[Undeadskeptic]

Quote

Question: Are there any marsupial monkeys of any kind that a marsupial ape could be related to?

Some marsupial squirells/lemurs, but they're not all too ape-like. The Cuscus is often called (Even by Encyclopedia Brittanica) a marsupial monkey, but to me it looks more like a little bear.

The Common Spotted Cuscus is about the size of a large house cat, weighing between 3-13lbs (1.5-6kg), body size approximately 13-26inches (34.8-65cm) long, and a tail one to two feet long (31.5-60cm). It has a round head, small hidden ears, thick fur, and a prehensile tail to aid in climbing. Its eyes range in color from yellows and oranges to reds, and are slit much like a snake. All four of its limbs have five digits and strong, curved claws, except the first digit on each foot. The second and third digits of the hind foot are partly syndactylous: they are united by skin at the top joint but divide at the claws. These smaller claws can serve as hair combs when cleaning. The first and second digits of the forefoot are opposable to the other three, helping it grip branches while climbing. The undersides of its paws are bare and striated, which also help it grasp trees and food. The first digit on the hind foot is clawless and opposable.

It has thick, woolly fur of varying colors depending on age, sex, and location. Males are typically grey/white or brown/white with splotchy patterns on their back and a white underbelly.[3] Females are usually white or grey, and unspotted. Some completely white individuals are known in both males and females. As the young grow they go through a series of color changes before reaching sexual maturity at around one year old. Coloration varies from reds, whites, buffs, browns, light greys, and blacks. Unlike other species of cuscuses or possums, the Common Spotted Cuscus does not have a dorsal stripe on its fur.

The Common Spotted Cuscus is typically very shy, so it is rarely seen especially in northern Australia. It is nocturnal, hunting and feeding at night and sleeping during the day on self-made platforms in tree branches. It also has been found resting in tree hollows, under tree roots, or among rocks. It is slow moving and somewhat sluggish, sometimes mistaken for sloths, other possums, or even monkeys. Unlike its close relatives, the Common Spotted Cuscus has been observed feeding during the day on rare occasions.[3]

The Common Spotted Cuscus is typically a solitary creature, feeding and nesting alone. Interactions with others, especially between competing males, can be aggressive and confrontational. Male cuscuses scent mark their territory to warn off other males, emitting a penetrating musk odor both from their bodies and scent gland excretions. They distribute saliva on branches and twigs of trees to inform others of their territory and mediate social interactions. If they encounter another male in their area, they make barking, snarling and hissing noises, and stand upright to defend their territory. They are aggressive, and can scratch, bite and kick potential predators.

[psyche101]

evancj on Jan 12 2009, 05:20 AM, said:

Thanks for the links psyche101 they were very informative.

I thought it was interesting that these “Killer Kangaroos” galloped instead of hopped. Some of them had powerful well developed forelimbs (like popeye http://www.youtube.c...?v=9UjM9UI40jk).

My uneducated guess would be that if one of these guys stood up on its hind legs it would almost fit Undead’s first yowie description to a tee. However this could also be describing a marsupial lion as well. Nothing about upright bipedal walking was mentioned.



I may be wrong but it looks like humans and these particular carnivorous kangaroos didn’t live in the same time and place.



psyche101 are you aware of any carnivorous kangaroos, or marsupials or reptiles that would fit the first description provided by Undead that lived when the first humans arrived in Australia around 60 to 40 thousand years ago? I did find a 3 meter tall “short faced kangaroo” that was around to see the first Australian people.



While this guy could surly rip someone to shreds in short order I don’t think he was a flesh eater. Another problem is the short faced kangaroos eyes faced forward. This means that their eyes would not be located on the sides of their head as described.

Perhaps early Australian humans noticed the very same meat eating kangaroo fossils and came up with the same conclusion that today’s Australians came up with, and a poof the yowie is born.

I suppose the first glaring inconstancy’s I see between BF and YOW are;

1. Canine teeth.
2. Eating humans.
3. Large red eyes on the side of the head.

Also I am a bit suspect of ancient Australians describing anything as “apelike” I highly doubt that they had any recent experience with “apes” and would not use the reference. I think they would have described the yowe as human like. Just as their North American counter parts describe BF.

Hi there evancj

Rat Kangaroos I am sure are omniverous, I would think any omniverous species of macropod would give of the right (or wrong) imresssion. Propleopus oscillans is an extinct giant rat kangaroo.
I think a good candidate, although not a carnivore would be Palorchestes azael, which was know to have interacted with humans. But Roo's started off with eyes on the sides of their heads, so (i.e. Hadronomas puckridgei ), and as most marsupial predators have eyes on the front of their heads to afford binocular vision for depth perception, looking at todays Kangaroo's, one might expect to even find more macropods yet in the fossil record. Maybe some transitional forms.
Having said that, Kangaroos can be quite viscious.
Story of a jogger attacked by a roo. A short faced roo at 3 Meters would be quite dangerous. The resulting mess could gve rise to a number of tales.
Of course with reptiles, we have the monitors. Capable of rearing up on two legs, and runing.



