Talk:Thylacine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image alignment

Siroxo: Your better image alignment was hell for an 800x600 monitor to render, so I've gone back to the old style. I don't deny that yours looked better for higher resolutions, but usability must come before style, in this case. - Vague Rant 11:46, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Taxidermies or skins in Canadian museums?

Is there and taxidermies or skins in any Canadian collections,and if so where? (Dirrtypittie (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Capitalization

I don't think every instance of the word "thylacine" throughout the article should be capitalized. It is not a proper noun, and in other mammal articles (see Lion, Tiger, Wolf, etc.) only the first instance (the bold one at the beginning of the article) is capitalized. Websites like the Thylacine Museum generally do not capitalize the name whenever it is used. Crotalus horridus 23:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Tasmanian Tiger (naming confusion)

I know there been a few changes over this before, but I think most people still call a thylacine a tiger - especially in Tassie. For instance The Mercury would all ways refer to it as a tiger, as do the most of the Tas gov web sites. Not saying we change it everywhere but i think it deserves near equal footing in the first paragraph, rather than stating this was the former name Jgritz 09:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In general, Jgritz, only people who don't know much about animals. No reputable field guide calls it a "tiger". In any case, both "Tasmanian Tiger" and "Tasmanian Wolf" are hopelessly misleading names: apart from being a top-level predator mammal, the Thylacine has nothing in common with these. Nor is it "Tasmanian" - it was an Australian creature which happened to survive in Tasmania for a little longer than elsewhere. Tannin 10:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I know the name is misleading - It's just that most people know it from the name "Tiger". Someone here at work has actually just walked past my monitor (In London - and I know I should be working..) and went "Aahh - a Tasmanian Tiger". Just think that we should give that name slightly more weight in the first paragraph as people may think they've come to the wrong article. I think I'm also still bugged by the way the head of the Aus Musem would pronounce Thylacine :) As for "Wolf" - I've never ever heard anyone use that.

Jgritz 10:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mainlanders call it the "Tasmanian Tiger" and the reason it was simply called "The Tiger" by Tasmanians is because they were already in Tasmania--Mutley 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And just to prove the point further - Search results comparison

The similarities between the thylacine and the wolf is an example of Convergent Evolution

But to be encyclopedic we should call it thylacine and not just "tiger", which is completely different. You'll never see a reliable book call it a tiger. At leats they call it Tasmanian tiger. Dora Nichov 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this can clear up the naming confusion: World - "Thylacine", Australia - "Tasmanian Tiger", Tasmania - "Tiger" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutley (talk • contribs) 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

And more naming confusion! some google searching reveals "Thylacine joey" (official) - 3 links, "Thylacine pup" - 344 links, "Thylacine cub" - 3 links. So while the "Tiger" name is more common the young are thought of as being similar to dogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutley (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Isn't "thylacine" the animal's scientific name? The_Little_One_Smiles

No, it's scientific name is Thylacinus cynocephalus. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock Art

Can anyone contribute some links to ancient aboriginal paintings of Thylacines?

Not art but a good photo [[1]]

Adios Dasyure

In 1900, the animal was one of a group of creatures called Dasyuridae, from the Greek words dasy and oura meaning "shaggy tail." Any one of the Dasyuridae might be called a "dasyure."

Thylacinus cynocephalus means "pouched dog," based on Greek thylax ("a sack," "pouch") and an adjective, cynocephalic ("having a head shaped like that of a dog").

In 1900, the creature was called a "pouched dog" amd the "Tasmanian zebra wolf." It was a pest to the sheepherders' flocks of sheep, consequently, it was killed off.

It dwelt in rocky dens. Sooner or later. earth-moving equipment will collapse and smooth over every rocky den on Earth, so most of the "dasyures" face the loss of their abodes (retreats) (homes). Hasta la vista.

Hasta la vista is the farewell, forever.

71.240.0.93 15:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Justification for changes

Phrases like "just one" and "amazingly wide gape" would good for a children's encyclopedia, but I thought wiki was aimed at adults. Perhaps I was wrong. Hopfrog

Actually, I agree with most of the changes you made, although for some I don't really care either way. Pengo, I suggest instead of reverting, you make those changes that you feel strongly about based on the current version. Rl 07:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Crikey! 211.30.71.59 08:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent (supposed) sightings

Perhaps someone could add (with 'good' references, I mean) about the abundance of supposed sightings in Tasmania and also recently near the Apollo Bay area in Victoria. Feasibly, there could well be a thylacine in these areas and there have been countless 'sightings', although many skeptics dismiss the animals seen as large feral dogs or dingoes.

• As a related note, has there been any kerfuffle over the wording in that section? "No reasonable doubt" that its extinct seems like a pretty solid conclusion drawn by the auther. The Aussie government has hired people to look for it as recently as 1985, obviously someone has reason to doubt that its extinct. Maybe some authority that's declared it extinct, or a more NPOV wording like "widely believed" if the former isn't available? WilyD 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A variety of comments

Discussion of previous points

I think there is much room for change in this article, and the talk page covers some good points.

Capitalisation - agreed; "thylacine" should not be capitalised throughout the article. I can commit to making this change sometime in the near future. Thank you UtherSRG who quickly pointed me to the standard on this issue - essentially treat as a proper noun.

Alternative name ("Tasmanian tiger") - agreed; in Australia the animal is probably more often refered to as a "tiger" or "tassie tiger" or "tasmanian tiger" in popular culture. In reference texts, the term "thylacine" seems to be favoured, the more rigorously scientific the text is. I do not think the first paragraph indicates that "tiger" is a former name, but the page may have been updated since the comment posted here. Tanin inserted a comment that no reputable field guide calls it a "tiger". I strongly disagree.

Rock Art - I don't have links to hand, but I can search for some.

Dasyure - This is a valid point. The scientific name has undergone many incarnations for a variety of reasons. I have a good text which discusses this (and, as above, can include this here also).

Dramatic Language - agreed; the encyclopedia should present a neutral point of view. This can be incorporated in an overhaul where required.

Sightings - again, agreed; this could be expanded. I have a link to a West Australian scientific paper which summarieses the sightings reported in that state.

There is room, too, for a list of thylacine remains found on the mainland, as there at least two very notable cases - one found in a Nullabor cave (where the discoverer insists it was not there when he explored the cave many years earlier), and another from north-west Western Australia which was initially dated at less than 80 years old and subsquently re-dated to more than a thousand years old.

I have found it very hard to find online references to this specimen, and I originally learned the information many years ago, but I do have information via private correspondence which explains the anamoly. Thus, at present this incident is unverifiable (by me at least), but I can certainly search for references (as I have no doubt about its authenticity).

New suggestions

In addition to the above, this article could include links to Thylacoleo, expand more on the theories behind Queensland sightings and mention that the thylacine lived in Papua/New Guinea also. The last thylacine, correctly referenced as female, was named "Benjamin" - although that name was given some decades later but then accepted into popular culture; the story behind that is interesting and worthy of note.

On the point of popular acceptance of "facts" which are in fact fallacies, Robert Paddle in his text has a very thorough dissertation on numerous reported "facts" dating to the 1700s and 1800s, which were popularly and scientifically accepted with very little skepticism. Thus, a description of the changing picture of our understanding of the thylacine, from its discovery to present, may also be an interesting inclusion.

Other significant insights from Paddle include a strong case for the mainland survival of the thylacine into the 1700s contrary to the accepted mainland extinction date of approximately 2000 years before present. A part of that argument includes mainland capture of several Tasmanian Devils and the highlighting of the point that very few scientists are prepared to extend the official range for the devil to include mainland Victoria. This back-references to his arguments about fallacies accepted as fact by both popular and scientific cultures.

