger. Although coming this year is a paper which suggests that there might finally be an answer to what happened to the last captive's mortal remains. I'm eager to read it, but so far catious).

Anyway, Bill and Laurie manage to aciddentally club a tiger to death one night when it's raiding their bait supply. In the morning they look and find a dead juvenile male streched out on the sand. Now they're out in the sticks and so realising the importance of what they've found, what do they do? Yes that's right, they carry on fishing. Which turns out to be a mistake because when they get back to their camp, you will never guess what happened, someone had only come and stolen the body! Talk about oppurtunist crime. I think that's the only time I've heard of a story like this, what about you?

Ah, the "two fishermen" episode -- have indeed read in the past, about that one. I feel actually, that the story has something of a wearisome familiarity about it: it seems that always, always on the "crypto" scene -- any really good evidence, somehow fails to survive to be actually presented as evidence: the finders are quite irresponsibly casual and non-urgent in their treatment of their find, and / or some annihilating misfortune befalls the find, "out of the blue". Confess that I can understand sceptics' response to this ever-recurring tendency: "doesn't all this, tell you something?"

What is original in this case though is what happened next, according to Michael Sharland they looked around and found hair and blood samples which they submitted for analysis? At the time the 'experts' agreed that the hair was from a tiger, or so Sharland reported. Yet in 1998 according to Guiler and Goddard the hairs were described as 'possibly' thylacine, and in 1980 Morroson had changed his story anyway, and claimed it was in fact a devil they'd killed. (Quotes for thus appear on the website of Chris Rehberg, Where Light Meets Dark)

This is one of the many reasons I stop in September 1936.

Alas, that seems wisest -- things on this whole scene, appear fated always to be fraught with doubt and dissension and stories-changing, to a greater or lesser degree.

Thanks for link to the Trove results -- 1920s-time actual or potential happenings. A frivolous thought: the very first item is headed what at any rate looks like: "A Mountain Troul". This actually refers to a type of fish (quickly veers into tiger-cat-related material instead): presumably word should be "trout", and the reproduced century-old printing either features what is actually a "t" but looked to me like an "l"; or it's an "l" as a typo. On first seeing the apparent "Troul" in the headline, my mind leapt to, "is this a variation -- bad spellers, or typo -- on 'troll'? Is this going to be about Yowies?" We crypto-fanciers are everlastingly hopeful in this kind of way -- no wonder the sceptics think we are, at best, a bit odd :beye: .
 
The picture one generally gets, is that surstromming (can't do fancy foreign accents on letters these days) is utterly vile unless you're Swedish -- and quite often, even if you are. Jamie Oliver reckons it delicious -- but he's weird in assorted ways... I too wouldn't mind trying it, just in case of its turning out against all expectations, to be a real treat.



Ah, the "two fishermen" episode -- have indeed read in the past, about that one. I feel actually, that the story has something of a wearisome familiarity about it: it seems that always, always on the "crypto" scene -- any really good evidence, somehow fails to survive to be actually presented as evidence: the finders are quite irresponsibly casual and non-urgent in their treatment of their find, and / or some annihilating misfortune befalls the find, "out of the blue". Confess that I can understand sceptics' response to this ever-recurring tendency: "doesn't all this, tell you something?"



Alas, that seems wisest -- things on this whole scene, appear fated always to be fraught with doubt and dissension and stories-changing, to a greater or lesser degree.

Thanks for link to the Trove results -- 1920s-time actual or potential happenings. A frivolous thought: the very first item is headed what at any rate looks like: "A Mountain Troul". This actually refers to a type of fish (quickly veers into tiger-cat-related material instead): presumably word should be "trout", and the reproduced century-old printing either features what is actually a "t" but looked to me like an "l"; or it's an "l" as a typo. On first seeing the apparent "Troul" in the headline, my mind leapt to, "is this a variation -- bad spellers, or typo -- on 'troll'? Is this going to be about Yowies?" We crypto-fanciers are everlastingly hopeful in this kind of way -- no wonder the sceptics think we are, at best, a bit odd :beye: .

I have gone off the idea of it a bit. While looking for a UK supplier I came across a video actyally showing what came out of the tin. I had been expecting something like garum, or gentleman's relish, as in fermented and broken down into a dark mass which I could easily cope with, but it turns out that what you actually get is whole, ungutted, fresh looking fish that smell bad enough to strip paint. Not as keen as I was but still, it really might be amazing. Fancy it more than lutfisk anyway.

