|
It has been suggested that in the early years of the 20th century, wildlife
conservationists may have transplanted a number of thylacines from Tasmania
to the Australian mainland's southern coast, although there is apparently
no solid evidence to support this theory. If true however, once such
area of introduction may have been Wilson's
Promontory, at the southernmost point of Victoria, from which
many alleged thylacine sightings have been reported. In the same
aforementioned email from the author of "Magnificent Survivor",
he writes:
"If it
is true that thylacines are on Wilson's Promontory, or have been there
in recent times, then it seems logical that this was most likely due to
translocation from Tasmania. This is the closest pocket of wilderness
to Tasmania, and the vegetation there is the same as the coastal Tasmanian
heath which the species clearly thrived in. Wilson's Promontory is
also relatively isolated/cut off by farmland, and close to Melbourne, so
any introductions could be loosely monitored. It seems to me that
if a group intended to release thylacines on the mainland then they would
choose Wilson's Promontory as the location. There are some good sighting
reports from Wilson's Promontory, but I have flown over it many times,
and there does not appear to be enough area for a sustainable thylacine
population.
If thylacines
exist in South Australia, then one explanation is that a remnant
group has survived from the original mainland stock. I understand
that most suggestions of thylacine come from the northern end of the Flinders
Ranges. This has always been an extremely isolated region - a relatively
harsh environment for introduced animals. It is possible, or even
probable that the effect of dingoes has been lower in that region.
This may have allowed a remnant population of thylacines to persist there.
It is perceived as impossible for mainland thylacines to have remained
"hidden" for the 200 year period of European settlement in South Australia.
However, I have no sympathy for that argument since the species has remained
equally hidden for 70 years in the more populated area of Tasmania.
It may
be that Tasmanian thylacines were translocated to the Flinders Ranges,
but if so, then I would expect that to happen closest to Adelaide, not
in the salt lakes region 1000 km away. Suggestions of thylacine in
Aboriginal culture are consistent with a remnant population from the original
mainland stock."
A profusion of "thylacine"
sightings occurred in 1967 and 1968 in South Australia. According
to Harris (1968), 100 people maintained that they had seen a thylacine
at 35 different places between the Coorong and Nelson, Victoria, but particularly
in the Beachport-Millicent area. A number of the sightings are suggestive
of the thylacine. They regard dog-like creatures having a striped
body and a tapering tail rather like a kangaroo's. One of the observers
was a National Park Keeper, and another made a sketch which looked strikingly
like a thylacine. Harris's article included a photo of a dog-like
animal with broad, white stripes on the forequarters. This would
rule out a thylacine, and since the hindquarters were totally white, the
stripes were likely the result of a lighting effect. Smith (1982)
mentions having once seen this same photo (shown below) in an unidentified
press cutting. It was taken by Miss Rilla Martin in 1964 in a completely
different area (near Goroke, in western Victoria). The subject of
the photo is called the "Ozenkadnook Tiger".
.
| The
famous photograph taken by Rilla Martin in 1964 of an unidentified animal
(known as the "Ozenkadnook Tiger") near Goroke, western Victoria.
The pattern of the markings is not congruous with that of the thylacine,
and may actually be the result of an unusual natural lighting effect.
If the photo does indeed depict a real animal, but not a thylacine, what
exactly is it? Close examination shows that this version of the photo
has quite likely been manipulated somewhat (especially the animal's head),
perhaps by the press at the time that it was originally published.
I am unable to offer any solid personal opinion of what this photo actually
depicts, as much of the form of the animal is simply too indistinct or
obscured by surrounding vegetation. |
One perplexing account
is that of S. J. Paramonov (1968), who in 1949 witnessed a dog-like animal
on the Bourke-Wanaaring Road in New South Wales which "was uniformly grey-brown,
with short hairs; the strange tail, extremely wide at the base, seemed
to be a continuation of the hind quarters; the hind leg was strongly marked
with almost horizontal stripes", that is, the hindquarters were like a
thylacine's but the markings were not. "The most remarkable feature
was the strange manner of running: although the animal was swinging regularly
sideways, the hind part of the body made a kind of bobbing, up and down
movement; the impression was as if the animal was drunk." Paramonov
made notes at the time, but was reluctant to publish them until after the
discovery of the mummy
from Thylacine Hole was made public. His observations
were made at a distance of 15-20 metres (approx. 49-65½
ft.), in full daylight. The bleak environment in which the sighting
occurred however, is certainly not a place were one would expect to encounter
a thylacine.
In 1976-1977, a report
was made of a alleged group of eight thylacines, including a female with
pouch young, from an area near the New South Wales-Victorian border.
The actual locality was not revealed, but a number of photographs were
made available, one of which was published in the daily press (Anon. 1977a).
Regarding this photo, Smith (1996) comments, "When I first saw the 1977
photograph, I was impressed - but not anymore. The ears are too pointed
for a thylacine, and the snout too short and pointed, almost foxy.
From the viewing angle, it is not clear if the hindquarters are tapered,
but (and it might be just the bad reproduction) the stripes look like they
were painted on the negative. Also, thylacines were not known to
be pack animals".
Kolig (1973) states
that the Wolmadjeri people of the Southern Kimberleys have a word,
waldagi,
for a dog-like creature which is very different from the dingo (moran)
and the domestic dog (gunjar). It was said that it was definitely
not a "spirit creature", and Kolig theorized that it may possibly be the
thylacine. |
