• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

This video of an alleged (potential) Thylacine from North Queensland is interesting.

At first glance, I thought it was most likely a quoll with some forced perspective making it appear larger. As I've studied it more, however, the legs seem too long. It doesn't appear to be a dog or dingo with a hind leg injury as close inspection reveals both hind legs to be in use. It's certainly got the bull-headed, triangular-headed shape of a dasyurid. Anyway, have at it, y'all.
 
Nothing useful for scale. Looks to me like maybe a fox or dog with deformed hips. Dunno.
 
It looks like a red fox. I don't see anything there that says not a fox. The gait may be a bit odd but that seems exaggerated when it's slowed way down.
 
Resume said:
Nothing useful for scale.
Click to expand...

Well it's definitely shorter than the fenceposts behind it.

Here's side-by-side of Thylacine and Dingo. Given that we really just have a silhouette to work with in the new footage, I'll address what about the proportion has me interested.

1) Tail. The subject has a long tail, and long relative to its body length. Note how on a dingo the tail is rather bushy and extends down to about the ankle joint. It does not reach the ground. It is shorter than the length of the back from shoulders to hips.

In contrast, the thylacine's tail is thinner and much longer. When the animal is at rest, the tip reaches all the way to the ground. In most postures, it's also sticking out well behind the hips, rather than straight down as in dingo and most domestic dog breeds. The tail on the subject is at least as long as its back from shoulder to hips. It doesn't look as long as the tail on the Thylacine in the photo, but its longer and thinner than the dingo's tail and it's got that "thicker-at-the-base" look like a kangaroo's.

2) Hind leg morphology. Check out the right hind leg of the tylacine in the photo. It's foot is entirely flat on the ground - those suckers were quasi-plantigrade! I never noticed that, but it makes sense: Thylacines were secondarily evolved to run from ancestors that weren't really built for it. In contrast the dingo is fully digitigrade, just like the wolves/wild dogs from which it descended. It's built for running and so were its ancestors.

In terms of hindleg proportion, the heel on a dingo is higher off the ground. Thylacines, in comparison, had a shorter foot. The heel is much closer to the ground.

Unfortunately, we can't really see what's going on with the hindlegs and feet of the subject. The fact that we can't see its feet above the grass makes me wonder if they're small. Certainly the subject moves with an atypical gait for a canid, and I just can't tell if it looks more like a canid with an injury or, you know, something else . . .

Anyway, that's my tuppence on why I'm interested in this one.
 
William Parcher said:
It looks like a red fox. I don't see anything there that says not a fox. The gait may be a bit odd but that seems exaggerated when it's slowed way down.
Click to expand...

Tail length proportion is good for a fox. Of course it'd be suffering some kind of fur loss from that tail to look so skinny.

Gait and leg length don't seem right to me, though. Foxes tend to move with "dainty" footsteps at a trot and to just haul-ass gallop when they need to get somewhere fast. Even with an injured hind leg the subjects legs look too short. Dunno.
 
Sarcoptic mange is widespread in Australia and could be why the tail isn't furry. There have been other modern "thylacine" videos which show mangy foxes without the normal furry profile.

I think it moves like a fox when viewed in real time.
 
The Shrike said:
This video of an alleged (potential) Thylacine from North Queensland is interesting.
Click to expand...
You would have hoped that an half-informed "science reporter" would know the difference between the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia (where the video was shot) and the Cape York Peninsula in northern Queensland (where the article seems to imply it was shot).
At first glance, I thought it was most likely a quoll with some forced perspective making it appear larger. As I've studied it more, however, the legs seem too long. It doesn't appear to be a dog or dingo with a hind leg injury as close inspection reveals both hind legs to be in use. It's certainly got the bull-headed, triangular-headed shape of a dasyurid. Anyway, have at it, y'all.
Click to expand...
A Fox or Dingo with mange would explain the tail and injured back leg(s) would explain the gait.

By the way - who has determined that this gait is typical of a Thylacine?
Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia founder Neil Waters?
According to him, he can also see on this washed out silhouette, "some discolouration on its back".
Seems like wishful thinking combined with vested interest to me.
 