I realise (as does Paddle) that the above flies in the face of practically all documentation on either species, but the fact that Paddle has published the argument should warrant it for inclusion as an alternate explanation of our observations.

One other argument that Paddle presents which I feel would merit inclusion here, is that the thylacine was not being out-competed by, or predated on by dingoes; rather, it was being driven to extinction through being hunted by humans. (He goes so far as to say that it is not culturally popular to propose that the Australian Aboriginals should be largely responsible for the species' extinction, which accounts for the blame-shift onto the dingo exlusively; although that's a side-note here in the Talk page and probably is not required in the article).

Lastly, The Official Searches section refers to Dr Guiler as being considered the world's leading authority on the species, but I'd like to see a reference for that. I feel the tone should be brought down to "a leading authority".

There's also a typo "The largest measured specimen was 290 cm (9.5 ft) from nose to tail" copied from the source, but still none of these were anything close to nine feet long. I'd edit this myself but anything I have ever edited for any reason has always been edited back in, so why bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.31.106 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Being somewhat passionate about the species, I'd love to overhaul this page; right this minute I don't have the time, but I do intend to schedule a good chunk of time to refine the article. I have a few books which I can reference, including Paddle's (mentioned above), Dr Guiler's and Col Bailey's. I also have numerous "field guides" on Australian fauna, including a text which explores the discovery of many Australian mammals including the first and other notable sightings for each species.

I welcome feedback on my comments, preferably before I get stuck into the task! :)

youcantryreachingme 02:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme

Chris.

Postscript; here is an excellent reference which describes the Paddle book and its perspectives on the subject: http://cres.anu.edu.au/environhist/robin-rev1.pdf

I stand by what I said in the assesment. Some of these concerns have been remedied, some have not.--HereToHelp 11:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The recently published 3rd edition of Mammal Species of the World has become the (self-proclaimed) source for official common names. MSW says this is the Thylacine. I've just modified the intro to show three levels of naming (official, local, colloquial), all of them bolded so as to catch the reader's eye. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A note of caution. "Being somewhat passionate about the species, I'd love to overhaul this page" sends up a bit of a red flag to me. When one becomes passionate about something, it is sometimes hard to maintain NPOV. Otherwise, though, I agree with your analysis of what could (and should) be changed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken; but given the list of points I raise and your overall agreement, I think I'll be able to steer clear of non NPsOV. (I've distinguished my own opinions in the above text also)  :) In being "passionate", I'd just love to see more justice done to conveying the diversity of the subject. Again, thanks for the pointers... still new here. youcantryreachingme 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (Chris)

Capitalisation of Dingo

Now I'm confused. After my recent discussion about the capitalisation of 'thylacine', I was pointed to the standard which says effectively to treat references to distinct species as proper nouns - that is, to capitalise them.

Thus the correct form is to refer to the Thylacine (unlike the paragraph above).

Therefore, given the Dingo is a distinct species and not a collection of different species (or am I incorrect?) - shouldn't its name also be capitalised?

Yet we've just had an edit to remove that capitalisation. Further, since that edit, the person who pointed me to the standard has carried out a further edit - to the very word - without re-introducing the capitalisation.

A quick check at the Dingo article also reveals a lack of capitalisation.

Has everyone skipped the standard, did I misinterpret it, or is the Dingo in fact a term referring to any in a collection of species? (Or, perhaps, dingo falls outside the project which uses the standard! That would explain it! After all, it's not a monotreme or marsupial. In this case, it should still be capitalized here even though the Dingo article does not capitalize it)

youcantryreachingme 04:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (Chris)

Yes, there is a mix of standards... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is split on the standard, but the WikiProjects, in general, overrule it. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no standard, but dingo is never capitalised in normal literature in my experience. That said, unlike with "Wood Warbler", there is no difference of meaning either way, and this debate has been on-going over at the dingo article also. —Pengo 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The convention in mammalian biology is to not capitilise the first letter of the common name (thylacine, dingo ect). If the common name includes a proper noun 'Tasmanian tiger' for example then the first letter is capitilised. If we look at the literature on the thylacine, (or the dingo for that matter) we see that common names of species are not capitilised (see Paddle, R - The last Tasmanian tiger, or any scientific report in edited journals - 'Jones, M.E. and Stoddard, D.E. 1998 'Reconstruction of the predatory behaviour of the extinct marsupial thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) Journal of Zoology 246 239-246') - B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bittervictorian (talk • contribs) .

There's actually a mix of styles, and the move is generally towards that which is adopted here - making common names of species proper nouns. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope Wikipedia's mix of styles changes, then, to begin reflecting what's actually used in scientific literature, as pointed out above by bittervictorian. I just read the thylacine article and its use of capitalization struck me as distracting and sophomoric. Wayward capitalization feels like a below-average third grade book report. (71.205.107.181 14:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree with the last comments. And if UtherSRG is correct about a trend, it needs to be reversed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Spine

Can anyone point to the reference behind the line 'Thylacine's spine changes suddenly in structure about halfway along the body.' ? I have seen plenty of thylacine skeletons and i don't see how the structure of the spine changes in any way thats different to other mammals. - B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bittervictorian (talk • contribs) .

Removed. May be added later if someone can provide a reference (and hopefully a better description than "changes suddenly in structure"!) youcantryreachingme 01:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Chris)

2005 Photos have been published

The February 2005 photos taken by Mr Emmerichs of Germany, were published in Tasmania (only) in April 2006.

Recently, scans of the newspaper clippings were published online at Cryptomundo (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/thylacine-photos and http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/thylacine-photo-ov ).

Col Bailey (author of "Tiger Tales" and interviewer of witnesses for nearly 40 years) comments (on Cryptomundo) that the newspaper images were intentionally degraded prior to publication.

A copy of the Tasmanian newspaper article is included in the first Cryptomundo article also... youcantryreachingme 05:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tidy up sightings section?

Is there room for a bit more tidying in the Sightings section?

Firstly, regarding red fox sightings, language such as "in contrast" and "despite only minimal evidence" seems not to maintain a neutral point of view. The procurement of 4 carcasses provides infinitely more evidence of the existence of the fox in Tasmania than does any other evidence for the thylacine.

With all due respect, it would be relatively easy to produce a dead fox to Tasmania (as it would be to bring in a live one). Many people here believe that is what the Fox Free Taskforce has done to maintain continued funding.

Nevertheless, the POV is still not neutral. Your own words here that "many people ... believe ..." etc, carry less emotion than the article. The fact that fox carcasses are being used as evidence to maintain the Fox Free program actually supports the idea that foxes exist in Tasmania. It would be fairer to explain that "many" people believe it is a conspiracy, and to cite references for that claim. Please don't take this response personally; it is not intended that way. youcantryreachingme 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Once people start questioning the relevance of the taskforce and threaten to cut funding another roadkill fox is presented. Foxes are not rare in Australia. There little hard evidence to suggest that the foxes found actually originated from Tasmania. Until someone captures or photographs a live fox in Tasmania there is absolutely no evidence that they exist here in my opinion. --Separationist 06:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Second, is there room for mention of Liz and Gary Doyle's 1973 footage from South Australia which may show a thylacine running across a road? (see http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/naturalhistory/alleged_mainland_sightings_1.htm)

Third, there is Kevin Cameron's series of photographs from Western Australia in 1985. The general consensus is that the photos show a dead animal, and speculation is that he killed it; therefore it is credible evidence that there was a living thylacine in the 1980s, yet because of the legal penalties of killing the animal, Cameron has never disclosed the full story behind the pictures. My argument for including this story is not based on it's merit as evidence for the species' survival, however, but because of the public attention it received in its time.

