Interesting. I always read the Tasmanian wolf was untamable. The looked so much like the wolf I wondered why they couldn't be tamed given enough time. I'm sure the wolf took a long time to tame as well. When the Russians took to taming the fox they got a whole new animal. But they did domesticate the fox.
Thylacines & Thylacoleos: Pre-1936 & Genetic Ethics
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- thylacines thylacoleos
Mungoman
Mostly harmless...
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2010
- Messages
- 3,245
- Location
- In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
I doubt that any Australian marsupial is really tameable.
They will all bite you when it's least expected, or else scratch your eyes out, and if you're lucky they will only kick the shit out of you.
They really do have a warped sense of humour.
They will all bite you when it's least expected, or else scratch your eyes out, and if you're lucky they will only kick the shit out of you.
They really do have a warped sense of humour.
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
Yes, although up to about 40% of indigenous Australian terrestrial mammals are Eutherians (placental is a misleading term, marsupials have placentas too. In some species they're highly developed such as the Bandicoot, which even has a longer gestation period than some roughly comparably sized Eutherians such as the golden hamster) all are rodents, and non are larger than the brown rat. All the distinctive Australian terrestrial mammals are marsupials, except for the echindas and platypus which are Prototherians (there's some suggestion that the marsupial mole might be a Dryolestid but that not a good idea). This, rather than the food (see link), is what makes Australia the most interesting continent on Earth.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5a/30/27/5a30274fe75c0e11f0fe50033aa899d7.jpg
Brig, where are you getting the idea that quolls are excessively vicious from? They aren't. Nor are they convergent with wolverines or anything like the same size. The quoll is a smallish scansorial hunter.
Are you thinking of the devil? That's bigger, but still not as large as a wolverine. And again, despite the amount of noise they make, they aren't anything like as feisty as a wolverine or rattel. Both of which are really unapproachable.
Live and learn from a native. Just going by what I've read on the matter. Never been to New Zealand, Australia, et al but would really like to. My wife and I considered emigrating to Australia back in the late 60's but profession improvements occurred and it never happened. One poster here described the Quoll as 5 ft long and as heavy as a guard dog, so I thought that put it in a league close to the Wolverine. I had some idea the Devil wasn't very large when reading articles about its high contagion to facial cancer. I also have read articles about natives who did half tame the Tasmanian wolf and could, possibly, have finished the job given a few more generations. It is thought the Tasmanian wolf is as intelligent as our wolf. If that is true its domestication is a distinct possibility. The Russians managed to domesticate the fox in only about 20 generations. They are said to be as tame as any dog breed and are selling for pets. Interestingly this fox has become a totally new animal even though no new genetics were introduced into the line.
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
Nor me. I also know I'll never make it there either. Despite the fact that I'd qualify to emigrate and double my wages by moving there. It's just too far from everything I know and hold dear.
It isn't thought that it was, it did have a complex brain, and wasn't unintelligent, but there's absolutely no evidence that it was approaching a wolf.
Interesting, I'll have a look at that. Thanks.
lordmongrove
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- May 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,929
No quoll that large has ever officially been recorded. The guy I spoke to said the one he shot was about 5 feet long and as bulky as a cattle dog. He had no idea of the significance of the size.
If I remember correctly the Fox experiment was on going when the old Soviet Union fell apart. But they continued on because they found a solid market in selling them for pets. If you can find the articles it is fascinating reading. The foxes not only became tame, they began to bark like a dog and take on different colors and patterns. They became a whole new animal. much more dog-like. Makes you wonder is a Tasmanian wolf might go the same route... just wondering.
Ermintruder
The greatest risk is to risk nothing at all...
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,202
This was a fascinating experiment @Brig thank-you for mentioning it https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/
Specifically, they were selectively-breeding for the retention of juvenille characteristics within successive generations of the animals, so, shorter muzzles, playfulness, intelligence, reduced aggression.
Nearly permanent puppies, it might be said.
(In fact, there is of course an argument that modern humanity has collectively done that, itself, for creating it's own current kind)
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
No, it was more complicated than that.
