From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Thylacine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 29, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
December 2, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


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. Yomanganitalk 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. Yomanganitalk 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. Yomanganitalk 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. Yomanganitalk 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....[edit]

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).
  • 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.[1]

- 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[edit]

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

Minor Edit: Clarification[edit]

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]

{{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 (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)


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. -- (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. [1]. I agree that the sentence could usefully be re-worded. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Last wild specimen[edit]

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)

To capitalise or not—needs consistency[edit]

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)


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[edit]

I'm sorry, but isn't the temporal range in this article wrong? I thought that they evolved sometime in the early Miocene. (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)


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[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg 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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

In the Evolution section, there is a sentence with a [according to whom?] 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[by whom?] 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 ([2]) 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)

David Fleay said the last Thylacine was a male[edit]

Should it be noted that David Fleay (the man who filmed and photographed the last captive Thylacine) said that the last individual was a male? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetnicknamehere (talkcontribs) 10:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The gender of Benjamin is reported inconsistently. Para 1 of "Benjamin and searches" states "Darby also appears to be the source for the claim that the last thylacine was a male; photographic evidence suggests it was female.[77]" Yet in the next para we read: "In 2011, detailed examination of a single frame from the motion film footage confirmed that the thylacine was male." This is inconsistent and should be corrected, whichever is correct (both are sourced).

-- (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

2012 sighting in the wild[edit]

Posted to YouTube:

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Crash Bandicoot?[edit]

Should I add that Tiny the Tiger from the crash bandicoot video game series is a thyclaine in the cultural references section? (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so; it doesn't seem very noteworthy. For some good guidelines, see: WP:POPCULTURE, WP:N, and WP:V. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


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 (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)

Still alive?[edit]

On this website ( says that the Tasmanian tiger is still alive, but is it true because my friend said not enough proof? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your friend is right to be sceptical, there is no hard evidence that the thylacine survives to the present day. The article notes that the study was done by the Centre for Fortean Zoology which is not a formal academic body. Mountaincirque 09:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)there is a home vidio of one in 2012 cold be fake but looks pretty real quite promising!

Cultural References[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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[edit]

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

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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[edit]

"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:

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)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Grammar error?[edit]

The last sentence of the 3rd paragraph says "Despite its official classification as extinct, sightings are still reported, though none has been conclusively proven." I believe this is a grammar error, and that the sentence should read as follows:

Despite its official classification as extinct, sightings are still reported, though none have been conclusively proven.

The sightings have not been proven, rather than the sightings has not been proven. Can anybody confirm/correct this?

2600:E000:54:139:9AEE:CBFF:FE03:5E93 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

'None' means 'not one'. Therefore the singular is correct. Akld guy (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2016[edit]

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)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Edit suggestion[edit]

This text:

"per head. (Current value today, after inflation and introduction of decimal currency: $132.29) for"

should be changed to read

"per head (the equivalent of £100 or more today) for"

This page explains why "$132.29" is far more precise than it ought to be. (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Apokryltaros. There's still a stray period in there, though. (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

New video[edit]

‘Extinct’ Tasmanian Tiger caught on camera? (VIDEO) - - 17 September 2016 The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The hind feet (from heel to toes) look way too long in comparison. Probably just a dog. Anyway, "with its “prehistoric looking head” catching the woman’s attention." So before 1936 is prehistory now?FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The hind feet are "dog," yet the gait is in no way dog. More like the "gamboling" of a calf or lamb: up-down-up-down. It never trots like a canid does.-- (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
If the hind feet are those of a dog, it is not a thylacine. Gaits can be affected by a million things. The proportions of limbs not. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Another notable movie + game[edit]

Heck someone even included the game's opening shot the moment you boot it up. -- (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability--Mr Fink (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No longer extinct[edit]

The species status needs to be changed. The Thylacine is no longer considered extinct. They have been found. Someone should edit the page. Please edit this. This information is very important. And people need to know. -A.E.M. 2/2/2017<ref><ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:78C3:3200:E02D:4561:B6CF:84E (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The researchers are investigating proof of existence - the study itself is not proof that the species is not extinct.
"A team of investigators from the Centre for Fortean Zoology, which operates from a small farmhouse in north Devon, is currently in Tasmania hunting down clues to prove the thylacine, commonly known as the Tassie tiger, still exists."
Regards  NeoGeneric 💬  01:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has declared the Thylacine extinct. According to the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, the Thylacine is listed on their Threatened Species list, and is "presumed extinct": "Listed as presumed extinct under both the Federal and State Threatened Species Protection Acts. This means thylacine have not been officially sighted in the wild or captivity for at least 50 years." I hope this clarifies the situation. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The IUCN Red List says it is extinct, and that is the generally recognized international authority. No one has provided proof otherwise. There have been no verified road kills or other carcasses recovered, and no adequate-quality videos or photographs. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
"Presumed extinct" may be a semantic remnant of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 which classified threatened species as endangered, vulnerable or presumed extinct. It has since been repealed and threatened species are categorised as extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered etc. Furthermore, the Threatened Species Kit (2003) which you have linked to is out of date, as noted by the disclaimer, which may be why it uses this old legislative terminology.  NeoGeneric 💬  01:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Based on the evidence provided, that is the official position of the Government of Tasmania. Your comments on how that arose borders on personal conjecture. All that I ask is that people keep an open mind regarding its extinction/non-extinction. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"Official position of the Govt of Tasmania"? - you have referenced an outdated resource on the Tas Parks website "specifically designed for school students". I would not call that official. If you want an authoritative answer for the official position of the Govt of Tas, I would suggest the Natural Values Atlas. As I already have a login, to save you and others from having to register for access, here are some of the species details for Thylacinus cynocephalus:
  • Threatened?: Yes
  • State Schedule: extinct
  • National Schedule: Extinct
  • Conservation Significance?: No
  • Biogeographic Origin: Endemic, considered extinct in Tasmania
But I feel this is all an argument on the semantics of "extinction" - something that was known to exist, but can no longer be found. I wish any researchers best of luck in search of the Thylacine, because it is the sum of good evidence which reinforces the idea that something exists, and the lack of which reinforces the idea it can no longer be found. This is the somewhat fundamental idea behind science.  NeoGeneric 💬  05:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Extinction from mainland Australia[edit]

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

The "indigenous" should be changed considering context, humans as a species are only native to Africa. Seems oxymoronic to regard humans as native but not dingoes. Please change to "Australian Aboriginals". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)