Talk:Marozi

Untitled

I`ve inserted "is claimed to be" because, as the previous text* rightfully stated, "it has yet to be confirmed". Ive added one link to a general cryptozoology page. [unsigned]

• Is it possible there's some form of neotony involved? Nimmo 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Neoteny. Sure possible. According to "How the leopard got its spots: a phylogenetic view of the evolution of felid coat patterns" (Biol.J.Linn.Soc. 62 p.383) - though they don't discuss the Marozi specifically - it's not just possible but actually probable. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic status

"but this currently lacks any valid nomenclatural status" - either it's valid ir it sin't. In the latter case, the scientific name cannot be given. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a citation for Pocock or Heuvelams giving it the name maculatus? I don't know of any. On what basis is it claimed that the skin is at the British Museum? Pocock borrowed it from Gandar Dower, but did not say the museum had retained it. If no evidence is forthcoming, these assertions should be removed.MayerG (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

With no citations forthcoming, I have removed Pocock as an author; in 1937 he did not propose a name. Heuvelmans used the name Leo maculatus in the 1955 French edition of his work. MayerG (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marozi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs formal reference citations and references. Badbilltucker 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC) == Expansion == This article really needs expansion. I except the article to have a lot of information; after all, it isn't a third-generation hybrid. Gug01 (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

Last edited at 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 23:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There might not be any more information. Unfortunately nobody has bothered to DNA-tested the skin. Maybe the skin has been lost or destroyed. 2601:441:4400:1740:A05D:4F7E:2567:31F0 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Image

How do I add an image? Booger-mike (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Article is Completely Self-Contradictory

The article includes the quote "to this day nobody has been able to produce any proof of its existence". This is simply ridiculous. The skin is hard proof that this animal existed. The only questions are its taxonomic status and whether it's still extant. Its former existence is not in any doubt. 2601:441:4400:1740:A93D:7AFA:2D6D:A52F (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This article as written is completely nonsensical. It is blatantly self-contradictory. The statement of fact that there is a skin (with a photograph), and the statement that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of this animal, are in irreconcilable and illogical contradiction. This article needs to be fixed to remove this utter nonsense. I made a good faith edit to point out that the quote contradicts the stated existence of the skin (which is shown in the photograph and stated to be fact in this article). My edit was removed for no reason whatsoever. If anyone has any actual, real evidence indicating that the photographed skin is a hoax, please come forward and cite your reliable sources. Otherwise, the photographed skin should be assumed to be a real, factual, genuine, physical object which is in actual physical existence in the real world, and which is the physical remains of a mammal which was previously alive and real. 2601:441:4400:1740:A93D:7AFA:2D6D:A52F (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Since no attempt whatsoever has been made to discuss or justify the self-contradiction in this article, I am tagging the contradictory line as . The article should not contradict itself; therefore the contradictory statements must be acknowledged as a contradiction. If someone wants to remove the contradiction, fine. I don't think it's necessary to actually delete Guggisberg statement, as long as the writing acknowledges that his statement contradicts the obvisously real, physical, indisputible existence of a skin from an animal labeled "marozi". If you want to argue with me, come here and TALK. But if you start an edit war while utterly refusing to discuss the situation at all I will get moderators involved. So far the individual(s) wantonly deleting my edits have not written a single word in this Talk Page to discuss the situation. That is VANDALISM, not good faith editing. 2601:441:4400:1740:A05D:4F7E:2567:31F0 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, before anyone starts accusing me of "fringe theories" let me be clear: I am not proposing or defending any specific taxonomic classification of the skin or the marozi sightings. I am arguing that the photograph in this article shows that the skin of some animal does exist and that the article should not show the skin and then declare that said skin does not exist. 2601:441:4400:1740:A05D:4F7E:2567:31F0 (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, no. The skin shows that an animal existed that that skin came from. That animal could be an unusually marked lion, or a leopon, or, given the lack of detail, a fake, or something else. The mere existence of the skin does not in any way contradict the idea that the "marozi" does not exist, unless you define the "marozi" as "the single animal that skin came from". Which is not an appropriate definition as that skin was not the first, nor is it the only time the existence of the marozi has been mooted. If we found and tested the skin and it turned out to be a small lion with spots painted on, it wouldn't speak as to the existence or otherwise of the marozi that people have claimed to see for many years. Not to mention, of course, that it is not contradictory to report that this particular person said that no evidence existed, even if a lot of evidence did exist. He still said it, and can be reported as saying so.