Any thoughts, suggestions or feedback?

youcantryreachingme 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good pickup on the footage from 1973 it is difficult to say what it is - it could be a mangy Fox. Have a look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FoxInHighPark.JPG unfortunately one of these without a bushy tail would look very similar. (it even has markings that could look similar to stripes from a distance)--Mutley 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also there is no mention of an attempt to get footprints. They should have checked where it ran for prints.--Mutley 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I maintain a website at www.wherelightmeetsdark.com which is partly dedicated to examining the evidence of the survival of the thylacine. I think it would make a good external link, but I think it's inappropriate to put it there myself; hence - I'm asking whether another author here might take a look and decide whether to include the link.

There is a lengthy (10+ pages) analysis of the Emmerichs photos here: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=2

There is also a lengthy article analysing the 1973 Doyle footage, here: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=19

And during the past week another photo has come out of Tasmania. My analysis on this one is here: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=31

youcantryreachingme 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There continue to be updates to these articles, so I will just post the homepage here and stop using up commentary space: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com 58.178.59.130 14:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Commenting on the evidence of red foxes in Tasmania and exactly what the evidence of foxes in Tasmania really is. To date only carcasses found on roadsides in various stages of decay,scats with traces of fox DNA,and some sixteen hundred unconfirmed sightings are the prime evidence. Scats and carcasses are easily transported items,sightings are of no consequence unless they are confirmed. In the past seven years in Tasmania not one fox has been shot,trapped,recovered from one hundred and sixty thousand toxic 1080 baits that have been laid,not even one image of a fox has been taken from thousands of images taken by motion cameras placed at "hot spot" areas across the state.Diplodwatcher (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Two foxes allegedly shot in the state at separate locations in 2001 and were then DNA matched as siblings one since been recognised as a hoax. Diplodwatcher (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 May 2008 Diplodwatcher (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Top-level predator ?

The article makes this claim, yet, Guiler in his research noted that Tasmanian Devils, Quolls and Wedgetail Eagles all preyed on young thylacines. In addition to this, research shows that wild dogs were sometimes reported to attack and kill thylacines. --Biatch 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the young being eaten stops the species as a whole being considered a top-level predator. As for wild dogs, they were only introduced to Tasmania with Europeans, and were not, in Tasmania at least, part of the thylacine's natural environment. That said, the dingo, which is a wild dog brought to Australia by the Aboriginal people, is thought to have largely displaced thylacines on mainland Australian soil, although this isn't certain. I don't think dingos hunted thylacines so much as were more successful and took over their niche. So again, I don't think that knocks thylacine off the "top dog" position (mind the pun). —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 07:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lions and cheetahs and other animal's cubs fall prey easily to. It doesn't mean the adults were vulnerable. Thylacine lover 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It would have taken a pack of wild dogs to bring down a full grown Thylacine. Also dogs weren't native to this environment they were introduced. --203.214.40.28 09:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

YOUNG being eaten doesn't mean anything. All animals are vulnerable when they're young, regardless of what they'll be when they grow up -- supposing they do grow up, LOL. And dogs aren't natives, so they can't be included among the NATURAL predators. Thylacine is still top predator. (Or was). Dora Nichov 02:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cloning project update?

Has there been any word about the cloning project since April 2005 because that seems to be the last I ever heard of it. If there is any 2006 update it definately should be added. I Find it hard to believe nothing has been released about the cloning project since it was restarted in April 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.60.129 (talk • contribs) .

In October 2005 Archer announced that 'American researchers with genetic sequencing capabilities' had joined the team.

As with all such announcements from Archer he declined to name them or give further details.

At this writing (Feb 2007) none of the 'group of interested universities and a research institute' Archer claims to be involved in the new project have come forward and identified themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.105.28 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Picture comment

I changed the wording on the comment under the picture showing a reconstructed Thylacinus potens, but it still sounds a little awkward/ambiguous to me - somebody else should probably take a look at it... Inspector Baynes 02:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Discovery"

It was first described in 1808, 5 years after first settlement of the island.

...since the first sighting of the animal.

What, even the Aboriginals didn't know it existed before then?? Davilla 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately they failed to list it in their encyclopedic annals of flora and fauna.  :) 211.30.71.59 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more details to the discovery section. It is well known that Thylacine Rock art has been found on the mainland of Australia but has it been found in Tasmania? --203.214.57.154 11:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Maybe there should be an etymology section this could explain what the official name means in English and also include Indigenous names as well. http://www.das-tierlexikon.de/beutelwoelfe.htm --Mutley 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal tag

Paranormal tag removed...--203.214.40.28 09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be suitable for a separate article on Thylacine sightings

Re "Unconfirmed Sightings"

Regarding the Emmerichs sighting, the wikipedia article currently states "The photographs were said, by those who studied them, to be inconclusive as evidence of the Thylacine's continued existence as they showed only the back of the animal"

I think the expression "by those who studied them" implies more people than it should. The cited article only mentions one person who viewed them: "Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery director Bill Bleathman".

There are others, such as Nick Mooney of the Department of Primary Industries and Water who disagreed:

"One man who sighted the tourist’s photos, Tasmanian biologist Nick Mooney, is convinced of their veracity. They show, he says, a flesh and blood thylacine" (Ruby Lang, as reproduced at: http://www.strangenation.com.au/Articles/tastigerhunt.htm) and "Wildlife expert Nick Mooney said while the image was "very much like a thylacine", the photograph needed to be authenticated before any action could be taken." (SMH, 2005: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Tourist-claims-to-have-snapped-Tasmanian-tiger/2005/03/01/1109546854027.html) and "NICK MOONEY: In the picture we can see some features of a thylacine, enough that the image is to me quite clearly a thylacine, whether the picture is authentic or not is a completely different issue." (radio interview with ABC, at: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1312642.htm)

The wikipedia sentence as it now stands generalises the experts' opinions too much: "The photographs were said, by those who studied them, to be inconclusive as evidence of the Thylacine's continued existence as they showed only the back of the animal" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.59.130 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I've added another reference from one you've given above but not changed the statement - it says the pictures are inconclusive: neither definitely fakes nor definitely genuine. Since nobody has claimed the pictures are conclusive evidence, I think the statement is broad enough to cover both the complete skeptics and the almost convinced. We could expand the sightings section further but it would unbalance the article. Yomangani^talk 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate the reply, and the speedy response. I guess part of my point was that the reason why the photos weren't accepted as genuine wasn't universally because everyone agreed they showed too little of the animal - Mooney being the contrast who acknowledged it was quite clearly a thylacine. Mooney's issue was whether the images were fabrications. Col Bailey also saw the images first hand and concurred with Mooney that they depicted a thylacine: "It was clearly a Tasmanian tiger featured in the image, there was no doubting that," (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/tiger-photos-the-real-story/ under "Angry that no one appeared to believe his story")... but you're right; I don't know how to word that without blowing out the article. I'll leave it with you, and won't chase up the issue any more after this! :) youcantryreachingme 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you meant now. I reordered the sentence so it no longer cites the subject of the photo as the direct reason for it being inconclusive. Yomangani^talk 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks :) I appreciate your patience and courtesy. 203.53.146.214 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

DNA degradation

As written, the article states that efforts to analyze thylacine DNA were thwarted by degradation of the DNA in samples due to the ethanol preservative. However, ethanol does not cause DNA degradation, nor do either of the citations contain a statement to that effect. No one, I think, regards the degradation as having been caused by the preservative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.249.52 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Agree that the statement is misleading.