The largest I can think of being Megalania Prisca.

The only problem with the above description (apart from eyes being on the side of the head as real bad for predation) is that it does not seem to reflect the eyewitness accounts. I am starting to wonder, what the heck is a Yowie? A Pygmy, a giant, hairless? flesh eating? Maybe it's a bunyip.
Rex's descriptions have really thrown a cat amomgst the pigeons, BTW, is'nt a drop bear called a Koalus Rex? I wonder if Rex is getting an honorary mention

This post has been edited by psyche101: 12 January 2009 - 03:42 AM

[evancj]

psyche101 on Jan 11 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Hi there evancj

Rat Kangaroos I am sure are omniverous, I would think any omniverous species of macropod would give of the right (or wrong) imresssion. Propleopus oscillans is an extinct giant rat kangaroo.
I think a good candidate, although not a carnivore would be Palorchestes azael, which was know to have interacted with humans. But Roo's started off with eyes on the sides of their heads, so (i.e. Hadronomas puckridgei ), and as most marsupial predators have eyes on the front of their heads to afford binocular vision for depth perception, looking at todays Kangaroo's, one might expect to even find more macropods yet in the fossil record. Maybe some transitional forms.
Having said that, Kangaroos can be quite viscious.
Story of a jogger attacked by a roo. A short faced roo at 3 Meters would be quite dangerous. The resulting mess could gve rise to a number of tales.
Of course with reptiles, we have the monitors. Capable of rearing up on two legs, and runing.



The largest I can think of being Megalania Prisca.

The only problem with the above description (apart from eyes being on the side of the head as real bad for predation) is that it does not seem to reflect the eyewitness accounts. I am starting to wonder, what the heck is a Yowie? A Pygmy, a giant, hairless? flesh eating? Maybe it's a bunyip.
Rex's descriptions have really thrown a cat amomgst the pigeons, BTW, is'nt a drop bear called a Koalus Rex? I wonder if Rex is getting an honorary mention

Great info psyche101,

It appears as if you and I are not the only confused people when it comes to yowie.

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yowie

Rather confusingly, Yowie (or "Yowie-Whowie") is also the name of a completely different mythological character in native Australian Aboriginal folklore. This version of the Yowie is said to be a bizarre, hybrid beast resembling a cross between a lizard and an ant with big red eyes on the side of his head, big canine teeth and large fangs. It emerges from the ground at night to eat whatever it can find, including humans. This creature's characteristics and legend are sometimes interchangeable with those of the bunyip.[citation needed]
The origin of the term "Yowie" in the context of unidentified hominids is unclear. Some presume that it simply arose through confusion with the aforementioned Aboriginal legend. On the other hand, Jonathan Swift's yahoos from Gulliver's Travels are sometimes cited as a source. The word "Yowie" was also apparently a slang term for the Orangutan in Victorian England.
The earliest published reference to the word in its current usage is in Donald Friend's Hillendiana, [1] a collection of writing about the goldfields near Hill End in New South Wales. Friend refers to the "Yowie" as a species of "bunyip", an Aboriginal term used to describe monsters said to dwell in many Australian rivers and lakes. Researcher Rex Gilroy popularized the word in newspaper articles during the 1970s and 1980s.[2]

I find it quite suspicious that Rex Gilroy was the guy that introduced the word into popular culture.


The link below had some excellent info, with what seems to be legitimate references. I would highly recommend you read this paper by Colin P. Groves, it looks to be very well referenced.

Quote

http://home.clara.ne...ers/groves.html

“yahoo in one language (apparently from the Snowy Mountains region) meant the grey-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis).”

“Aboriginal people of the Snowies, who called the babbler yahoo, denied all knowledge of a wild man”

“an Anglo resident of the Snowy Mountains region (Joyner 1977: 13) at the turn of the century stated that he had many times asked local Aborigines about the "hairy man," and they denied any knowledge of it.”

“It is very remarkable, on looking through Joyner's compilation, how few of the entries are based on Aboriginal reports, and those that are, are of a mythological nature, unappreciated by their Anglo recorders.”

Mr. Groves makes an interesting point that reports of giant moa sightings didn’t start happening until after the first moa bones had been found.

I would tend to agree with your assessment that the only person on earth that really knows what a yowie is, is Rex Gilroy. And from what I understand Mr. Gilroy makes his living off of yowie, so I would assume it is in his own best interest to keep the yowie alive and well.