As for this "If anyone has any actual, real evidence indicating that the photographed skin is a hoax, please come forward and cite your reliable sources. Otherwise, the photographed skin should be assumed to be a real, factual, genuine, physical object which is in actual physical existence in the real world, and which is the physical remains of a mammal which was previously alive and real." - that really isn't how these things work. It is very, very easy for me show you a photograph of the skin of a Yeti, or a jackalope. There's no way you could prove it was not real.

Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The current wording of the article looks fine.

"The skin shows that an animal existed that that skin came from."

"unless you define the "marozi" as "the single animal that skin came from"."

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, no more than that. I do not know how to be more clear than this. Some animal named "marozi" was skinned, and that is its skin. If that individual existed, then the "marozi" was an animal. Again, I am not claiming it was a separate taxon of any kind, or that its alleged location was accurate. I have never claimed anything beyond the existence of the one skin of the one "marozi". The only positive evidence available is a that a skin exists or existed.

"That animal could be an unusually marked lion, or a leopon, or, given the lack of detail, a fake, or something else."

Correct, it could. But with no positive evidence for fakery it is still a photograph of an object.

Neither of us gets to write the article to support our personal opinions about the skin. I think it was likely a variation analogous to a black leopard, or an extinct population of a living lion subspecies, but I have no evidence so I will not add my personal opinion to the article. You say it is a hoax, but you also have no evidence. People who think it is a new species or a stable hybrid or still alive also have no evidence for those opinions.

An unsupported quote denying the existence of evidence, without addressing the skin, makes the article very confusing to sighted readers like me, who can see the photo. The quote should not be depicted as the definitive "case closed" determination of what happened. It is only a personal opinion. Hence the wording I added acknowledging the confusing contradiction.

"If we found and tested the skin and it turned out to be a small lion with spots painted on, it wouldn't speak as to the existence or otherwise of the marozi that people have claimed to see for many years." It would prove a hoax and remove the only thing that corroborated those sightings. The skin ironically would still be a real object, from a normal lion. Personally, I would expect a hoaxter to put more effort into depicting a sensationalized "living" animal, as people have (provably) done with famous animal hoaxes.

As for your argument that it doesn't count as a "marozi" because it's not the very first sighting... It has no valid scientific name. It has no type specimen. There is no requirement for a skin named "marozi" to be the first thing ever called "marozi", because vernacular names do not have those scientific nomenclatural requirements. The skin is certainly more substantial than the alleged skull or reported sightings.

Can you provide evidence for trickery? Are you/do you have a trained photo-modification expert who can analyze the photo? I would welcome new information, so I'd be glad if you did have evidence of a hoax. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:4C00:B489:FF58:839F (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I think more likely than that the skin is painted is that the skin is from a leopard-lion hybrid. Second most likely possibility is that it is from a neotenic lion. Neither would be a separate race of lion, which is what the Marozi is normally claimed to be. 68.193.125.53 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Can you provide evidence for trickery? "

No. Can you prove that all the photos of Yetis are fake?

You are struggling with the conceept of burden of proof.

And again even if that skin exists and is real, the fact that someone has at some point claimed it is a marozi doesn't mean the marozi exists. If the skin iis of something othe nthan a marozi, there is no proof of the marozi, becuase "marozi" is not defined as the single animal that skin came from. I could find the skin of a black zebra and claim it was a moekele mbemebe. It's still a zebra. This is simple, basic stuff. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Attempt to tidy article up - and a couple of requests for further improvement

I have tried to make it clearer what the main debate seems to be: that is, what the nature of the animal is.

The big cats are well known to throw up all sorts of odd colour morphs (black leopard, white tiger), and the lion and the leopard are known to be physically capable of hybridising, even if there is no confirmed instance of this in the wild.

Lancaster's directive* seems to me to be in favour of assuming an animal of this appearance exists/existed: it is not stretching any sort of point, to believe in a few odd-looking lions in a geographical area near to where lions are known to be found.