William Parcher said:
Sarcoptic mange is widespread in Australia and could be why the tail isn't furry. There have been other modern "thylacine" videos which show mangy foxes without the normal furry profile.

I think it moves like a fox when viewed in real time.
Click to expand...

Looks vaguely like a fox when paused, and that's probably what it is. Couple reasons it might not be:

1. Mange is a possibility on the tail, but the rest of the animal looks very thick for a fox unless it's a really furry one, which would be a little odd with the mange.

2. The gait is not typical of a fox IMO. An injured fox, maybe. Reminds me of my last dog who I had to put down early due to hip dysplasia.

No idea what a thylacine runs like though.
 
Here is a graphic of the thylacine gait. There are some old films of them in zoos.

If you Google for modern living thylacine videos you will get maybe a dozen. IMO, all of these show foxes with mange. They all basically look the same and this newest one is just more of the same.
 

Attachments

  • thylacine+gait+cycle.jpg
    thylacine+gait+cycle.jpg
    110.1 KB · Views: 0
William Parcher said:
If you Google for modern living thylacine videos you will get maybe a dozen. IMO, all of these show foxes with mange.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

William Parcher said:
They all basically look the same
Click to expand...
Agreed.

William Parcher said:
and this newest one is just more of the same.
Click to expand...
Disagreed. Hence my interest.

William Parcher said:
Here is a graphic of the thylacine gait.
Click to expand...
That actually looks to be a pretty good match to the subject's gait and a poor match to fox gaits.

It might be a canid - with or without mange and/or hind-end compromise. Parsimony would almost demand so and there is the cardinal rule of the JREF/ISF: "Parcher is always spot-on with these things." But I still find it interesting. I'd rather be convinced that it's a fox rather than merely capitulate that it's probably a fox.
 
William Parcher said:
Here is a graphic of the thylacine gait. There are some old films of them in zoos.
Click to expand...
I searched for gait and I believe I found the same as you, William.
I believe though, that this is a walking gait, not a running gait.
I maintain that film of a running gait doesn't exist, so declaring that the video evidence shows "typical" Thylacine gait is unjustified.

There was a similar problem with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker audio "evidence".
Since they had none to compare current recordings too the "knock" recordings identified as "genuine" had no basis in scientific fact.
If you Google for modern living thylacine videos you will get maybe a dozen. IMO, all of these show foxes with mange. They all basically look the same and this newest one is just more of the same.
Click to expand...
I think I mentioned in passing on another thread that I was half thinking of taking up pursuit of Thylacine as I near my retirement - but even the briefest of research on the current evidence was enough to persuade me that it would be a futile endeavour.

I would have been better off returning to England to look for big cats in the countryside. At least there all I had to do was wait for a zoo/circus/menagerie escape and grab my camera.
 
EHocking said:
I believe though, that this is a walking gait, not a running gait.
I maintain that film of a running gait doesn't exist, so declaring that the video evidence shows "typical" Thylacine gait is unjustified.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

EHocking said:
There was a similar problem with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker audio "evidence". Since they had none to compare current recordings too the "knock" recordings identified as "genuine" had no basis in scientific fact.
Click to expand...
Quibble - we actually have recordings of the double-knock from extant members of the genus Campephilus. They all do it.
 
The Shrike said:
Agreed.


Quibble - we actually have recordings of the double-knock from extant members of the genus Campephilus. They all do it.
Click to expand...
This is exactly my point.

They had recordings of extant woodpeckers that were not IBWP, which they used to declare the existence of IBWP, because its knocking was similar.
But they had no recording of an IBWP knock and then carried on analysing their current recordings with the verve, vigour and inventiveness of the best Bigfoot "Researcher".

It was so much wishful thinking, and as with Thylacine hunters, the more the look the worse the "evidence" became.

And I do understand ID by exclusion.
I identified a Black Woodpecker in Germany for the first time from its call and knocking - based on the fact that I had never heard one before.
I knew what it wasn't - and that was all the other European WPs that I had heard. I later ID'd it by spotting and photographing.
But before then I was very confident what I was tracking down - even though I'd never seen/heard one before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom