Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

This board is open for all matters and discussions pertaining to the Australian Yowie. Please keep on topic in this forum.
donjoman
Bronze Status
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by donjoman » Tue May 07, 2013 12:55 am

I am not convinced on the marsupial front, look at the relative intelligence and behaviour (stories of 'playing' with bushwalkers etc). Yowies track, hunt.. they are closer to us than we think.

Interesting trailer... "Quinkin' never really made it anywhere though http://vimeo.com/13642208

User avatar
NotSoBigFoot
Silver Status
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:30 am
Position: Believer
Location: South Brisbane, QLD

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by NotSoBigFoot » Tue May 07, 2013 7:09 am

I don't mean to come across on a negative front, however why is it that humans need to categorize everything?

This may seem a little left field, and I am not saying I believe this but just putting out there as food for thought - however in relation to mermaids there is an "aquatic ape" theory... thousands of years of evolution lead a species of Neanderthal to adapt to living in the sea. Now like I said, I don't necessarily believe in this however it is food for thought. Additionally just as a matter of interest - there is a species of whale (can't remember which one) which is actually not related directly to evolving from any other species of whale, but rather evolved from a wolf-like creature over millions of years... in fact all species owe their existence to single celled organisms. The same bones we have in our inner ear that don't really serve a purpose anymore are found in fish and form part of their gill function structure. In theory could we all have the blueprints embedded in our DNA to evolve to any situation our species is faced with over an extended period of time?

All these categorizations - are they really necessary? We have categorized animals as we have seen them in the last 200 years (scientifically)... Does that mean that in a couple of hundred years more there won't be new categories of animals that have been discovered? I believe at the end of the day we are all tarred with the same brush and came from the same source, where environment has sparked us to evolve in certain ways. Remember - a banana is a 97% DNA match to a human... yet tree's aren't a category of fauna, but rather flora...

Cheers,

SA
WE ARE NOT ALONE....

User avatar
Dion
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:44 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Passing through the ethereal

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Dion » Tue May 07, 2013 9:30 am

Hi all I thought I would jump in here. I don’t post that often these days but considering that this is an interesting topic I thought I would give my opinion.

Personally I do not believe in the Marsupial hypothesis there are a number of reasons why which I will specify some below.

Although I applaud anyone who has the convictions to come out and give their own theory as to what they are or may be no matter how absurd they may be to others. That takes a great deal of guts; I commend anyone to think outside the box because really we do not know.

General rule of thumb is that most believe them to be a “animal or primate”, how many times I have heard people call them animals, and I find that kind of lacklustre attempt to specify something as an animal that we have no evidence of quite amusing.

They are far from being any kind of animal far too intelligent.

There are a number of reasons why I believe them not to be Marsupial, here in Australia one might get away with such a theory having a high percentage of Marsupials, but I am afraid sightings of these, shall I say these “entities” (as I don’t believe we can categorically classify anything here), appear all over the world.

If we were to call them Marsupial there are some flaws in this design/theory. Considering that North America has only one Marsupial that being the Opossum to me there are some things missing in such a theory, that being the similarities of both Yowie and Sasquatch/Bigfoot. To call one a Marsupial such as our Australian Yowie and then to call the Sasquatch/Bigfoot some kind of possible primate is treading ground that is rocky, their traits and similarities cannot be split IMO. No one is going to call Sasquatch/Bigfoot a Marsupial, here in Australia sure there is room for such a Marsupial theory but it doesn’t stack up once the traits and similarities are taken into account with the same entities being seen though out the world.

The above would be my main concern with a Marsupial theory.

Hope this is of some benifit.
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” - Nikola Tesla

User formally known as chewy

Neil Frost

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Neil Frost » Tue May 07, 2013 5:04 pm

donjoman wrote:I am not convinced on the marsupial front, look at the relative intelligence and behaviour (stories of 'playing' with bushwalkers etc). Yowies track, hunt.. they are closer to us than we think.

Interesting trailer... "Quinkin' never really made it anywhere though http://vimeo.com/13642208
G’day Donjoman,

I agree that our hominoids are intelligent but they are not towering intellects. Intelligence is a byproduct of bipedalism. Having two free hands allows for the potential to develop and use tools. Tools increase food gathering and hunting efficiency, which improves our diet and nutrition, leading towards a larger brian (our hominoids only use simple, unrefined tools). Another example of convergence is the Dromaeosaurus, which was the most intelligent, bipedal dinosaur. Crows are also an interesting example.

