New finds reveal more about Thylacoleo

Adam Khor

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/scratch-marks-in-a-wa-cave-show-the-drop-bear-thylacoleo-carnifex-could-climb-particularly-well/news-story/5f6af36d077aa792e55239c41a814ecd

Linnaeus

In the illustration, a gallant Thylacoleo seems to be asking a rather shy Sthenurus: "May I have this dance?"

Perhaps prehistoric marsupials did not attack each other so frequently. Perhaps they instinctively realized how precarious were their respective lives, how precious the fragile infants they carried in their pouches. I hope that these magnificent Australian species would have preferred "walzing Matilda" to biting and kicking each other in a disgraceful way.;)

Adam Khor

Linnaeus wrote: »

Perhaps prehistoric marsupials did not attack each other so frequently.Perhaps they instinctively realized how precarious were their respective lives, how precious the fragile infants they carried in their pouches. I hope that these magnificent Australian species would have preferred "walzing Matilda" to biting and kicking each other in a disgraceful way.;)

I fail to see how a predator like Thylacoleo would've survived at all if it concerned itself with sentimental matters such as these. By necessity, it had to kill to survive, and it most likely went for the weak and the young, like most other predators, as frequently as needed to appease its hunger.

The way of nature may seem cruel and unnoble to some but there's always logic behind it; consider female kangaroos (which are herbivores and don´t even have a killing instinct per se). When chased by a predator (say, a pack of dingoes), the kangaroo will forcefully eject its baby out of the pouch, effectively sacrificing it to its attackers. Horrible? Maybe, but it makes sense; if the dingoes catch the mother, both she and her baby are doomed, whereas if the mother survives, she can have another baby eventually and hopefully rear it to adulthood, so it's not a total loss.

There's nothing disgraceful about figthing for survival, even if it involves biting and kicking.

Rubecula

Reminds me of a bad tempered beaver in some ways

Linnaeus

My remark about Thylacoleo's waltz was intended as a jest...But my concern about "sympathy" among animal species should be taken seriously.

Yes, I am a sentimentalist. Why deny it? Some people may claim that beasts are just beastly; but I cannot accept this point of view. Animals are not just dumb, bloodthirsty, eternally famished brutes. Although lower down on the scale of intelligence than we are, at least the more advanced orders in general do have a kind of morality of their own. I was saddened to hear from you about the behaviour of mother kangaroos; this is all the more lamentable, considering that many other female mammals willingly sacrifice their lives for their offspring. Of course, animals have an inborn impulse to nourish themselves, to survive. But there is more to them than just that. We have previously discussed various creatures which adopt orphans from other species and tenderly care for them, in a most admirable solidarity. The English naturalist Gerald Durrell has cited various cases of the most unlikely friendships among wild animals. It seems to me that in spite of their essentially amoral, opportunistic natures, many predators do recognize the value of life, even in classes and orders distinct from their own. It is an undeniable fact that baby animals, from species considered to be "natural enemies", when raised together often dwell together in the most perfect harmony.