While there is a lot of reason to question the species or sub-species status of the animal without a whole specimen, there doesn't seem much reason for questioning the straightforward existence of several animals with a rather unusual appearance, unless the accounts of sightings are known to come from unreliable sources. The matter does not rest on the photograph of the skin, which, while it is good supporting evidence, I agree doesn't mean much on its own.

If the morph theory is correct, the name "marozi" becomes a reference to that morph, much as "panther" is used for melanistic leopards. It isn't a biologically formal term: it does not matter what it refers to.

The real confusion which I can't straighten regards what Charles Albert Walter Guggisberg meant when he said there was no evidence for its existence, as I do not have access to the original source. Was he expressing scepticism of the sightings/skins - if so, his reason for that would seem relevant - or did he mean that he saw no reason to be convinced that the animal had a particular taxonomic status? The comment remains confusing without further explanation.

I would also ask: are actual skins still known to exist, or is the only evidence of this the photograph? If a species name was formally given, no matter how dubiously, there ought to be a known type specimen.

Finally, is it time to remove the fringe theories template? The different possibilities seem adequately discussed.

• Lancaster's directive: If you tell me you saw a horse galloping down Piccadilly, I will believe you; if you tell me you saw a Zebra, I will believe you and one other sober person; if you tell me you saw a centaur, nothing but to dissect a specimen myself will convince me.

FloweringOctopus (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is the Charles Albert Walter Guggisberg reference in full:

"His belief in the existence of this animal was considerably strengthened when he heard from the natives that in the Aberdare forests there lived the "Marozi", a creature which they described as something like a "spotted lion". Although Gandar Dower and Raymond Hook, the well - known animal trapper, spent several weeks on the misty moors around Mount Settima , they were unable to find the "Marozi" , and to this day nobody has been able to produce any proof of its existence . In East African lions the juvenile markings do not fade for quite a number of years, and I myself have seen two - year - old lions on the Athi Plains, showing just about the same rosettes as can be seen on the famous skins from the Aberdares." (Simba, the Life of the Lion, p. 50)

Guggisberg is referring to Kenneth Gandar-Dower. The statement is correct, there is no proof for its existence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This source may be of use [1] from the Old Africa Magazine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I added to the section on sightings: "The presence of lions in an unusual habitat at a higher altitude than is typical for the species also suggested the possibility of a distinct population." Which comes from this source pages 9-10.

However - and I am sure every gnome on wikipedia who sees this will laugh heartily - I cannot add the reference properly into the text. >< FloweringOctopus (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much :-)

Ok, so that source does seem to suggest that one of the skins is still available to biologists to examine. And also that the distinctness of the environment and the unusual habitat was a separate reason why the question of a distinct population was raised.

If I understand that correctly, Guggisberg means is that he thinks there is no evidence that it differs from any other lion in the area?

Guggisberg's explanation is extremely plausible, but claiming the creature is not categorically distinct is not the same thing as declaring that the animal involved literally does not exist, as in, for example, claiming that the skins produced in evidence are faked from dyed sheep pelts! "Exist" is unfortunately a very contextual word.

For clarity, I have added "reliable evidence for the marozi as a distinct variety" and included the following sentence as well: it then becomes clear that he is saying more or less the same as Noel Simon.

As far as I can see no-one is seriously claiming the mazori is a hoax, in the sense of denying that there were lions that looked like that in that area, rather that what is called the mazori is only a slight natural variation in appearance that isn't significant with regard to biological classification.

:-)

FloweringOctopus (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I've further reordered the introduction for better flow and clarity - hope the alterations meet with approval :-).

I'm afraid it also needs the attention of someone able to handle the referencing, though.

FloweringOctopus (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@FloweringOctopus Added! I appreciate the work btw, I edited this article before but I couldn't improve it to the level I wanted (biology/species/related articles are not in my wheelhouse) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much :-).

Yeah, this article actually had a particularly odd set of problems: as far as I could see, much of it was to do with confusions about taking the word "exist" out of its original context.