Through our interactions, Ian and I estimated Fatfoot’s development to be roughly equivalent to a human child. She understood cause and effect; could recognise cameras, torches, flash guns (because she would run away from them on recognition); enjoyed a variety of games and; more. On the other hand, Fatfoot’s real intelligence was perhaps differently expressed through her hunting and stealth abilities, outside of our predefined set of skills. Also, our hominoids do not produce or control fire - thankfully. On the human evolutionary scale, this would place them somewhere below Homo Erectus. However, for a number of reasons, they can not belong to the Homo lineage. For example, night vision is not a hominid or pongid biological trait. In fact, our night vision hominoids have more in common with possums (a common, suggested misidentification that skeptics frequently refer to) and kangaroos. The biology speaks for itself! Though, I could still be wrong!

Interesting trailer. Thanks.

Neil

Neil Frost

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Neil Frost » Tue May 07, 2013 7:38 pm

G’day Notsobigfoot,

We categorize everything because that is the scientific method which is better than guess work.

I have read The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (Morgan; 1997). I found the book interesting and consequentially contacted Elaine Morgan to ask her some specific questions because of the association of our hairy ones with water.

APH.jpg

Some interesting quotes included: “before five million years ago - the ancestors of the hominids passed through a stage of a semi-aquatic existence before returning to a predominantly terrestrial lifestyle” (Morgan; 1997: 19). “The Aquatic Ape hypothesis suggests that the events which diverted our own ancestors along an unusual evolutionary path had something to do with water” (Morgan; 1997: 21).

The process of exchanging emails with the author was, as usual, very slow and cautious, simply because as everyone knows, there is no easy way to introduce the topic or use the “Y” word without seeming to be barking mad. Anyway, to my surprise she was very helpful and also very pleased to discuss this seemingly insane topic with a madman. As it turned out, her theory had been heavily criticized / disproved and she no longer was comfortable supporting it. However, she was interested in the exchange of information and it was a pleasant experience that I think we both enjoyed.

Another interesting set of quotes from her book were, “To begin with, running on two legs is slower than running on four” (Morgan; 1997: 45). “Secondly, running on two legs is energetically very expensive. Compared with average quadrupeds of the same size, we expend roughly twice as much energy as they do in running the same distance” (Morgan; 1997: 46). “David R. Carrier discussed this ‘energetic paradox’ in 1984. The energetic cost of transport (oxygen consumption per unit body mass per unit distance travelled) for running humans is relatively high in comparison with that for other mammals and running birds. Early comparative studies show that a mammal the size of a man should consume roughly 0.10 ml. of oxygen per gram body mass per kilometre travelled (Taylor Schmidt-Nielsen and Raab, 1970) but the measured value for a man is over twice this amount (0.212)” (Morgan, 1997: 46). Please compare this oxygen consumption with kangaroos outlined above.

This should go some way towards explaining why dooligahl sometimes drop to all fours when running. But why should it be necessary? It is a more efficient method of locomotion for quadrapeds and (I would argue) adaptive long armed bipeds. However and again, clearly this is not a Homo trait and this genus should be permanently eliminated from the list of suspects.

Interestingly, this behaviour is a characteristic of apes! However, dooligahl are faster on two legs, which is a dilemma that also begs the questions, why and how? From experience, when quadapedal locomotion was observed in dooligahl, the why answer was a deliberate attempt to conceal the body profile by travelling below the surrounding scrub. The how answer to dooligahl being faster bipeds, compared to quadrapeds, is based upon their macropodoid biology, where their long leg tendons store the energy of landing for rebound, resulting in greater efficiency and their lower oxygen consumption compared to placentals - as outlined in detail previously. Therefore, dooligahl are not apes either!

You are correct when you suggest that the clues to our origin are found in our ancestry. Thanks.

Neil
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Bandit
Approved Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 11:29 am
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Kungala nsw

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Bandit » Tue May 07, 2013 8:49 pm

I may be simply using a categorical process Neil but my daughters boy friend appears to be on the same intel plane as your Fat Foot may be we could introduce them LOL ! so being serious as human intelligence is bestowed upon individuals in varying quantities other wise I would be a brain surgeon and not just a lowly technician .

Given this is it not plausible that there may be more clever hominids in your area than the one that you have most contact with perhaps this is the reason Fat Foot has allowed her self to come into such close proximity to humans at all .