Having read Idriess' account now in more detail I'm if the opinion that it's entirely made up, rather than exagerated or misremembered. Though the size he gives isn't that great.

The mountain troul, yes the Trove's auto text reading software have created sone fabulous beasts over the years, I've spent many a happy hour with it. I've given up now reading the interterpreted text section and read omly the original print. As for yowies there's been no mention I can find, but in searching for articles on the thylacine I turn up marsupial tiger stories once in a while. Most seem to come from the forties and fifties.

Sadly, even as a cryptid the Queensland tiger/tiger cat seems to have become extinct, out competed by the mainland tiger craze. Many of the accounts describing clearly more feline animals having been co opted into thylacine lore, largely it seems because they've got the word tiger in them.

By the way, as catious as Guiler seems to have been in 1998 about the Sandy Cape incident, not long after the event he led a search there.
 
The picture one generally gets, is that surstromming (can't do fancy foreign accents on letters these days) is utterly vile unless you're Swedish -- and quite often, even if you are. Jamie Oliver reckons it delicious -- but he's weird in assorted ways... I too wouldn't mind trying it, just in case of its turning out against all expectations, to be a real treat. ...

The trick to surströmming lies in the presentation and build-up to the tasting, which (given proper preparation) involves negating the gag-worthy odor at close quarters. It's all in the onion, as I described last year:

http://forum.forteantimes.com/index...ings-as-food-drink.26516/page-19#post-1682531
 
I have gone off the idea of it a bit. While looking for a UK supplier I came across a video actyally showing what came out of the tin. I had been expecting something like garum, or gentleman's relish, as in fermented and broken down into a dark mass which I could easily cope with, but it turns out that what you actually get is whole, ungutted, fresh looking fish that smell bad enough to strip paint. Not as keen as I was but still, it really might be amazing. Fancy it more than lutfisk anyway.

Have seen more than one "angle" on lutefisk -- think I have yet to hear from anyone who actually likes the stuff. "Horror" material about it, I believe because of its being soaked in a lye = caustic soda solution -- such horrors seemingly especially from the USA: I gather that Minnesota, with very many inhabitants of Scandinavian origin, is big on lutefisk -- a preference which strikes other Americans as little short of appalling.

Sophie Grigson, having sampled lutefisk in the Lofoten Islands, has a different take on this comestible. Per her description: it's dried cod, already "as hard as a bone -- then soaked for 4 -- 7 days in frequent changes of water. Next it is plunged into a lye solution -- actually water spiked with a shot of caustic soda -- and left for 2 days or longer, according to taste. The caustic soda, which is not a substance our bodies take to happily, must then be washed out, which is done by submerging the lutefisk in running water for several more days. Then, and only then, is it ready to cook... [the] bizarre jellyish consistency and terminal blandness seems a cruel destiny for what was once good fresh cod." So for Sophie, not a thing of nightmare: just an elaborate, pointless, and essentially "unimproving" food-preservation exercise.

Sadly, even as a cryptid the Queensland tiger/tiger cat seems to have become extinct, out competed by the mainland tiger craze. Many of the accounts describing clearly more feline animals having been co opted into thylacine lore, largely it seems because they've got the word tiger in them.

I've mentioned this before; but the name "tiger" has always seemed to me, a silly one for the thylacine. Just because it had stripes... I first learnt of it -- as a child, from illustrated encyclopaedia-type books passed down in the family -- under the name of "Tasmanian wolf", which has always struck me as nearer the mark, and preferable. Although of course taxonomically it was neither a wolf nor a tiger; its appearance was a lot more canine than feline.
 
The trick to surströmming lies in the presentation and build-up to the tasting, which (given proper preparation) involves negating the gag-worthy odor at close quarters. It's all in the onion, as I described last year:

http://forum.forteantimes.com/index...ings-as-food-drink.26516/page-19#post-1682531

Thanks for the link. I'd been aware of this thread a while back -- contributed to it in fact -- but had forgotten about it. I seem to forget a lot of stuff these days: intimations of looming senile decay, I fear...
 
Have seen more than one "angle" on lutefisk -- think I have yet to hear from anyone who actually likes the stuff. "Horror" material about it, I believe because of its being soaked in a lye = caustic soda solution -- such horrors seemingly especially from the USA: I gather that Minnesota, with very many inhabitants of Scandinavian origin, is big on lutefisk -- a preference which strikes other Americans as little short of appalling.