FloweringOctopus (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Well it's much better off now, actually explains the debate properly PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed sentences from the introduction that make claims that need sourcing. If any of the following: " A scientific name, Panthera leo maculatus, was given, but the marozi has not been confirmed to be a species or subspecies of its own, rather than an unusual colour morph of the African lion (P. l. leo), or a naturally occurring pantherine hybrid. Skins of hunted specimens fitting the description do exist, but have not been sufficient for biologists to come to any definite conclusion regarding the nature of the animal." is true, a source should be available. If no source is available, it should not be here. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have also removed this: "Though various theories have been advanced, the general consensus seems to be that the mazori is a colour morph of a known subspecies of lion, perhaps involving individuals that retained juvenile spots into adulthood."

One book published in 1963 is not even close to be a sufficient source to make a claim about "the general consensus". Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realize you made your edit here, all I saw on the article was deletion of material so I thought it was vandalism. I have removed some WP:OR however some of what you removed is well sourced on the article. Please do not remove reliable sources like Guggisberg. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, one book published in 1963 is not sufficient to claim a "general consensus". Reword it, or leave it removed. The source was removed with the claim it was not sufficient to support. 'Blatant vandalism', really? Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to remove reliable sources from the article. We have several sources written by naturalists. I have re-worded this slightly. It doesn't matter if these sources were published in the 1960s, the authors were all noted naturalists and field observers. There are only limited references on this topic. Myself and another user above have put a lot of time into editing this article and finding historical sources. We do not need to be remove mention of these naturalists in the lead. The consensus claim is actually found in Noel Simon's book, and we cite this on the article. I have no issue removing the "consensus" claim from the lead but this doesn't mean we should white-wash the lead, if we do that it gives a false POV that no rational explanation has been offered. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that there no "consensus" that it is anything except a bunch of unverifiable stories, which is what most natuuralists would say it is - that's why there is not much written on the topic. However I have no issue with what is there now, as it is not claiming that there is a "consensus" that there is anything that needs explaining at all. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It's always difficult to see what constitutes a consensus; it depends so much on the subject and the nature of the study. I cannot remember where it came from, but I entirely approve of replacing it with "naturalists have suggested." That seems as indisputable as anything of the type can be!

I am not clear if there are references for the dubious scientific name: I was working from what I could see of the references already cited in the article, and I tend to work on a principle of conserving what is already there unless something is obviously very dubious. As mentioned above, I was not able to add references into the text (dyslexia). If the only objection to something is that the reference had not been stated in the right place, it would be really helpful if someone could check whether it is in fact stated in the other references mentioned in the article.

As far as I can see, the trouble with this is that it seems to be a standard classification problem - was this occasionally observed oddity a separate population or species, or just a random variation in a known species - and is tending to be handled as if it was cryptozoology of a non-scientific type: which means assertions that take no notice of the most probable interpretation of the existing evidence, not things that have only been observed and reported by a few naturalists. A lot of natural history is based on random observations made by a particular person at a particular time and cannot be checked because such data is by its nature based on an unrepeatable event.

A couple of decent field observers reporting odd looking lions in Africa near lion country is sufficient evidence under the Lancaster's directive rule given that in context it is not improbable. Panthera has a lot of tendency to throw up odd colour morphs and lions are known to reside nearby without any geographical barriers to their spreading. Accepting several separate observers' word for few spotted lions in a mountain in Africa is on the level of taking the word of two sober people that there is a zebra galloping down Piccadilly. And that's without the possible evidence of the skin, which I believe from what I read is likely to be genuine - i.e. a animal seems to have been shot and the skin preserved and examined.

For comparison, the claim that there is a very large species of great ape roaming North America, far from the range of any known great ape except Homo sapiens, in the absence of any dead material, and in the known presence of animals (bears) that could be fairly easily misidentified as large apes in some circumstances, is ignoring probabilities. I'll believe that one when they have well-sourced complete specimens, though I won't insist on dissecting them myself! (The centaur, which ought to be both functionally and evolutionarily impossible, is on another level again).

I still would like to know if the photographed skin is actually the type specimen of a dubious scientific name: if so, it should probably be labelled as such. If I ever have time, I will try to browse around on the scientific name question. Though it must be a dubious name if the other facts are as stated it suggests some part of a specimen (probably that skin) that was taken seriously by someone who examined it - it ought to involve some sort of attempt at a published description. That doesn't ultimately prove anything (remember Piltdown Man!) but it would confirm the context of the debate as one which is firmly within the scientific community and not one about epistemologically incoherent fringe claims.

FloweringOctopus (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

References