Back to the original question I would say Primate not due any scientific theory , just a suspicious hunch based on the many reports that have been documented on this site and elsewhere .

BANDIT

User avatar
Ray Doherty
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 804
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:26 am
Position: Researcher
Facebook Profile Page: www.facebook.com/theaustralianyowieproject
Location: North Brisbane

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Ray Doherty » Wed May 08, 2013 11:32 am

Here is my theory 'Primate' Why? Because everything I have seen, found or experienced in my view can only be matched to similar to primate behaviour. It is not the same behaviour per say, it is similar. In my research to date I have discovered the new school of though t on relic apes such G Gigiantus, G Blacki and Sivapithecus all evovled in the Asian region, most noteably modern day Thailand and Northern India completely separately from African Apes and away from the Human Hominid line. These are primates just very very different.

We know, Sivapithecus is the forerunner to the Orangutan, in fact Otans have been around for millions of years, and even though alot of our witness reports tell us the it looks like a giant bipedal gorilla (which fits the blacki description) the bahviour and vocals I have heard and witnesses, to me, seems more closely aligned with the Orangutan

Scienctists now beleive that the mix of these gene pools could have given rise to other forms of relic ape not previously known, however I beleive the Yowie can be broken down in two area's, old world Yowie - created and living in Asia and Indonesia and modern Yowie, the intelligent highly adapted bipedal primate that lives in the Australian bush. I beleive the Junjudee is of this line as well.

Of course, I have no proof of this, it is only a theory and I am not an Anthropologist, I have included a diagram I did to demonstrate the point, but alas, until more bodies of relica apes with usable DNA can be obtained then we will never know for sure

Cheers

Ray
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
'I want to believe'

User avatar
NotSoBigFoot
Silver Status
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:30 am
Position: Believer
Location: South Brisbane, QLD

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by NotSoBigFoot » Thu May 09, 2013 6:21 pm

Thanks for the feedback Neil. According to my theories it would appear there are other like minded souls.
WE ARE NOT ALONE....

Neil Frost

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Neil Frost » Thu May 09, 2013 6:46 pm

G’day Dion,
Although I applaud anyone who has the convictions to come out and give their own theory as to what they are or may be no matter how absurd they may be to others. That takes a great deal of guts; I commend anyone to think outside the box because really we do not know.
Thanks Dion but I am only putting forward a theory (as you do also), the purpose of which is to present a hypothesis based upon available evidence for discussion and critical analysis. Any objections to the hypothesis should provide counter evidence for discussion. There is nothing personal about it (other than banter), unless someone becomes too attached to their hypothesis or research and consequently becomes blinded by it. This happens in academia when lengthy careers suddenly implode due to new discoveries! The problem here is that some people “take possession” of an idea or discovery, to the exclusion of all others. For example, an infamous “researcher” from Glenn Innes has the habit of hijacking other people’s work and presenting it as his own! One case being the spurious claim that he discovered yowie beds before Major Les Hiddens and others. However, my outlook on this has always been that our indigenous brothers have a 50,000 year head start on any claims of this nature. As a side note, here in the Blue Mountains, we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of the crossing by Blaxland, Wentworth and Lawson - who showed them the route, as if the Kooris didn’t already know?

I hope that I am not too possessive of this theory (although I severely doubt that anyone would want to challenge ownership) and as stated in Tony and Pauls’ book, “Although he is not wedded to the idea, Neil Frost has occasionally speculated that the Hairy Man, seemingly so perfectly adapted to the Australian environment, might be marsupial” (Healy; 2006: 174).
Although I applaud anyone who has the convictions to come out and give their own theory as to what they are or may be no matter how absurd they may be to others.
I think that the word “absurd” might be a little harsh Dion! Regardless, I also “applaud” you and think that you equally “have a lot of guts” in hypothesizing that our hominoids are extraterrestrial. “Proofs in the pudding”.
If we were to call them Marsupial there are some flaws in this design/theory.
The word “design” is setting off a few alarm bells Dion.
Considering that North America has only one Marsupial that being the Opossum to me there are some things missing in such a theory, that being the similarities of both Yowie and Sasquatch/Bigfoot.
I don’t think that the North American Sasquatch or Bigfoot are necessarily related to our hominoids. Similar behaviour does not mean, by default, that the animals or “entities” are the same. For example, the Australian thylacine is physiologically and behaviourally similar to a tiger or wolf but biologically, they are not related.
To call one a Marsupial such as our Australian Yowie and then to call the Sasquatch/Bigfoot some kind of possible primate is treading ground that is rocky, their traits and similarities cannot be split IMO.
Their behavioural characteristics, though similar, does not necessarily mean that they have a shared biology. Consequently, they can be effectively split, IMO!
No one is going to call Sasquatch/Bigfoot a Marsupial, here in Australia sure there is room for such a Marsupial theory
I agree.