Sophie Grigson, having sampled lutefisk in the Lofoten Islands, has a different take on this comestible. Per her description: it's dried cod, already "as hard as a bone -- then soaked for 4 -- 7 days in frequent changes of water. Next it is plunged into a lye solution -- actually water spiked with a shot of caustic soda -- and left for 2 days or longer, according to taste. The caustic soda, which is not a substance our bodies take to happily, must then be washed out, which is done by submerging the lutefisk in running water for several more days. Then, and only then, is it ready to cook... [the] bizarre jellyish consistency and terminal blandness seems a cruel destiny for what was once good fresh cod." So for Sophie, not a thing of nightmare: just an elaborate, pointless, and essentially "unimproving" food-preservation exercise.

Yeah, soaking food in lye never strhck me as an OK thing to do. Why not just, salt or smoke it? I'm not a fan of cod anyway.

I've mentioned this before; but the name "tiger" has always seemed to me, a silly one for the thylacine. Just because it had stripes... I first learnt of it -- as a child, from illustrated encyclopaedia-type books passed down in the family -- under the name of "Tasmanian wolf", which has always struck me as nearer the mark, and preferable. Although of course taxonomically it was neither a wolf nor a tiger; its appearance was a lot more canine than feline.

I like the name tiger, I've long stopped associating it with the big cat and only now think of it as reffering to the thylacine. I've neverspent the sort of time some have tracimg the history of the popular names it's had oover the last 213 years, but it takes some awareness to use the Trove search engine. Going by the quotes from the twenties and thirties (my era of research as you know) my impression is that 'tiger' seems to have been the term used by the bushmen in the south of the state. In the north the term generally used was 'hyena'. So if you're looking for a story in the south you type in tiger, north you're better off with hyena. That is if you're looking for an article quoting a bushman, or one written by a staff writer. If on the other hand you're looking for something written by a pro, like Sharkand or Fleay, then you're better off looking for 'thylacine', or 'marsupial wolf', as they seem to prefer those terms.

The term 'hyena' was being used in the north at least as early 1811, although in the earliest article on the species from 1805, again from the north (in fact theonly British colony at that time) describes it as resembling 'a low wolf dog'. 'Tiger', or more properly 'tyger' doesn't appear till 1817. 'Tasmanian wolf' doesn't seem to put in an appearance until 1859, but then it's 'Tasmanian marsupial wolf' in full. In a sort of subjective and misguided nod to the non-applicable principle of priority, I think tiger wins. But I like the term really because that's what the bushmen (an incredibly loose term) of the south west like Elias Churchill (whatever connection he may have had with the species) called them. And although the real action in my era of interest seems to have been in the north west, with the hyenas, I still can't shake the affection I feel for the south west and especially with ne'er do well, bootlegger, possible arsonist, and probable lying bastard Elias Churchill.

Just to add, I'm not keen on 'wolf' because it looks too much like some sort of canid, I think it confuses some people.
 
A case of convergent evolution. The beasty looks like a canine though we know it isn't. Doesn't look much like a "cat" except for the stripes. Whatever we call it; I just hate to call it extinct. Lets find one or clone one.
 
One major problem in Idriess' account is that he speaks of the animal snarling, which sounds impressive and tigery, but marsupials can't do that. When enacting a threat display they yawn and hiss. At least the Dasyuramorphians do, and this is also the case in their sister group (I think that's what it is now anyway) the Thylacinidae.


Interesting. You know, I had no idea of this. Any idea as to why that is - a different shaped throat or larynx or something?

A his can certainly be threatening. And a yawn might SOUND unthreatening, but any creature that wouldn't be at least in some part intimidated by a view of all those teeth in that long thylacine jaw would probably be a little bit foolish. :)
 
Interesting. You know, I had no idea of this. Any idea as to why that is - a different shaped throat or larynx or something?

A his can certainly be threatening. And a yawn might SOUND unthreatening, but any creature that wouldn't be at least in some part intimidated by a view of all those teeth in that long thylacine jaw would probably be a little bit foolish. :)

Afraid not, but off the top of my head I'd say that while horses bear their teeth, as do primates, the full on lip curling snarl is really only found in the Carnivora. We probably think if it as being univefsal because of our familiarity with them.

I think a thylacine threat might have been intimidating because of it's size, and the size of it's mouth. We hear that they used to hiss when they yawned, but we don't know. Devils on the other hand scream the place down but the effect is more endearing than frightening. It just sounds like they're saying 'hold my coat, go on hold my coat'. Beautiful and hugely endearing animals. Quolls though seem to be the real handfuls.
 
So the hair was real. Now if we just had a beastie to go with it.
 
Back
Top