[psyche101]

evancj on Jan 13 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

Great info psyche101,

It appears as if you and I are not the only confused people when it comes to yowie.



I find it quite suspicious that Rex Gilroy was the guy that introduced the word into popular culture.


The link below had some excellent info, with what seems to be legitimate references. I would highly recommend you read this paper by Colin P. Groves, it looks to be very well referenced.



Mr. Groves makes an interesting point that reports of giant moa sightings didn’t start happening until after the first moa bones had been found.

I would tend to agree with your assessment that the only person on earth that really knows what a yowie is, is Rex Gilroy. And from what I understand Mr. Gilroy makes his living off of yowie, so I would assume it is in his own best interest to keep the yowie alive and well.

Hi evancj

That is a really good link. Thanks for that, I quite enjoyed the read. I must have a good comb through Rex's site and have a good look at what indigenous references he bases his musings on as opposed to the listed references in Mr' Groves article. I think Mr. Groves is right on the ball there. I'd say Patty has heavily influenced the Yowie. Rex made the final fictional connections and away we go - instant Oz Patty. I have always had a great deal of trouble accepting Yowies, they break more rules than Patty, and this article pretty much confirms my suspicions.
Now if we can work out if people are really seeing Yowies, or are just after 15 mins of fame, I think we have a reasonable case on the evolution of Patty. I think disproving the Yowie in pieces like this would be a good way to dissect Patty evidence, and draw comparisons that led to the conception of the creature. There just might be something to the hallucinatory plant theory. Patty may be the construct of a fungus spore.
Thanks for the links my friend.

Quote

Researcher Rex Gilroy popularized the word in newspaper articles during the 1970s and 1980s.

what a shock huh I still think Drop Bears (Koalus Rex) might reference him

[Wearer of Hats]

As a kid, we spun the "drop bears" story so well to a bunch of younger kids, they were terrified to go outside when on Boiys Brigade camp

[Undeadskeptic]

Quote

Mr. Groves makes an interesting point that reports of giant moa sightings didn’t start happening until after the first moa bones had been found.

Evancj. You son of a gun.

You let "Mr.Groves" inform you about New Zealand cryptozoology? Who the hell is Mr.Groves?! Is he researching, painstakingly, day and night evidence for the Moa's continued existence? No, he is not! Where did he get that info then? Well, my bet is from his own rectum.

The first moa bones were discovered in 1834.

So please, Mr.Grove, tell me.

Was the 1831 sighting of a "native Emu" in Te Urewera after the discovery of the first moa bones?

The 1830 sighting of a "flock" of large, long necked birds on the shores of Te Anau?

1830, two trampers observe huge three toed footprints and hear uncanny grunting sounds in the bush.

1825, a Maori chief from Westland speaks of having slain a particularly large, long necked bird the previous year.

1823, a "giraffe like animal with coarse brown fur" was noticed striding through the jungle in Nelson!

AND THERE'S MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM, MR. GROVE!!!

[Evangium]

Has anyone mentioned that hairy, smelly man-beasts are actually very common here in Australia? We call them 'the locals'

As a side note the sniper ghillie suit is reffered to as a yowie suit in Aussie army slang...

[Undeadskeptic]

Quote

Has anyone mentioned that hairy, smelly man-beasts are actually very common here in Australia? We call them 'the locals'

It's nice, hi five!

[evancj]

Undeadskeptic on Jan 13 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

Evancj. You son of a gun.

You let "Mr.Groves" inform you about New Zealand cryptozoology? Who the hell is Mr.Groves?! Is he researching, painstakingly, day and night evidence for the Moa's continued existence? No, he is not! Where did he get that info then? Well, my bet is from his own rectum.

The first moa bones were discovered in 1834.

So please, Mr.Grove, tell me.

Was the 1831 sighting of a "native Emu" in Te Urewera after the discovery of the first moa bones?

The 1830 sighting of a "flock" of large, long necked birds on the shores of Te Anau?

1830, two trampers observe huge three toed footprints and hear uncanny grunting sounds in the bush.

1825, a Maori chief from Westland speaks of having slain a particularly large, long necked bird the previous year.

1823, a "giraffe like animal with coarse brown fur" was noticed striding through the jungle in Nelson!

AND THERE'S MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM, MR. GROVE!!!

HeHeHE

Sorry Undead I threw that in to see if you were paying attention Maybe I should check out some of his references. Did you happen to look into any of them?

I'm not sure who Mr. Grove is but I think he had a lot of good points about the yowie and the possible misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the first Australian peoples languages.

[EnelyaCalaelen]

Just a small comment in regards to all the claims that a big hairy ape wouldn't survive in the AU climate:

If it lived in densley forested mountain regions, it would have to be hairy, considering these regions are a lot colder than the coastal cities, and we all know the higher into the mountains you go, and the deeper into the forests, the colder it gets as more sunlight is blocked by the canopies.