Again, I am most probably wrong but I would like to explore the possibilities derived from the evidence, rather than blindly trudging on. We need to learn from history and apply some rudimentary form of methodology.




G’day Notsobigfoot,

You are very welcome!

Neil

User avatar
Dion
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:44 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Passing through the ethereal

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Dion » Thu May 09, 2013 7:18 pm

Hey Neil

Yes your right using the word “absurd” may be a little harsh, I wasn’t necessarily just speaking about your own theory but other theories including my own, I should have worded it better, I used the word “absurd” loosely for any theory that isn’t mainstream or doesn't adhere to the Sasquatch and Bigfoot community, that being it’s an Animal of some kind.

Yet somehow, has been able to outsmart humans for many years, Something just doesn't add up.

Regards
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” - Nikola Tesla

User formally known as chewy

Neil Frost

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Neil Frost » Thu May 09, 2013 7:32 pm

G'day Dion,

No problem.

Neil

User avatar
AustralopithecineOz
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:16 am
Position: Nature Lover
Location: ACT

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by AustralopithecineOz » Tue May 28, 2013 11:49 am

Ape-like marsupial fossils found in Queensland...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-05/a ... er/3712472

Neil Frost

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Neil Frost » Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:54 pm

G’day AustralopithecineOz,

Thanks for the link to the ABC article “Ancient marsupial skull like ‘Planet of the Apes’.” It was interesting and held my attention for a while, until it became evident that the skull was not a significantly new find but a dyprotodon. However, it is easy to see how the uncleaned skull case could initially cause Professor Mike Archer to say, “One of the weirdest sections of the skull, when it came out looked for all the world like something you'd expect to see as a leftover from ‘The Planet of the Apes’.”
Dyprotodon skull.jpg
Below: Procoptodon goliah
Mega-Kangaroo.jpg

Procoptodon goliah head.jpg

Of similar interest is the closely related marsupial, Procoptodon goliah. Quoting information from The Australian Museum - http://australianmuseum.net.au/Procoptodon-goliah

“The Pleistocene kangaroo Procoptodon goliah, the most extreme of the short-faced kangaroos, was the largest and most heavily built kangaroo known. It had an unusually short, flat face and forwardly-directed eyes, with a single large toe on each foot (reduced from the more normal count of four). Each hand had two long, clawed fingers that would have been used to bring leafy branches within reach.

The heavily built Procoptodon goliah was the most extreme of the sthenurines, or short-faced kangaroos. It had a very short, deep 'brachycephalic' skull and lower jaw, and eyes that were partly forward-facing (giving it a primate-like appearance). The lower jaws (dentaries) were massive and fused or ankylosed, and a 'chin' was developed. Both upper and lower incisors were small, and would have been used to nip vegetation. The last premolar in Procoptodon was complex and late-erupting. The ape-like molar teeth of Procoptodon were brachyodont (low-crowned) and tended to develop additional longitudinal enamel folds. Tim Flannery has compared them to the molars of the huge australopithecine Australopithecus boisei.

The forelimbs were unusually long and mobile in Procoptodon. The middle two fingers were elongated with long, recurved claws (forming a 'grappling hook' to grasp leafy branches). Procoptodon had a functionally monodactyl hind foot: the lateral metatarsals II, III and V were so reduced that their distal ends and phalanges, or toe bones, were lost, the well developed digit IV forming a 'single' toe. Correlated with this reduction was simplification of the digital tendons. Flexion of the ankle joint was restricted to fore and aft movement. As in other sthenurines, many bony elements of the foot and heel in Procoptodon were wider than in other kangaroos, in order to stabilize the single-toed foot. This is in part correlated with the loss of the fifth metatarsal, which helps to balance the foot in most kangaroos. These wider bones provided greater surface area for the insertion of the digital tendons, giving a powerful spring action to the hind foot. At the end of the toe was a hoof-like claw, possibly an adaptation to help give this massive kangaroo a greater measure of speed.