Ethanol destroys the structure of the chromosomes but does not, of itself, degrade the DNA. In fact it helps to preserve it somewhat by protecting it from bacterial digestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.105.28 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

If thats true then why cant they clone it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.22.239 (talk • contribs).

The DNA is very badly degraded. Just not by the ethanol.

Not knowing how to reassemble it into chromosomes doesn't help either.

Also there are no live thylacine cells to inject a reconstructed cell nucleus into. Even more so than the Tasmanian forests it once roamed, the environment that thylacine DNA evolved in was the organelles of thylacine cells. The chances that a cell from a related animal would suffice was always going to be very remote.

All Archer's team ever succeeded in doing was using PCR to duplicate some thylacine DNA sequences a few dozen base pairs long. A bit like announcing an expedition to Mars, then climbing up on a ladder and saying "Look, I'm getting closer!". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.104.74 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually the Tasmanian Wolf (I just like saying that more then Thylacine) is on a list of animals that are priority for being brought back from extinction because we actually have their DNA intact, and there are 2 samples that are not damaged. My profesor is actually studying this right now. Some of the animals we maybe able to bring back in the next 20 years are the Quegga, Passenger Pigeon, Caspian Tiger, Dire Wolf, Wooly Mammoth, and a few others including that we were respondsible for making extinct. However, with the wooly mammoth it would actually take 25 to 30 to have pure breed wooly mammoths starting off from a hybrid. (It's rough but then again they're cloning alot of things that they are not telling the public about like the cloning of the cat wasn't supposed to be let out) lol. Mcelite (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Typo in English spelling of Greek?

"The common name derives directly from the genus name, originally from the Greek θύλακος (thlakos)" -- The English here should read "thylakos" or "thulakos", not "thlakos", right? -- Writtenonsand 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thylakos. Thulakos seems incorrect in this context. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Scrotal pouch

Note B reads: "The scrotal pouch is almost unique in marsupials — the only other species to have this feature is the American Water Opossum, Chironectes minimus.". But isn't the American Water Opossum a marsupial too? Rocksong 05:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The opossum you mention is a marsupial. The author will have to clarify if they meant that the thylacine and opossum are the only marsupials with a scrotal pouch. --Peta 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I (mis)interpreted "unique in marsupials" to mean "unique to marsupials". My mistake. Rocksong 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't be ALMOST unique. That's like being almost pregnant. Unique is a binary state chrisboote 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Got around the 'almost unique' phrase - simply don't use it. GrahamBould 08:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can be almost unique. You can't be more unique, rather unique or partially unique (though you can be unique in some respects). Unique can not be graded but it isn't unmodifiable. Fowler even states such modifiers as really, quite and absolutely can be used with unique. I think removing almost unique here makes the note more confusing as it somewhat disconnects the note from the subject, so I've put it back. Yomangani^talk 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki links

By convention, only the first reference to a subject needs to be linked to its article. I've removed several wiki-links that were duplicated in the article. This is covered in one of the many Wikipedia guides; if for any reason my edits are controversial, I'll find the guide that explains this. Gregmg 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of bot that can do this automatically?--Mutley 09:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That thought occurred to me, but I only saw a handful of redundant links so I felt it was easier to just make the corrections than to try to employ a bot for the task. Gregmg 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links question

Gregmg removed an external link to www.wherelightmeetsdark.com with the following comment: (→External links - Removed link with no information pertinent to this article.)

Would the following URL be better?

http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=fatcat&fatcat[user]=viewCategory&fatcat_id=47&module_title=announce

(note - wikipedia breaks the link when rendering it, above)

This filters the content on that site for articles related to examining the evidence for the ongoing survival of the thylacine, including the 1973 Doyle footage, 1990s Gonzales-Sitgez footage, 2005 Emmerichs photos, 2006 Chaotika photo and 2007 Livingstone roadkill sighting, in addition to discussing the idea of thylacines being released on mainland Australia. youcantryreachingme 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The site doesn't seem to give any hard factual data.... just a non-scientific interview with someone who thinks they might have seen a roadkill Thylacine. Doesn't impress me. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree (and should clarify I am the site owner - I will not add the link myself for obvious reason, but I will argue here that it merits inclusion.) You probably missed the "Children" links at the top of that page.

The site contains -

• 20 articles relating to Klaus Emmerichs' Feb 2005 sighting, including perhaps the most comprehensive publicly published analysis of any photographic evidence for extant thylacines,
• details of the author's meeting with Klaus Emmerichs and Birgit Jansen and report of seeing the photos first-hand,
• 2 articles relating to Chaotika's publication of a 2006 photograph of a thylacine pup including a comprehensive analysis of the photographic evidence,
• 6 articles relating to the 1973 film footage of a thylacine taken in South Australia by Liz and Gary Doyle, including 2 comprehensive analyses of every usable frame taken from two versions of the film,
• 1 article relating to the 1990s Gonzales-Sitgez footage shot in Western Australia, including an analysis of that footage,
• the first Google Earth tour of post-extinction thylacine sightings, now containing upwards of 50 sightings,
• A summary of the life, death and resurrection of the thylacine cloning project including discussion of the related documentary film, as well as
• Discussion of the evidence for an early 19th century mainland release of thylacines, and
• The Livingstone interview (road kill) article you mentioned.

I hope the fact that the site encompasses the broader themes of conservation, wildlife photography and evidence for other rare fauna hasn't led to the impression there is not substantial thylacine content. youcantryreachingme 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't impress me. Find a peer-reviewed scientific paper discussing the possibility of the existence of present day Thylacines. That would be notable to include. Until then, this is just pseudo-scientific hogwash and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"hogwash" - I take it NPV doesn't apply on talk pages. Still, your point is taken.

What is a reliable source?, Aspects of reliability - Scholarly and non-scholarly sources. I believe the site satisfies these two requirements for source reliability: "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and "Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable".

Sources - Self-published sources (online and paper). This guideline suggests self-published material may be acceptable if produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly). Given this research is not my profession, I accept the site does not satisfy this guideline.

External Links - What to Link - Links to be considered. Despite failing the previous guideline about source material for articles themselves, this guideline specifically addressing the External Links section argues "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources [are to be considered]".

External Links - Links to be avoided. In this guideline, personal webpages are to be avoided, "except those written by a recognized authority." Therein, I believe, lies the debate. In the absence of peer-reviewed scientific literature examining the veracity of purported photographic and film evidence for the continued existence of the thylacine, there is no other (to my knowledge) published methodical examination of such evidence and the site is known for this work. Point 13 in the same section suggests a deep link is more appropriate due to the broader content of the site as a whole, hence the subjet of this talk page addition.

The exclusion of this site whilst retaining the inclusion of a self-published book by an unknown author in the same list of links is inconsistent. Of course, I would prefer both sites remain in the list as are they both authoritative on their respective avenues of enquiry.

I will leave it to the readers of this talk page to decide for themselves, and won't argue the point ad infinitum. In the meantime, please be courteous. youcantryreachingme 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Extinct

I think we should add this for the conservation status:

From: User:4444hhhh

Nope. No creditable organization claims it is anything other than extinct. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"No", to that. I've read a lot of sources saying "probably extinct" and "extinct as far as we know". That's much more like: "we don't know, but the few facts we have - if any - doesn't support the idea that it still exists". Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a small possibility it isnt, anyway but here in Australia it is considered extinct. Enlil Ninlil 07:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

no i think it still out there possibly extinct would work

External Links section getting out of hand

Further to my earlier point - www.wherelightmeetsdark.com was dropped as "hogwash", despite being arguably the most comprehensive online methodical look at post-extinction thylacine sighting evidence. This was in contrast to the inclusion of a self-published book by an anonymous author who himself claims a thylacine sighting - totally contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.

