The Thylacoleo: Australia's Extinct 'Marsupial Lion'

Thyalacoleo carnifex, the ‘marsupial lion’ of Pleistocene Australia, was an adept hunter that got around with the help of a strong tail, according to a new study. These insights come after newly discovered remains, including one nearly complete fossil specimen, allowed these researchers to reconstruct this animal’s entire skeleton for the first time.


There was a good nova episode on this creature. they had a excellent skeleton. This one would only be a wee bit better. the talk about the tail is old news. actually the marsupial wolf had a good tail also and in the last moving picyures of it IT does stand upright.
yet the point is that its just another cat. As they say its convergent with regular cats everywhere.
yet I say its just another cat in a spectrum of diversity of cats.
the trivial marsupial traits are just local adaptions.
Its a kitty and purred and roared.

Do you consider the marsupium and the completely different gestational pattern “trivial”?


Yes. i can’t create it but its just within a spectrum of what biology shows it can adapt to.
Different reproductive abilities are within kinds and even species.
its not a big deal. its a error to classify creatures by these traits. THEN its very wrong when one finds they are same shaped creatures as elsewhere on the planet.
the marsupial lion is just another cat s elsewhere. just like the marsupial mole, mice, wolves etc are/were.

And of course the marsupial kangaroo is just like all the regular placental kangaroos, and the marsupial wombat is otherwise identical to placental wombats.


John, don’t forget about the marsupial humans and oviporous humans, that’s just minor variation too.

Right, Robert? :wink:

Turns out they’re fully interfertile. See Burroughs, E. R. 1917. A Princess of Mars.


Why would classification by major reproductive difference be an error? Please explain your reasoning. What are your thoughts on classification by genomic similarities? What other criteria do you think would be a better way to classify groups of mammals?

It certainly would if those differences didn’t diagnose clades, which is Robert’s contention. Of course it happens that they do.

1 Like

Classification by reproductive organs had no foundational legitimacy. They just guessed in a dumb 15th -19th century way. Then there was no reason to make a big deal about such a thing. Today all evidence shows creatures birth live/lay eggs as they desire. Its wrong to classify them by this minor trait.
I don’t agree there is any MAMMAL classification in nature. Having mammary glands was irrelevant to biology. Its just a limited blueprint boundaries for options. People are not mammals Its a strange absurdity to group biology by such trivial details. Why not livers or lips?? like to scratch or don’t like to scratch?!

Nature does not show any evidence to group biology as meaning something in biology origins or relationships. Except in real boundaries called KINDS.
The big problem now is that evolutionism use classification systems to prove its claims.
This is a interference in scientific investigation.
It should be demanded that evolutionism must make its case without classification presumptions.
Then it would struggle even more then it does now.

Robert, I’m just going to (at least temporarily) ignore that you think fundamental things like presence of hair and mammary glands in females are unimportant. Instead, I’d like for you to address the “real boundary” concept of “KINDS”. Where would one find the definition of what a kind is? How many kinds are there? How do we know what species belong to a kind? What physical boundaries separate kinds? Do mutations simply stop when one member of a kind diverges far enough away from the rest of the kind? These are some of the things I would like answers to before I put too much stock in the “real boundary”.

1 Like

You say they do. Do they? Which came first? The hunch like reproductive traits showed marsupials, mammals, reptiles are real time biological groups that matter in biology and now in origins of biology?
Yes! this hunch came first. It was never proven but just seemed reasonable.
Its more reasonable to see a limited blueprint and any KIND of creature will select any traits as needed.
JUST KINDS and options in a blueprint.
Thats why platypus lay eggs, and , my favorite, the Yellow-bellied three toed skink in cold mountains does not WHILE the same species does in the lowlands. Reproductive details are not a big detail to a skink. So why us?!
These ideas led to classic error of denying marsupials are the same creatures as placentals EVEN WHILE identical for many types like the lion here.
Creationism , I think, is the real pressure here to do a better job.

Mutations never cross the KIND boundaries and never did. I question mutations are the origin for biology change.
What KINDS are is irrelevant to this discussion. Its a biblical insight.
Then it fits that biology is in KINDS, common sense, without knowing what KINDS are in great definition.
From Genesis we would know there was a single primate kind, the one we are a COPY of, and a single snake.
kind. Then two kinds of birds on the ark. UNLESS they are post creation adaptations and NEW kINDS.
Possibly only one original bird kind. At this point its speculation.
Why do you think glorious biology , from Gods creation or evolutions creation, considers HAIR a important trait to define biology?? Who told you?

@cwhenderson, I don’t know if it’s obvious to you yet (though one would hope so), but it’s a waste of time to try to discuss anything with Robert. That way lies madness.


Congratulations Robert, you have reinvented Lamarckism.

1 Like

“The Oviporous Humans” was a one-hit wonder rock band back in the 1960’s. (That was a decade when LSD use was on the rise.)

It appears that this thread has quickly reached the Byers Point. (I would define that term for you but categories and classifications are meaningless and the definitions of words superfluous.)

POSTSCRIPT: There was no such rock band. That was a joke.


Thanks, @John_Harshman, but I have not yet given up on getting Robert to answer some questions. I may soon, but I’m not quite at that point.

Allen, I really like this. Is the “Byers Point” copyrighted, or can I have your permission to use it in other conversations?

1 Like

What KINDS are is certainly relevant since you claim that they are “real boundaries”. So please indulge me with at least a definition for what a KIND is and the source you derived this definition from.

1 Like

Curtis, seeing as how we’re in the process of developing an entire brand—from tee-shirts to mouse-pads—a trademark registration is pending. Such products will soon be available for sale at the new online boutique: The Byers Point™.

Once venture capital funding is fully in place, we will also be offering an associated TBP Visa Platinum Vanity Card as well as a TBP Frequent Flyers Program offering valuable double bonus miles redeemable for all The Byers Point™ merchandise. You may also pay for purchases in kind (see Genesis 1:25.)

You may use The Byers Point™ in your posts as long as the intellectual property rights are acknowledged by means of the affixation of the required trademark notice.

If you are interested in secondary licensing for the manufacturing and marketing of official The Byers Point™ gear and apparel, please contact @Dan_Eastwood in our legal department.


its a side issue to the general conversation. anyways i gave the answer.