So to say a hairy ape can't surive?
I'd say it's perfectly possible.

[psyche101]

Undeadskeptic on Jan 13 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

Evancj. You son of a gun.

You let "Mr.Groves" inform you about New Zealand cryptozoology? Who the hell is Mr.Groves?! Is he researching, painstakingly, day and night evidence for the Moa's continued existence? No, he is not! Where did he get that info then? Well, my bet is from his own rectum.

The first moa bones were discovered in 1834.

So please, Mr.Grove, tell me.

Was the 1831 sighting of a "native Emu" in Te Urewera after the discovery of the first moa bones?

The 1830 sighting of a "flock" of large, long necked birds on the shores of Te Anau?

1830, two trampers observe huge three toed footprints and hear uncanny grunting sounds in the bush.

1825, a Maori chief from Westland speaks of having slain a particularly large, long necked bird the previous year.

1823, a "giraffe like animal with coarse brown fur" was noticed striding through the jungle in Nelson!

AND THERE'S MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM, MR. GROVE!!!

Nice examples UDS.
Roy Willis makes a similar argument in his book Signifying Animals. I find it interesting the discovery of Moa bones is listed as 1834, when Cook reached New Zealand in 1769 and following Cook, New Zealand was visited by numerous European and North American whaling, sealing and trading ships. It is claimed Moa bones could be found lying on the ground in abundance, if so, one would put a discovery far earlier, and leavng the date of 1834 as one where taxonomy/Western recognition was applied.

Although Moas are not his speciality, if this is the Mr. P. Groves I am thinking of, he is a pretty clever cookie....

Quote

BSc London, 1963; PhD London, 1966.

Taught at University of California, Berkeley; Queen Elizabeth College, London; and Cambridge University; before coming to the Dept. of A & A at ANU in 1974. Rose through the ranks to become Reader in Biological Anthropology.

Source - worth a visit.

[DieChecker]

EnelyaCalaelen on Jan 13 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

Just a small comment in regards to all the claims that a big hairy ape wouldn't survive in the AU climate:

If it lived in densley forested mountain regions, it would have to be hairy, considering these regions are a lot colder than the coastal cities, and we all know the higher into the mountains you go, and the deeper into the forests, the colder it gets as more sunlight is blocked by the canopies.

So to say a hairy ape can't surive?
I'd say it's perfectly possible.

There are aboriginal people living in Australia that travel the entire continent, isn't there? Why would the aboriginal people be able to survive, but not a yowie?

Yowie: An exclaimation. A sound made by humans when grabbed by any of the hundreds of Australian species.

This post has been edited by DieChecker: 14 January 2009 - 01:47 AM

[psyche101]

EnelyaCalaelen on Jan 14 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

Just a small comment in regards to all the claims that a big hairy ape wouldn't survive in the AU climate:

If it lived in densley forested mountain regions, it would have to be hairy, considering these regions are a lot colder than the coastal cities, and we all know the higher into the mountains you go, and the deeper into the forests, the colder it gets as more sunlight is blocked by the canopies.

So to say a hairy ape can't surive?
I'd say it's perfectly possible.

I do. The mountains in Victoria in a heatwave reach the high 30's no worries, not to mention a great deal of reports are Queensland - a temperate zone. A 3 Meter hairy hominid would not cope with the heat. I live on top of Mt Nathan. It was 38 degrees Celcius on Saturday. I live about dead smack between the proposed Ormeau Yowie and the Springbrook Yowie. Neither can be an 800 pound hairy primate in this heat.
For an example of why the hominid frame does not lend itself to gigantism in this temperate climate, try to get a hold of National Geographics Last Man Standing. The model of Meganthropus is explains the problems well visually. Heat cannot escape quickly enough. He would do fine twelve thousand years ago though.

[psyche101]

DieChecker on Jan 14 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

There are aboriginal people living in Australia that travel the entire continent, isn't there? Why would the aboriginal people be able to survive, but not a yowie?

Yowie: An exclaimation. A sound made by humans when grabbed by any of the hundreds of Australian species.

Because the proposed Yowie is covered in long hair, and is (according to Rex) twice as big - meaning twice as thick. It's damn hot here Diechecker! Organs cannot cool down, check out the doco I keep raving on about, it is a good visual model.

Poached liver anyone? Steamed Panceras maybe?......

[Wearer of Hats]

DieChecker on Jan 14 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

There are aboriginal people living in Australia that travel the entire continent, isn't there? Why would the aboriginal people be able to survive, but not a yowie?

Yowie: An exclaimation. A sound made by humans when grabbed by any of the hundreds of Australian species.

I may be mistaken, but there are swathes of Australia that not even the Indigenous population traversed.