And now I see that a general discussion forum on thylacines makes the grade!

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather see *all* these links stay there, as they are in fact probably the most relevant sites on the topic. But I still don't see the justification for dropping WLMD.

Investigation reopened

I just read an interesting article that says that some are investigating evidence that it may still exist. Here is the link: http://www.livescience.com/animals/070703_tasmanian_tiger.html Maybe this update should be included. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The samples they are analysing are already mentioned in the article. I'd prefer to wait for the test results before including the information, rather than give a blow by blow account from start to finish. Yomangani^talk 12:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dying Breed

Something to add to cultural references? see here--Mutley 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Video in the public domain?

Anyone know anything about Australian copyright laws? I do know that images created before 1955 are in the public domain there, but what about video? If similar, we could maybe upload this video to Commons and have it here:[2] Funkynusayri (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

picture

maybe we should use "Thylacinus.jpg" on the page: Thylacinus it is the same image but it is colored but is a bigger size.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why taken off FA list for 25 April 2008?

I saw the Thylacine article on the FA page earlier today and thought "Excellent!". Went back to read it a few hours later and it was replaced with the ocean sunfish article. Why is that? Ossipewsk (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask User talk:Raul654. Gimmetrow 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I might just do that. Ossipewsk (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated ?

The article says in a picture caption: "The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated." But surely they have a common ancestor, like all other living things on Earth. Maybe it is better to be brief than painstakingly accurate, but to say they're unrelated is really misleading. -- 18.33.1.81 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The common ancestor is the common ancestor to all Marsupials and Placental mammals which lived 140 million years ago in other words it would be a very distant relation indeed.--Mutley (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Reference Section

1. This is a trivia section masquerading as something "cultural". It's bogus, it's trivia. 2. Most of the entries in this section have VERY tenuous links to the animal - and many of them are just viral marketing and spam for commercial products.

This section needs to be removed and the spam deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.226.185 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New update on cloning

They've successfully created an embryo of the thylacine. Anyone have the links to this so that we can add it to the article?

I'm so happy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.119.252 (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. As a side note, several Taz endemics are about to become extinct, because this inane cloning project has siphoned off funds needed for their conservation. "I'm so happy" NOT.

From a scientific standpoint, it has never been proven that this cloning project is actually possible. From the evolutionary distance alone, it is in the same league as cloning a human using a gibbon as substitute mother. In other words, it is dangerously close to pseudoscience. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of cloning an extinct animal if there's none of its original habitat left to release it into? BoundaryRider (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The point could be to study it and learn from it, or just because it'd be really interesting. Chrisrus (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1934 bounty

I've read that a bounty on scalps was re-imposed in 1934, during the short-term government of Premier Walter Lee, but it was reversed in 1936 and the species was protected, too late to save the tiger from extinction. True? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Death of Thylacines in captivity

Could someone point me in the direction of a good explanation (if one has been postulated) on the death of Tasmanian Tigers in captivity? In the "Extinction in Tasmania" section a form of distemper is mentioned as killing "many" of them - how many is many? I'm somewhat struck that the species didn't last longer in captivity despite cubs being born. I realise it's a somewhat naïve question, but I think it's a valid one. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's not been any investigation of thylacine deaths in captivity. Consider how different the zoos of the 1930's were, compared with somewhat improved conditions now; emphasis on visitor entertainment/titillation over an animal's welfare, a desire to display an animal to the public rather than giving it an enclosed habitat in which to feel secure, and ignorance of its dietary requirements. Remember also that at the time, this animal was generally considered to be a pest and a curiosity (not a rare and valuable animal), with supplies of wild animals still available to replace zoo deaths - there may not have been much effort to keep them alive in captivity. The Beaumaris photos show a thylacine in a small wire and wood enclosure with a hard floor, and very little vegetation to hide in. It was probably fed a diet of chicken. I suspect those poor old thylacines died from low-grade chronic stress, exacerbated by malnutrition. Or vice versa. BoundaryRider (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kratt's Creatures

It was the subject of an episode of Kratt's creatures back in the day, throw that thing in the cultural references dawg. Where ma Kratt's Creatures at dwag??

68.236.122.251 (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

NINE FEET LONG?!? No Thylacine was ever, or could be ever, Nine feet long. This was a clear and obvious typo that I edited out, yet someone had to undo it. 65.198.31.5 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's referenced, and I've checked the ref. Perhaps you could look for other data? Please do not remove referenced material just because you don't believe it. Acroterion _(talk) 22:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The refernce was wrong. The size of the Thylacine is: "The mature Thylacine ranged from 100 to 130 cm (39 to 51 in) long", which is less than half of 9 and a half feet.

Here's a cite: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gregheberle/AdobePDF/Thylacine/ThylacinePaper2004-P1-5.pdf which lists a known maximum lenght of 1.2 meters, with larger sizes only "alleged". 65.198.31.5 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your ref states a max of 2.1 - 2.7m. Given the hazy state of knowledge, I'd argue that something on the order of "some individuals exceeded 2.5m in length" would be reasonale, but it should be discussed on the talk page. Copied from my talk page for better continuity Acroterion _(talk) 23:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Does this claim really belong on extinct scientifically-proven-to-have-existed species? Seems to diminish the scientific integrity of such articles. There is no real info of this in the article itself, but the article is graced with Template:Cryptozoology, categorized under Category:Carnivorous cryptids and the talk page announces this article falls under the tutelage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection in over a week, the above Cryptozoology references will be removed. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I left the category "Carnivorous cryptids". Someone else can remove it if so moved. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, on second thought, get real, it's gone. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All that sounds good. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Our article on cryptids states:

Cryptid is a term is used in cryptozoology to refer to a creature whose existence has been suggested but not scientifically confirmed, including purported unknown biological organisms, and extinct species claimed by cryptozoologists to be living today.

which ought to sound familiar to some here. The section in this article is well cited. Placement in that category, or subcategory, seems justified. The edit summary:

rm Category:Carnivorous cryptids per talk - if "people still claim sightings and search for it" then prove it via WP:V

is erroneous, the sources are already included in the article. I can't find a better way of categorising this aspect of the articles content. The template includes the species, so it too should appear in the article. The article is within the scope {{WikiProject Cryptozoology}}, so I'm restoring it. The Thylacine is, according to outside sources and other parts of our document, a cryptid.

cygnis insignis 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, it is listed in a completely separate article and it makes no specific claim about Thylacines. If you were to include this claim in this article, with a reliable source, then we can see if it holds water. But making this argument based on info in the cryptid article is weaseling out of proving it here. That way we can see if other users are satisfied with the inclusion of the cryptology aspect. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My contention is that the info is in this article, in the section extinction. Can we be civil about this? cygnis insignis 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be the rather silly extension of the term Cryptid, to include animals that definitely existed, but haven't been seen for a while. These are quite different from animals never proved to have ever existed. If the Cryptid definition could be changed to remove the extension then that would solve the problem. What is the basis for the extension anyway? GrahamBould (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'basis' would be "people still claim sightings and search for it" in the comment out, challenged and removed in the reverted edit. The definitions that I have accessed refer to plausible biota, or those widely presumed to be extinct. The fact that some extend this to fantastic, mythological, or otherwise improbable animals is not a fault of the term. What is your source for a definition of cryptid? Is there a better term for an supposedly extinct animal that people continue to search for, that disambiguates it from those with no scientific evidence of past or present existence? cygnis insignis 03:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The best term for an extinct animal is 'extinct animal', whether or not people are still looking for them. We can't say for certain that a species declared extinct is actually extinct, as they may be found again and there are many examples of this. This definition [3] defines cryptid as the yetis, bigfoots, etc, extended by some to recent extinctions - it is this extension that bothered me. It just blurs the meaning. GrahamBould (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The page at www.reference.com is a mirror of our article. This is from the first page of a search on "cryptid": Top 50, #42 - cygnis insignis 12:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Closest Relative?

