Popular Post Carnoferox Posted March 12, 2020 Popular Post #1 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Over a minute of film of a thylacine at the Hobart Zoo, shot sometime between 1933 and 1936, has recently been rediscovered by a group of researchers. I believe @oldrover was involved. 6 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orphalesion Posted March 12, 2020 #2 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Such a beautiful animal... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Not A Rockstar Posted March 12, 2020 #3 Share Posted March 12, 2020 This is so sad. Of all the animals we have lost, this seems one of the very worst losses to me. IDK why, it just always has felt almost a personal loss. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the frog Posted March 13, 2020 #4 Share Posted March 13, 2020 13 hours ago, Not A Rockstar said: This is so sad. Of all the animals we have lost, this seems one of the very worst losses to me. IDK why, it just always has felt almost a personal loss. Not a lot of carnivorous marsupial left and it was the only big one too. It remember us of all the other species we are losing right now with habitat destruction and over-hunting. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbondo Posted March 13, 2020 #5 Share Posted March 13, 2020 This is not new footage. However, there are some very credible witnesses who claim to have seen the animal over the past 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 13, 2020 #6 Share Posted March 13, 2020 21 hours ago, Carnoferox said: Over a minute of film of a thylacine at the Hobart Zoo, shot sometime between 1933 and 1936, has recently been rediscovered by a group of researchers. I believe @oldrover was involved. Yeah, but the credit should go to my two friends Mikw Williams and Branden Holmes, who noticed an anomalous looking entry and tracked it down. I just sat here looking pretty. Thank you fir sharing thus Carnoferox, and I hope you are well. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 13, 2020 #7 Share Posted March 13, 2020 A bit of context. We can't prove who it is yet because there's nothing difinitive to give it a date but I'm 100% certain it's the last captive. That and his size dates it to between about 1933 (ish) and early 36. Can't say anymore than that yet but hopefully we'll be able to put the shots of him in chronological order soon. So far we date inages from three disinct periods of his like in captivity. A baby photo from April 1931, healthy adult from December 1933, elderly fella from May 1936. I think this film slots in between the latter two. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted March 13, 2020 Author #8 Share Posted March 13, 2020 3 hours ago, oldrover said: A bit of context. We can't prove who it is yet because there's nothing difinitive to give it a date but I'm 100% certain it's the last captive. That and his size dates it to between about 1933 (ish) and early 36. Can't say anymore than that yet but hopefully we'll be able to put the shots of him in chronological order soon. So far we date inages from three disinct periods of his like in captivity. A baby photo from April 1931, healthy adult from December 1933, elderly fella from May 1936. I think this film slots in between the latter two. You have a photo of the last individual from 1931? That's pretty exciting; it would definitely rule out the claim that it was captured in 1933. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 13, 2020 #9 Share Posted March 13, 2020 31 minutes ago, Carnoferox said: You have a photo of the last individual from 1931? That's pretty exciting; it would definitely rule out the claim that it was captured in 1933. The 1933 idea has finally been abandoned now. Sadly to be replaced by an even more unlikely scenario. See Sleightholme et al 2019. Sorry I was a bit careless in my previous post though, I say it's him in 1931 and I think that it's all but certain it is, there's good primary evidence that supports it has to be him, yet definitive proof is lacking. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted March 13, 2020 Author #10 Share Posted March 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, oldrover said: The 1933 idea has finally been abandoned now. Sadly to be replaced by an even more unlikely scenario. See Sleightholme et al 2019. Sorry I was a bit careless in my previous post though, I say it's him in 1931 and I think that it's all but certain it is, there's good primary evidence that supports it has to be him, yet definitive proof is lacking. Is this the paper you're referring to? Unfortunately I can't access it to see what they propose. https://publications.rzsnsw.org.au/doi/abs/10.7882/AZ.2019.032 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted March 13, 2020 #11 Share Posted March 13, 2020 50 minutes ago, Carnoferox said: Is this the paper you're referring to? Unfortunately I can't access it to see what they propose. https://publications.rzsnsw.org.au/doi/abs/10.7882/AZ.2019.032 Yes that's the one. I just tried sending it to you by PM but it exceeds the amount allowed to send. It's terribly flawed, very selective and fails to address any refuting evidence, of which there is plenty. If you do want to read it PM me your email. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted March 14, 2020 #12 Share Posted March 14, 2020 New Guinea? I'd not read that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneWithAnE Posted March 15, 2020 #13 Share Posted March 15, 2020 Aww what a shame. Poor beautiful species. They were so unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now