The critics

Thank you to those who corresponded with me privately regarding this possible thylacine footprint, and also to the constructive criticism provided at the German-language website kryptozoologie-online.de where critic Vogel Greif remarked (roughly translated):

"It is clearly Canis lupus ... the foot pad is clearly extended as WLMD reports, but in length, and not in breadth as for Thylacinus cynocephalus. On further examination of the WLMD website it can be seen that this doubtful interpretation [of this print belonging to a thylacine] comes from an all-too optimistic tendency which can be seen throughout the site."

I would like to respond to the above criticism, but only briefly as I would also like to return to the analysis of this footprint.

With all analyses on this site I begin with the premise that the observer is genuinely reporting their interpretation of events. This means I start with questions like "If this were a genuine thylacine footprint, then I would expect XYZ to follow..." Sometimes this nature of investigation may make it appear that by default I first accept all evidence as genuine until proven otherwise, but this is not the case.

Secondly, the prime goal for this first analysis was to disseminate the information and (hopefully) to draw in new information. For the criticisms I am grateful. Unfortunately, I write these analyses on a voluntary basis and as such I need to balance the time spent against other commitments. Believe it or not, as brief as the previous analysis was, it took over 2 hours to prepare. I was faced with the choice - present the information as it stood, or withhold it until I could do a critical comparison with dog prints - which may not have been for weeks or even months.

Thirdly, I hear your point about an optimistic tendency throughout most articles. I agree there are some articles on this site in which I have entertained the possibility of evidence for the thylacine beyond what that evidence probably merits. Again, beginning with the premise "if this were genuine..." doesn't help. I would like to review the site and re-organise the information, presenting analyses and results far more concisely, and with less ambiguity. While I have the best intent, again time may not permit for quite a while.

And now... back to the print...

Not a thylacine after all?

Opinions on this print have been divided - some believing it clearly shows a thylacine and can be nothing else; others stating it is very obviously a dog.

Let's continue with a direct comparison between Moeller's dog prints and the WA cast.

Firstly, we create some overlays based on Moeller's examples (in Der Beutelwolf, 1997, p 27). The overlays have a black outline and yellow fill (shading) which has been made 40% transparent. Hence the final mustard colouration is due to the black tint of the original illustration showing through the yellow. These have been enlarged x2 here.

Comparison with Moeller's dog prints

Here the overlays have been placed onto the WA cast, with transparency increased to 80% so that the detail of the cast can be clearly seen. The overlay has been resized to approximately match the cast.

The dog overlay has been used in image 'A'. The size of the toe pads on the cast relative to the metatarsal pad is consistent with the dog print. The shape of the metatarsal pad, that being approximately triangular, also matches the dog print. The position of the toe pads relative to each other and relative to the metatarsal pad is consistent with a dog print. The presence and size of the claws relative to the toe pads is consistent with a dog print.

In image 'B' the thylacine overlay has been used. The overlay was resized so that the metatarsal pad approximately matches that of the cast. It can be seen that the toe pads of the thylacine overlay are proportionally smaller than those on the dog overlay. Comparing this with the cast, it is clear that the cast's toe pads are both relatively larger and more broadly spread than those of a thylacine.

As with the dog overlay, claws are present on the thylacine overlay; however these are proportionally smaller on the thylacine overlay than on the cast.

In image 'C' the thylacine overlay has been enlarged so that the toe pads approximately match the toe pads of the cast. It can be seen that the claws are still proportionally smaller on the overlay than on the cast. More significantly, and as Vogel Greif pointed out, the breadth of the thylacine overlay is now significantly wider than the cast.

Image 'D' shows the cast without any overlay.

Conclusion

Regardless of the length of the foot pad in the cast, the shape, proportions and layout of the metatarsal and toe pads clearly demonstrates this to be a dog print.

I still invite the cast's owner to assist with the following questions:

1. When was the print cast?
2. Where was the print cast?
3. What was the context of the print (i.e. on what substrate? how moist was the substrate?)
4. Were other prints observed?
5. If so, was a record made of the gait (the layout of the prints, correlated to the feet which made them - i.e. left/right; fore/hind)?
6. Were other casts made?
7. Were photographs, video or audio recorded?
8. How many people observed the print prior to casting?
9. Was the print immediately cast upon discovery, or did time elapse with the observer(s) leaving the location before returning to create the cast?
10. What motivated the observer(s) to make the cast?
11. What drew the attention of the observer(s) to the cast in the first place?
12. What technique was used in creating the cast?

Re: Posted on: 2010-07-10 00:04:28   By: myqq
chi flat iron ghd nfl jerseys jordan shoes ghd straightener ugg boots christian louboutin p90x ugg ed hardy ghd ghd straighteners ghd hair straightners ghd hair straighteners uk ghd pink limited edition ghd precious ghd purple ghd leopard ghd gold ghd gold styler ghd dark ghd dark flat iron ghd mk4 p90x reviews