Currently the opening paragraph states: "Its closest living relative is the Tasmanian Devil." According to a recent article on the BBC (see link), the closest relative is the numbat. Can anyone with a bit more knowledge please comment. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7825011.stm Robruss24 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another UK media stuff up or just don't know what they're talking about. Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife says it's closest relative is the Tasmanian Devil[4]. Bidgee (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A QD search gives this article, which says "perhaps " and gives some reasons why it may remain unconfirmed. It is not an unreasonable notion. cygnis insignis 13:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one study and, as such, does not necessarily change the state of play (its claims must be verified and supported by other workers in this field). However, it is most certainly worth mentioning. I have moved it from the lead to Discovery and Taxonomy and added a link to the actual research paper instead of a news site (which don't always get things right). Secret Squïrrel, approx 08:20, 15 Johnuary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

The Burrell Photo

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include the full Burell photo. This is the one where a Thylacine has a bird in its mouth. The full photo displays the fact that the Thylacine was in captiviy at the time and it is easier to tell that it is actually a mounted specimen Thylacine-chicken2.png--Mutley (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think not; it is the cropped photo that is relevant here, as this is the one that was widely distributed and the one that Paddle reckons gave the Thylacine its reputation as a chicken thief. The two photos can be seen side-by-side with a little more discussion in the Henry Burrell article. (I'm still sceptical about the mounted specimen explanation - why would you photograph a stuffed animal in a fenced run and later crop it out?) Yomangani^talk 12:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the Henry Burrell article and it looks like the photo was cropped by someone at the "Newspaper" although it doesn't say which newspaper it is. It's possible that Burrell photographed a mounted specimen because he didn't have access to a live specimen (they were very rare by 1921). I would say that he was just trying to depict a captive specimen being fed. Later on someone at the "Newspaper" cropped the photo to make it look like a wild specimen (which would have been even rarer at the time)for sensationalism to increase sales of the newspaper.--Mutley (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation of Thylacine

The scientific pronunciation for Thylacine is /ˈθaɪləˌsaɪn/ and the general pronunciation is /ˈθaɪləˌsɪn, -ˈθaɪləˌsiːn/, as indicated by a number of dictionaries, such as OED, Chambers, and Merriam-Webster. – Marco79 04:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How to be "indigenous" and "invasive" at the same time

Look at this sentence:

"The absolute extinction is attributed to competition from indigenous humans and invasive dingoes."

It very interesting to me that the humans are described as "indigenous", but the dingoes are "invasive". These two species arrived together a long time ago. I understand that, from the perspective of a Thylacine (if animals could have perspectives), both were "invasive", but from the point of view of European-Australians, both seemed "indigenous". So I think I understand why the sentence was written in this way, but it's bracingly contradictory laid out in one noun phrase like this, don't you agree? Could it be re-written in such a way as to not have this potentially distracting effect on the readers? Chrisrus (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See the Dingo article in the distribution section: Originally, it was suspected that the dingo was introduced to Australia in the Pleistocene by Aborigines, which led to confusion concerning the dingo's nomenclature. Today, the most common theory is that the dingo arrived in Australia about 4,000 years ago, due to the fact that the oldest known fossils of dingoes were estimated to be about 3,500 years old and were found in various places in Australia, which indicates a rapid colonization.--Mutley (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's interesting, I (obviously) didn't know that; I stand corrected and thank you for that, to me, very interesting information. They didn't arrive together, they arrived 1K years apart. But so far as the extinction of the Thylacine goes, I think you must agree, this makes no difference - the humans were no less "invasive" than the dingos. Chrisrus (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

capitalisation

Per the discussion at WP:mammals, we should use sentence case in the article. Most of these are vernacular names, and so have no need for capitalization. Capital case is for taxonomically standardized proper names, not for common names such as "Tasmanian wolf". kwami (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

By "per the discussion at WP:mammals" you presumably mean the last discussion where you added this opinion, not per the numerous fruitless discussions where the only agreement has been to keep the status quo. See here for a helpful list of most of them. Yomangani^talk 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The only place where I've seen anything approaching consensus on using caps is for standardized names. That doesn't apply here. Given the lack of consensus at Mammals, we should follow Common Names, and in English we don't normally capitalize words like Cat and Horse. kwami (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument that there has been an inability to agree on how to use caps so we should therefore follow your preferred route doesn't hold much water. Raise the matter again at WP:MAMMAL, inform the involved editors and see how far you get. As I said on my talk page, I don't really care one way or the other (all approaches have their advantages and disadvantages: for example, "Powerful Thylacine" in this article becomes problematical when lowercased), but I don't think tag-team reverting of a long-established, stable article (however well-intentioned) is the way to go about getting a consensus for your preferred approach. For what it is worth, last time I checked the consensus was that editors disagreed when to use caps, but agreed that case shouldn't be shifted arbitrarily. Yomangani^talk 01:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't offer an opinion on the substance of the issue here, but the edit warring that has gone on on this page for the last few days is unacceptable. Please stop that now, and continue the discussion on the talk page instead. Ucucha 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussions have been archived. If there is a history of capitalization issues with that page, some part of that should be dearchived. I did not see anything on the talk page and decapitalized to match standard English practices. Are there recent examples of newspapers that capitalize this animal? It is very unusual to capitalize animal names in English (other than the scientific name) and it seems to be very impolite to readers of Wikipedia to use non-standard capitalization. Wakablogger2 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving doesn't invalidate the discussion - I'd imagine people are fed up with the interminable back-and-forth. You could have asked before going ahead, but bold editing isn't much of a problem if you are prepared to see your changes undone. As for the readers, most can rise above the slight of imagined improper use of caps; this article passed FAC and an appearance as TFA without too many complaints of rudeness. Yomangani^talk 01:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading the archives, it seems that people are pointing toward not capitalizing as is the *norm* in English. Why would you write "I own two Chameleons" or "I saw two Lions and three Zebras at the zoo"? To me, such capitalization is unprofessional, and as a professional writer, is very distracting. Wakablogger2 (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you aren't reading closely enough in that case. The reason there are so many archived discussions is that there hasn't been any agreement (other than a grudging one to leave articles as they are until such time as an agreement materialises). If you want to bring it up again in an attempt to achieve consensus, then I wish you luck. I'm of the don't care camp in regards to caps, but I do object to the arbitrary reformatting of well-established articles to suit the tastes of individual editors. As my position is essentially unchanged from what it was here this will be my last response; I will leave it to you to do what you think is right. Yomangani^talk 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting has continued. Accordingly, I have now fully protected the article for three days. Please discuss this matter here. Ucucha 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yomangan says that s/he doesn't care. And we see only consensus toward decapitalization here. We must now wait three days before changing the page again. Does anyone else have an opinion? Wakablogger2 (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

i have an opinion about anything (and anyone) that results in me being prevented from editing an article, but it's not fit to print. that said, and while i'll grant that i'm not much of an english technician (and not a fan of caps in general), it seems pretty clear cut to me: as used in this article, "cat," "dog," "tiger," "thylacine" or whathaveyou are just plain old nouns, and should not be capitalized. this is the english language wikipedia, not german. pauli133 (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your argument is fatally undermined by your admission that you don't like caps in general, and by your non-use of caps for 'I', 'English', 'German', and 'That' and 'This' at the start of a sentence. With an approach like that, obviously you'd use lower case for 'thylacine', but it goes no way to persuading others whether lower case is appropriate or not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

only if you can't distinguish between the formal article namespace and the (semi)informal talk namespace. pauli133 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

MSW says....