Note: The height of Procoptodon goliah has often been estimated at about 3 metres. This estimate may have come about because sthenurines, including Procoptodon, could reach above their heads using their long fore limbs and their tails as a prop (the only kangaroos able to do so). Given the size of Procoptodon, it conceivably could have reached branches about three meters off the ground. However, this is not the measurement used to indicate the actual height of the animal, and the three meter measure is an overestimate. In a normal upright standing position (not the above-mentioned possible feeding position or the raised 'threat' position of male kangaroos), Procoptodon goliah would have stood no more than about 2 meters in height, roughly comparable in height to a large Red Kangaroo but much more robust in build (about two and a half times as heavy). In addition, the ability of Procoptodon to stand in an extended upright position was limited by the construction of the spine, which in sthenurines was unable to be fully flexed.

Size range
up to 2m tall and up to 200 kg in weight

Evolutionary Relationships
Sthenurinae is a subfamily within Macropodidae (the kangaroo family). There were two types of sthenurines: long-snouted (doliocephalic) and short-snouted (brachycephalic) forms. The doliocephalic Hadronomus puckridgei, from Alcoota Station in the Northern Territory, is currently considered the oldest sthenurine. The teeth of sthenurines differ between species, suggesting that the divergence between forms occurred well before the Pleistocene. This would mean that other features may have evolved in parallel. Procoptodon represents the extreme for a brachycephalic sthenurine, with long arms, forward facing eyes and an upright posture."



Something to think about perhaps. Obviously not the progenitor but perhaps part of the family?

Neil
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
NotSoBigFoot
Silver Status
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:30 am
Position: Believer
Location: South Brisbane, QLD

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by NotSoBigFoot » Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:49 pm

Good post Neil,

Surprisingly before coming to check on this new thread I was doing some reading and looking into Aboriginal folk lore and mythology and the Bunyip. I believe that there may be more than 1 cryptid hiding in the deepest, darkest parts of Australia. Is it possible that what is also referred to as a "Bunyip" is what is responsible for the mammal debate, and additionally as per your post, it is possible that multiple mutations could co-exist of the same species hence the variety in description?

How does this relate to yowies? Well I still believe them to be of the homo / ape species. However different genetic mutations and adaptations working in parallel based on outside influences from individual environments, breeding and evolutionary leaps lead us to the 3 species we identify with here in Australia. The Junjudee, the Yowie, and the Quinkin (in order of size respectively). In short, if it is possible to have multiple evolutionary off-shoots co-existing (which has also been seen with man with Homosapiens and Neanderthals co habiting) within one species, what's not to say that due to our environment and vastness of our landscape, that Yowies (collectively) and Bunyips both exist, and that the Bunyip is a marsupial which if they represent the appearance of the Procoptodon Goliah could lead to a misidentification.

Just some food for thought. I have my theories based on what I have seen and experienced and on what I have researched. The Bipedal nature tends to put the whole marsupial argument on the back foot before it begins as typically marsupials are not usually identified as bipedal in the same form to which we have descriptions typically of the Yowie, but I do believe that there is also a possibility of a similarly sized marsupial which is responsible for some of the claw marks and large foot prints which cannot be attributed to anything that we are currently trying to identify.

Cheers,

SA
WE ARE NOT ALONE....

forestguy
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:29 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by forestguy » Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:47 pm

Hi all - some interesting ideas raised. With the diversity of fauna that was around in the Pleistocene we don't really need it to be multiple mutations of one species - there's enough candidates available that they could be different species (or even different families).

I've attached a document I did up for Topender last year for a project he was working on that includes some info on possible progenitor species:
Giant Wombats - January 2012.pdf
Of particular note, Palorchestes was the tip as a possible bunyip candidate for Archer and Flannery, and Zygomaturas looks like it would have been comfortable in the shallows and wallows, the relevant eco niche.

Cheers,
FG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"What is reported is different to what is remembered which is different to what was seen which is different to what was present."

Neil Frost

Re: Do you believe them to be Marsupial or Primate?

Unread post by Neil Frost » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:39 am

G’day Forestguy,

The document that you prepared for Topender is interesting and well prepared. It could be very effectively used as a guide for field researchers when interviewing witnesses. The proposed bunyip candidates seem to be realistic contenders to me. The problem with bunyip research is that evidence is extremely elusive and speculative. When I asked our local elder about the bunyip, he quickly and assertively replied that it was Thylacoleo carnifex. He said that they were ambush predators that preyed on animals around waterholes. Personally, I have no idea.

Neil

Post Reply