Ermintruder
The greatest risk is to risk nothing at all...
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,202
I thought so (honestly).
Many of my popular science retained conceptualisations are flawed. Can you please summarise and correct?
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
No, much, much smaller. Smaller than your average domestic cat.
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
I've got to be honest, this is something that I need to look into, and do intend to today. It really is fascinating. Only trouble is that this isn't the thread to do it on. I'm not sure we haven't got a thread about this somewhere. If not I think it's worthy of its own.
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
Here's a sort of overview of the experiment and its results
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763232/
Trut, one of the three authors and long standing member of the team, has also written a series of popular articles here;
http://www.americanscientist.org/is...canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/5
Although the summary at the first link is really accessible anyway and covers much if not all of the same ground.
Here are a list of relevant and related studies from the PUBmed link.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...d=19260016&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pmc
(I'm not sure who'll be able to get what though. To be honest start on this and follow the ever expanding links to other papers on it and you'd be lost for months if not years)
Basically you're spot on about neoteny (the retention of juvenile traits) being a big part of it, but crucially that isn't what they selected for. Instead at the start they purely selected for a reduced level of aggression and wariness. Which is fundamental to this study, that only behavioural criteria have been used. The fact that it's lead to neoteny and other physiological changes are the crux of the results. Bluntly, behavioural selection leads to phenotype change.
Deliberately selecting for and consequently amplifying these initial less wary characteristics and the biology behind why they existed in the first place, has led to shifts in the timing of the development of a range of behaviors and morphology. Leading to the retention of some juvenile traits, such as a reduced and delayed production of the hormones which close the cubs' window of exploratory behaviour and acceptance of new stimuli, which would otherwise, as it does in normal foxes, limit their socialisation, and an overall reduction of those hormones into adulthood. Plus, higher serotonin levels, seen as mitigating aggressive behaviour in animals. The 'tame' group, have also shown a progressively altered blood chemistry across subsequent, and increasingly refined by selection, generations. So this does support the idea that behavioural changes seen are part of a physiological process rather than, the elephant in the room, the result of being kept as a controlled study group, rather than a Soviet era fur farm.
In addition to the 'domesticated' group, the study has also maintained a control group of non 'tame' foxes, which also tends to strengthen their conclusions.
Also, they draw attention to the colour changes seen in the selected foxes' coats, and compare those with patterning and pigmentation loss typical of domesticated animals in general. They propose this being due to a shift in embryonic development leading to delay in activation and distribution of melanocytes, leading to a characteristic pattern of un-pigmented areas.
Neotenic traits such as floppy ears, and short or curly tails are seen in the control group (or in the wider farmed fur fox population, I can't remember which). But, with the exception of floppy ears whose instances were less marked between the two groups, with a significantly higher proportion among the study group. It's also worth pointing out here that barking and tail wagging are behaviours known from wild foxes, so their mention without a clear and objective comparison of how often they occur in the 'two' types of fox, may be misleading.
As well as neoteny, some adult characteristics have become exaggerated. Sexual maturity is reached earlier in the tame selected foxes, litter size has slightly increased, and the reproductive cycle has expanded. With breeding taking place out of season, and in some cases twice a year. Although I don't think successfully.
The paper does go over the various hormones, neurotransmitters and genes implicated in all this, it's pretty general but it's not really that firm. That could be be my lack of understanding though, plus or minus the fact that I made the mistake of reading the eight popular articles, among others, first.
The penultimate part of the paper is the most interesting in some ways, in which Trut et al discuss Belyaev's idea of 'destabilizing selection'.
By destabilizing selection Belyaev meant selection causing destabilization of regulatory systems controlling development and, hence, destabilization of the morphological and physiological organization stabilized by previous natural selection
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763232/
There are a lot of questions that stem off from there, some of which may, or may not be relevant to this debate.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evo...-a-rethink-1.16080#/supplementary-information
I've come across several other references in this subject which also might be relevant, but I've spent the day watching painstakingly set up Christmas decorations turn into giant sized versions of 'Buckaroo', as well as reading about foxes so I've no idea if they're in the articles linked to or elsewhere.