HOME --> CLASS MAMMALIA --> ORDER DASYUROMORPHIA --> FAMILY Thylacinidae --> GENUS Thylacinus

SPECIES Thylacinus cynocephalus

Author: Harris, 1808.

Citation: Trans. Linn. Soc. London, 9: 174.

Common Name: Thylacine

Type Locality: Australia, Tasmania.

Distribution: Tasmania.

Status: CITES – Appendix I [Possibly Extinct]; U.S. ESA – Endangered; IUCN – Extinct.

Comments: Probably extinct; but tracks and sightings continue to be reported; see Ride (1970:201) and Rounsvell and Smith (1982). :Species reviewed by Guiler (1986) and Paddle (2000).

Synonyms:

• breviceps Krefft, 1868
• communis Anon., 1859
• harrisii Temminck, 1824
• lucocephalus (Grant, 1831)
• striatus Warlow, 1833

Bolding mine for emphasis. UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed. The taxobox is a citation of the taxonomic rank of a group of organisms, in this case a species, the accepted name is Thylacinus cynocephalus. The fact is that the organisms have a number of common names, no one seriously thinks they carry any priority. It is outside of the scope of the ref, which I used in support of the 'name'. MWS3 makes no claim to formalise or assert one common name over another, it does present information on the current, previous, formal, and accepted names given in virtually all reliable sources. Thylacine is not a systematic name, inclusion in the taxobox is pov unless a ref contradicts one I keep using; the one being used above, inappropriately, to support the selection of one informal name. If some authority has made a determination on this matter, the fact should be included in the article. cygnis insignis 16:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, MSW3 is a source for official common names:

Unlike previous editions, we have provided a common name for each recognized species. The starting point for these names is Wilson and Cole (2000), but each author was encouraged to examine those names and to provide a different one if there was good reason to do so. Thus, this list can be viewed as a second edition of Wilson and Cole (2000). There are no rules governing vernacular names, but Wilson and Cole (2000) outlined several reasons for adopting a single such name for each species of mammal.

- UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There are universally accepted and long established rules governing the nomenclature of a taxon, yet they have "There are no rules governing vernacular names, ..." Which clause am I missing? It's no contest. They encourage it, they can do what they like with their annotations of the taxonomy, but this is contrary to our objectives. We give what all agree on first, then say who says what. These names are meaningful in vernacular, which is very interesting in the article, but nearly irrelevant to their systematic arrangement. This position seems to rest on the premise that a particular vernacular usage can effectively supplant a translingual nomenclature, which would inevitably be disputed, how could anything but the taxon's name be npov? cygnis insignis 20:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Public domain video now added to article

Take a look, it's amazing. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit: Clarification

Sentence 3 in ¶1 of the introductory section reads, "Native to continental Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea, it is thought to have become extinct in the 20th century." At section 'Extinction:Extinction:Extinction in Tasmania,' sentence 1 of ¶1 reads, "Although the thylacine had been close to extinction on mainland Australia by the time of European settlement, and went extinct some time in the nineteenth century, it survived into the 1930s on the island state of Tasmania."

To more thoroughly disambiguate the approximate time of its extinction (and because the time is approximate), the sentence might include the word "there" in 'Extinction:Extinction:Extinction in Tasmania,' so that it reads, "Although the thylacine had been close to extinction on mainland Australia by the time of European settlement, and went extinct there some time in the nineteenth century, it survived into the 1930s on the island state of Tasmania."

This edit may seem superfluous, considering the sentence appears under the sub-heading, 'Extinction in Tasmania.' However, it might help further distinguish two extinction timeframes in two locales.

Samohtar (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right; I made the change.

Somewhat connected to this, "Native to ... New Guinea" is dubious; I believe the extinct New Guinea thylacine is usually referred to as "Thylacinus sp."—an unnamed species separate from T. cynocephalus. Ucucha 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Glenicem, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I suggest that a link to a photo of Mr Wilf Batty and the last known Tasmanian Tiger shot in the Tasmanian Wilderness be added at the reference to Mr Batty. the photo can be found by googling 'tasmanian tiger' + 'wilf batty'--Glenicem (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any photograph fitting that description. There is a photograph of Wilfred Batty with what looks like a live, tame, Thylacine from the State Library of Tasmania, is that the one you mean? It is not clear what the copyright status of this photograph is, and without clarification it would not be suitable for inclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} the reference web page location for the photo of Wilfred Batty with the last Tasmanian Tiger is at http://tasphotos.blogspot.com/2009/02/wilfred-batty-and-his-tasmanian-tiger.html--Glenicem (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't: that link leads to "Page not found". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the last two --, it's found here. That website says its from the Tasmanian state library though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, two extra characters on the end of the URL. However, it is the same page as I had already found by a Google search, and that I referred to above. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be PD Australia due to age. I'll upload it if no one else does. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "In 1930 Wilf Batty, a farmer, killed the last known wild thylacine in Mawbanna, in the northeast of the state. The animal, believed to have been a male, had been seen around Batty's house for several weeks.[58] "Benjamin" and searches

The last captive thylacine, later referred to as "Benjamin" (although its sex has never been confirmed) was captured in 1933"

This seems to contradict itself; how can Wilf Batty have killed the last wild thylacine in 1930 if they captured one in 1933..? IeditedOutMyIP (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Don't know which is true. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Footprints

In the article it says: "Thylacine footprints could be distinguished from other native or introduced animals; unlike foxes, cats, dogs, wombats or Tasmanian devils, thylacines had a very large rear pad and four obvious front pads, arranged in almost a straight line.[30]"

Two things are bothering me: First, when I look at the picture I do not see the four front pads being arranged on a line which anyone would call straight. Second, the source does not say anything like this either. It has a picture of the prints, but the four front pads are clearly not on a straight line whatsoever. Either the "straight line"-comment is wrong or I think it would be great to alter the picture with the paw prints to indicate where there is a straight line, cause right now it's a little confusing, in my opinion. --78.54.122.160 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that the editor who wrote this meant something like "in a straighter line than prints of a similar size made by other animals". In canids the middle two toes are very obviously in front of the two side toes; see e.g. [5]. I agree that the sentence could usefully be re-worded. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To capitalise or not—needs consistency

I see there's a discussion above about Thylacine vs thylacine, with apparently no resolution. I don't particularly care either way, but would probably tend to favour thylacine.

However, regardless, surely all can agree that the article needs to consistently use one or the other. At the moment it's an absolute hodge-podge—single paragraphs use a mix of upper and lower—which looks very unprofessional. I'll leave this a day or two for replies, and if no one else makes the changes beforehand, I'll go through and do it myself then (I'll check a couple of decent books I have at home to see what they do, and follow that lead, unless there's a consensus here). --jjron (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lowercase. For example, it's a dodo, not a Dodo. We don't call this a "Green Iguana," it's a green iguana. I hope a point has been taken ;) Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 01:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As this looks like the extent of the feedback - changes made. See diff --jjron (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Although it may be attested in an Australian dictionary, the pronunciation /ˈθaɪləsiːn/ is not limited to Australia. I have lived in the US all my life, have no Australian heritage, and yet that is how I naturally pronounce the word. I am going to remove "in Australia" from before that pronunciation in the first sentence, which will not deny it to Australians and yet allow that some others in the English-speaking world use it too. The fact that it is attested in any legitimate English language dictionary means that it is a recognized pronunciation, which is all that is necessary here.--Jim10701 (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Temporal range

I'm sorry, but isn't the temporal range in this article wrong? I thought that they evolved sometime in the early Miocene. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The thylacine family (Thylacinidae) first appeared in the Miocene (or even Oligocene, according to our article; don't have time to check right now). The species that survived until 1936, Thylacinus cynocephalus, did not appear until the Pliocene. Ucucha 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Last wild specimen

In 1930 Wilf Batty, a farmer, killed the last known wild thylacine in Mawbanna, in the northeast of the state. The animal, believed to have been a male, had been seen around Batty's house for several weeks.[58]

The last captive thylacine, later referred to as "Benjamin" (although its sex has never been confirmed) was captured in 1933 and sent to the Hobart Zoo where it lived for three years.

