Discussion in 'General Zoo Discussion' started by CZJimmy, 17 Mar 2008.
What are the chances some kouprey rafted over on floating vegetation....
Kalimantan is Borneo not New Guinea or Flores, so that would be unnecessary.
did some more searching in old dutch newspapers and animal-magazines but still.... nothing about this strange animal - I however guess its a hybrid of Banteng x domestic cattle.
A couple of pages back (page #23) there was some discussion about the claim of yeti being a hybrid polar bear x brown bear.
A new crop of articles have come out about a study of nine different yeti specimens (including fur, bones, and "mummified specimens") which have been DNA tested and shown to be bears of various species (obviously none of them hybrids with polar bears!) and one being a stuffed "yeti" made of bear fur and dog teeth.
Here's one from the Guardian: DNA sampling exposes nine 'yeti specimens' as eight bears and a dog
My problem with this is that it's like analysing the contents of some reliquary somewhere and saying that the basis of one of our religious beliefs was started by whatever the contents were. They're not, like the yeti, they aren't based on sightings they're based on belief. And it's not belief as in accepting the existence of an unknown animal, it's a cultural/spiritual/religious thing. I think this is trying to shoe horn a Western explanation on a Western misappropriation of another culture's beliefs, which we don't bother to take account of.
I thought this informative, but questionable in parts. In East Asian thought, the dehominisation motif can mean a wildman is a bandit or an ethnic foreigner, or in the emic, that a manlike creature was formerly human. Almas folklore resembles that about bandit abductors much moreso than those about wild animals or supernatural aggressors. And yes, the medicinal use of human body parts was legitimate in Tibet and nearby.
The author seems to distinguish between wildmen that are bears and wildmen that were not corporeal (in his view, the original meaning of an almas), and western confusion is attributed to western observers rather than a blurring of humans and similar animals in Oriental culture. But then there is the question of etymology, and the arimaspean connection of Heaney seems strong. I don't think the word, at least as regards a physical entity, meant a devil. (I am linking Heaney for reference, not to endorse his entire paper.)
ORA Article: "Who were the Arimaspeans" - uuid:5a72cd9a-26ca-4b26-ad21-b0fc71480f73
All the same, Svanberg's compiled an overdue ethnological summary of Central Asian hominoids. This is very useful because believer-type texts spread misinfo that he helps to clear up.
Article about the Beast of Bodmin :
Is there a Beast of Bodmin? All the evidence for and against
The "Tatanoola Tiger" was supposedly a Bengal Tiger that escaped from a travelling circus. Then a local shot and killed the beast that turned out to be a Eurasian Wolf. Does anybody have a clue about why on Earth a Wolf was living wild in Tatanoola?
The tale of the Tantanoola tiger
I dunno. That stuffed wolf looks suspiciously unlike a wolf.
Yes but it doesn't look overly like a dingo eithier, but maybe that's just due to bad taxidermy.
I reckon it's most likely a dingo x dog hybrid.
I found the newspaper article of the time.
Several websites I just had a quick look at said it had been identified as "an Assyrian wolf". Wikipedia has it as "Arabian wolf". Then there are the articles calling it a "Siberian wolf" or "Russian wolf" or "Northern Russian wolf".
The newspaper article actually says "a Syrian wolf" - an identification which was arrived at by some guy having "studied his books".
THE TANTANOOLA TIGER. - SHOT BY MR. T. DONOVAN, DECLARED TO BE A WOLF. - Border Watch (Mount Gambier, SA : 1861 - 1954) - 24 Aug 1895
I think it's a dog.
It looks like a badly stuffed dingo to me.
Its so old and faded and badly mounted it could be anything- the bushy tail however does look rather wolf-like.
Considering the short fur on the rest of the body, that tail looks very out of place. It wouldn't surprise me if it was from another animal altogether. (It reminds me a bit of the tail on those raccoon skin hats).
If there are a lot of claims for a cryptid I'll believe it. However, if there are barely any reports then I won't believe it. Good examples are Bigfoot/Gigantopithecus and the Loch Ness Monster. Bigfoots could be descendants of Gigantopithecus and the Loch Ness Monster is probably a Plesiosaur that got trapped in Loch Ness when waters receded in Scotland due to climate change. Cryptids like Mothman, Lizardman & the Jersey Devil all seem so fake to me. Is anybody here on ZooChat a fan of History Channel's Monster Quest (2007-2010)? Its such a great show! It really gets you thinking about things.
That is a terrible basis for assessing truths. And, in any case, there were lots of claims for Mothman and the Jersey Devil. Why do you not believe them?
To me it just doesn't seem very realistic. That's all.
But a plesiosaur in Loch Ness does? Bigfoot descended from intercontinental-migrating Gigantopithecus does?
Neither seem even remotely realistic to me.
They aren't. The idea of Gigantopithecus migrating across the Berring Land Bridge is a complete non starter.
Personally, I am trying to prove the existence of big cats in Australia and have set up a website whereby people can report their big cat sightings. There have been sightings in Australia for well over a hundred years.
Not all reports will be big cat, but there are numerous sightings received that could only be put down to being a big cat of some description (most likely black leopard / jaguar or tawny coloured mountain lion).
Time will tell, but it is a goal of mine to find definitive proof of these cats over the next 12 months.
Separate names with a comma.