That applies to the section on genetics, which are a mystery to me, so I'll have to go over them again.
Personally I think that the case they make is very strong, although there are obvious potential flaws here and there, and a better comparative study of these mechanisms in all domestic animals is something I'd love to read. Not least because, as per the EES/Neo Darwnist debate, it might be very revealing in terms of evolution in general.
Back to the witch balls.
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
The main thing to remember about the thylacine is just how fundamentally different it is. As a marsupial several of the points crucial to the Russian fox experiment just won't be applicable to them. As marsupials and likely to be about the size of a rice grain at birth, their developmental stages are so radically different.
Any similarity between a thylacine and a canid of any sort is purely coincidental. They're not just not closely related, they're on the other side of the (leaving out the gulf between the Therians and Prototherians) most fundamental divide in extant mammals.
Although, like quolls and devils, especially devils, they could definitely be tamed enough to handle.
Last edited:
Ermintruder
The greatest risk is to risk nothing at all...
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,202
Thank you very much for the extensive efforts you've put into summarising these publications. I'll read and absorb this in more depth tomorrow, as it's too late just now, but a skim read of what's been written is very interesting (I will also read the source references, for which also many thanks).
(There are indeed some key conclusions that are emergent from this. It is also tempting to read much of this sideways into an a protoanthropological context as well, which clearly is much more shaky ground).
I'll close for now by saying that your observations regarding the developmental gulf that exists, neonatally, between marsupials and mammals, is one that has never properly struck me (until it was highlit in your synopses). Whilst it's easy for non-experts like me to maintain approximate appreciations of mechanisms such as 'convergent evolution' at a species level, this neglects the huge difference (developmentally/behaviourally) that is consequential from the immaturity and near non-viability of the perinatal phase of marsupials. Perhaps this is mitigated by population sizes, or by some other factors (presumably these must've worked at a supra-species level).
Anyway, more tomorrow, thanks again.
(There are indeed some key conclusions that are emergent from this. It is also tempting to read much of this sideways into an a protoanthropological context as well, which clearly is much more shaky ground).
I'll close for now by saying that your observations regarding the developmental gulf that exists, neonatally, between marsupials and mammals, is one that has never properly struck me (until it was highlit in your synopses). Whilst it's easy for non-experts like me to maintain approximate appreciations of mechanisms such as 'convergent evolution' at a species level, this neglects the huge difference (developmentally/behaviourally) that is consequential from the immaturity and near non-viability of the perinatal phase of marsupials. Perhaps this is mitigated by population sizes, or by some other factors (presumably these must've worked at a supra-species level).
Anyway, more tomorrow, thanks again.
If that is the case; it didn't work so well with people. Humans are the most vicious, battle ready varmint on the planet. Of course you will find a few of the more peaceful souls as well. But we can still find government plans to eradicate most of the human population with no individual consideration whatever. Just to depopulate the planet so it can be easier to control. I also notice its not the peaceful populations that step forward for eradication.
But I would love to own a totally tame vixen. I had a neighbor girl who was given a baby fox that had to be ded with an eye dropper. She managed to raise that pup until pretty much grown. However, she finally released it back into the wild because, even though it was totally peaceful with her, it was totally unpredictable with everyone else. Tame one minute and biting the next. I thought it accepted me until the day I got bit. Not a bad bite but enough I never trusted the varmint again. Afraid of a lawsuit (not from me) it was decided to let it go. It was sighted for several weeks an never seemed stressed. Hopefully it reentered the wildlife successfully.
Bigphoot2
Not sprouts! I hate sprouts.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,075
Tasmanian tiger sightings: 'I represent 3,000 people who have been told they’re nuts'
The Thylacine Awareness Group is ‘dedicated to the research, recognition and conservation of our most elusive apex predator’ – officially extinct since 1936
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...0-people-who-have-been-told-theyre-nuts#img-1
Two thylacines, also known Tasmanian tigers, in captivity before their species was declared extinct in the 1930s. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
FacebookTwitterPinterest
For science to accept that the Tasmanian tiger lives on today, says Pask, it needs irrefutable evidence. “I would love, love, love to believe they’re still out there, but unfortunately I think all of the evidence points to the contrary on that front.”