Is the first sentence saying he killed the last known wild thylacine that lived in Mawbanna or the last known wild thylacine ever? If it's saying the later surely it's wrong since "Benjamin", even if she later became a captive, was a wild thylacine for 3 years after Benjamin as killed. The thylacine killed by Wilf Batty may have been the last we know which was killed, but that's also different. Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See this is a duplicate of the discussion 2 above Nil Einne (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems fairly important and it probably deserves its own subheading in the discussion. I had a look at Robert Paddles book and also did some google searches on "Wilf Batty" and found that Wilf most likely killed the last one that was killed in the wild (in 1930). Elias Churchill captured "Benjamin" in 1933 (in the wild) but didn't kill him. I hope this makes sense. I have changed article accordingly although the grammar could probably be improved. Although Paddle's book also says "He (Churchill) snared eight adult thylacines between 1924 and 1933, two were taken alive and 6 were so badly injured by the snares that they had to be put down" --Mutley (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Vocalisations

According to the book by Robert Paddle, 4 different types of vocalisations of the Thylacine were recorded. It would be interesting to hear these and also add them to the article. --Mutley (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Aboriginal thylacine.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Aboriginal thylacine.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible post-extinction sighting

Nothing really to do with the article but a few years back I was chatting to a Greek lady in Melbourne when she mentioned that when her father was growing up in Greece in the late 1940s, a Bulgarian circus came to town which featured an animal he'd never seen before. It wasn't until he moved to Australia decades later that he realised it was a thylacine he saw. I guess it's possible that some thylacines were exported to circuses, zoos and private collections so there could be evidence for thylacines existing into the 1950s or so. --Roisterer (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Names

In the first paragraph of the article, do we really need 'Tassie tiger' and 'tiger'? For the first, seems unusual to list colloquialisms in an encyclopedia (e.g., the alligator page doesn't list 'gator'). For the second, that looks like a short form that would be understood from the context (similar to peacock, which would be understood as a butterfly, rather than a bird, in the right context). GyroMagician (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Whom tag

In the Evolution section, there is a sentence with a tag that probably doesn't need it. The sentence reads, "Species of the family Thylacinidae date back to the beginning of the Miocene; since the early 1990s, at least seven fossil species have been uncovered at Riversleigh, part of Lawn Hill National Park in northwest Queensland." I don't think there are any weasel words in there, and the tag was added by a shared IP address that has been banned at least once. The sentence already has 2 references, the second of which ([6]) contains this text: "Before Riversleigh's fossil record began to unfold, there was only one Tertiary thylacine species known, but now different thylacines have been identified from Riversleigh's Oligo-Miocene faunas (Muirhead & Archer 1990; Muirhead 1993)." Am I wrong, or does that not already cite the people who discovered the seven others? Ajstov (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 sighting in the wild

Posted to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DLL0ELg-y8&feature=share

I'm not an expert, and I am not the person who shot the footage. I'm just noting it here for others to evaluate. On the surface, it would appear that the species is not extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmargulis (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Always remember to read the comments on Youtube before making any kind of assumptions. The geeks have already figured it out. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

FAR?

An editor has suggested that this article may need to be taken through WP:FAR. Below is a copy of the editor's statement regarding this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC) I'm nominating this featured article for review because of the vast amounts of non-wikilinked filler that has been added in seven years since it was promoted (December 2006). Also, most of the original content has been edited. Th4n3r (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by filler? You think the material is useless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.47.205 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

From the WP:FAR page - "Raise issues at article Talk:

In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article."

OK go ahead but could you try and be as specific as possible. Please point out the filler and then we can edit it and informally improve the article as above. It makes it easier if you can point out where the issues are. --Mutley (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If specific issues are pointed out, I have some books in handy that could fill out the gaps. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Cultural References

William Gibson’s novel The Peripheral features a near future in which the character Lev Zubov has two pet thylacines; products of “competing schools of thylacinery”, featuring warring genomes tweaked with Tasmanian Devil DNA. --Calyxicon (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Are the thylacines crucial to or are otherwise prominent in the plot? And do these thylacines influence popular perception of thylacines? That, and given as how the article about Gibson's novel does not mention thylacines, then it is of no point to mention the novel in this article.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Use in Mythology

If the thylacine was known by Australian Aborigines, could it mean that the thylacine is featured in mythology? If it is, and you find information about it, provide that information. --The only warrah left (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thylacine rock art

About the aboriginal rock art: how is it known that that's actually a thylacine? To my eyes it more closely resembles another animal entirely. There are perhaps multiple animals that painting could represent, such as the numbat, which is also native to Australia. http://www.konicaminolta.com/kids/endangered_animals/library/field/img/banded-anteater_img01-l.jpg

So in conclusion, perhaps the image should be removed or have its caption changed. Thoughts?

Derwos (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, all that matters is what the sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

Choya295 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Discovery and Taxonomy" section contains errors

"Several studies support the thylacine as being a basal member of the Dasyuromorphia and the Tasmanian devil as its closest living relative. However, research published in Genome Research in January 2009 suggests the numbat may be more basal than the devil and more closely related to the thylacine. The resulting cladogram follows below:"

The Myrmecobiidae (numbat) and Dasyuridae (quoll, devil, antechinus, etc) families are equally the closest living relatives to the Thylacine. Being a basal member of a group does not make it more closely related to something outside the group, this is just plain wrong. The Genome Research article mentioned does show the numbat is most basal, but does not make it more closely related. There is now a dated phylogeny also (3 mitochondrial genes from the thylacine data published in 2009 were used), produced by Westerman et al. in 2012: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22100729

Also, the cladogram indicates that Dasyurus is the Tasmanian Devil, which is incorrect.

Does this page really still need semi-protection? I can't edit it as I just created this account and wikipedia won't let me for 4 days and 10 edits - I'll have forgotten by then.

Grahamgower (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems he has a point, I'll see if I can figure out what went wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Thylacine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume1b/20-ind.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://animal.discovery.com/news/afp/20031020/thylacine.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/issues/thylacine_picture_worth.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/eh/11.1/boyce.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ts-day/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121008035435/http://animal.discovery.com/news/afp/20031020/thylacine.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120905080540/http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/issues/thylacine_picture_worth.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20090918111654/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/eh/11.1/boyce.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090709141827/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ts-day/index.html

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090108143156/http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume1b/20-ind.pdf

 NeoGeneric 💬  10:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2016

Can the details a book I have written please be added in the 'Further Reading' section. The following are the details I would like to be added: 'Heath, A.R. (2015) Thylacine: Confirming Tasmanian Tigers Still Live. Vivid Publishing. ISBN 9781925209402.' Thanks a lot. Alan Richard Heath. Alan R. Heath (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not for advertising or self-promotion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alan R. Heath:, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more understanding about this.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)