He has been sent many samples of scat found in Tasmania to test in his laboratory. “I’m quite tired of people sending me big bags of poo in the mail,” he says. “None of them are ever thylacines’.”
Waters himself has gathered some 20 specimens that he is hoping to get tested. “It might be that ‘it’s from a marsupial and it’s unknown’ is as conclusive as they can get,” he says.
But that would still be progress, given that it would reaffirm his conviction there are large unknown fauna in Australia.
That seems possible when he points out that species thought to have declined or become extinct have been rediscovered.
It seems less likely when he also points out there have been between 5,000 and 7,000 recorded sightings of big cats in Australia.
“I’m a firm believer in thylacines, and I’m a firm believer in big cats, for the record,” he says.
What else does he believe in?
“Umm, three meals a day and a happy, healthy, stress-free life as much as possible.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nt-3000-people-who-have-been-told-theyre-nuts
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
No problem, I find the subject fascinating.
One thing I would say though is that I'm a complete non-expert too.
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
This is pre 1936 thylacines, Ummmm!
Waters isn't nuts he's just unpleasant, posting up PM's he's received from people who're obviously not quite OK for the purposes of ridicule. He monitors his FB page and removes anyone he sees as a threat because they know what they're talking about whether they say anything controversial or not. He also takes side swipes at real researchers Mooney and Archer in particular and accuses them of being involved in the 'conspiracy'. He did start to post about his sightings on a certain website which he used to frequent, but received a polite but negative response, and has now retreated to FB.
Oh, and he's also a liar, as his videos definitely show anatomy completely ruling out a thylacine as an identification, he's made claims that what we're seeing is a mainland sub species*. He has also claimed that he's supported in this by a certain Australian museum. As he's trying to raise money on the back of these claims I asked the museum in question if they were aware of this, and they replied with a very firm no.
*He's now actually saying that he's seeing evidence of a white tail tip in some historical photos, after the white tip is so prominent on the end of the tail in his last fox video.
Aside from any of that though, as all his videos clearly show foxes it doesn't matter if he's 'nuts' (something which he enjoys highlighting and mocking in others) because he either can't tell the difference between a tiger and a fox, or he's not being honest again.
I know which i think.
Bigphoot2
Not sprouts! I hate sprouts.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,075
Oops. Lack of coffee makes work brain not properly.
lordmongrove
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- May 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,929
That's the size he was indicating with his hands. He was a nice bloke and didn't seem to be a bullshitter. He ran an arbouritem and pant shop. Years later he saw a thylacine and did realize the significance of that. But when he told us of the massive quoll he killed in the 60 he had no idea that they were not supposed to get that large.
I'm not saying this is the case here. But some people WANT to see something so badly that they think what the are seeing is actually it. They're not lying they are simply misinterpreting what they see. In my misspent youth I chased Flying saucers. I worked for a newpaper and whenever a UFO report was made I was sent to check it out. You would not believe some of the things people reported as Flying Saucers. In many cases I think they actually thought they had seen some alien craft; many others were just hoping to get their name in the paper and others were Ha Ha Hoaxsters. So is a person lying if they report what they actually think they see? I'm not saying all UFO reports are nothing ; however all of the ones that crossed my desk were explainable.
oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
Six years ago I managed to convince myself of this
http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/the-doyle-thylacine-film.42025/
I'd always seen it as a fox, always, one day though I suddenly thought 'Oh F*ck! That's a thylacine'. I remember it so clearly, I was dumbstruck, I suddenly thought I was seeing one of the things I care most about in the World bouncing about in front of me. All bloody nonsense of course but until the other poster kindly pointed out how far off reality I was I was convinced.
So yes, you can easily convince yourself you're seeing what you want to see. And that doesn't make you a liar. Where the lies come into this, the Thylacine Awareness Group scenario, is the fact that he's claiming support from an institution that he doesn't have, for a 'sub species' he's invented himself. That's not accidental, that's deliberate.