Talk:Beast of Gévaudan/Archive 1

Tasmanian wolf
I belive the Beast of Gevaudan was a hybrid offsping of a male Tazmanian wolf [Thylacines Cynocephalus]and a Large female Greywolf wich was Train to kill by men belonging to a cult of that day.The beast was said to have stipes,like a Tazmanian wolf, and it was said to stand on its hine legs able to leap for long distances. it was said to have a bite radius larger then a wolf,and it was said to hunt like a cat with its belly low to the ground. ALL are clasic behavier of a Tazmanian wolf or sometime call a Tazmanian tiger. I belive that it was a Male Tazmanian wolf that sired the offsping {The beast},so as to breed out the fact that the female Tazmanian wolf carried her young in a poch like a kangaroo. IT was comon for the very rich to traval to other countrys to collect exotic animals for their own personal Zoos. Someone must have went to Australia were the Tazmanian Wolf live in abundance at that time in history and breeded the two togather to make the BEAST OF Gevavdan and Train it to kill (Note: this message left by anon user ).


 * Well, the article says the time of the beast's attack was 1764 to 1767. Unfortunately for your theory, Australia was not discovered by westerners until 1770, when Captain Cook found it. So much for the Tasmanian wolf theory :). My best guess is that it was just an wolf that gained much fame due to people's fertile imagination at that time. --Ragib 23:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Also there is no way that a Placental mammal and Marsupial could reproduce. --203.214.84.183 13:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it might reduce clutter and confusion if the movie information were removed, and links to the films' entries be put into a See Also section. Any agreements? Drago 07:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The two could never interbreed since they're not closely related. It's a genetic impossibility. There are far more reasonable explanations. --TaeKwonTimmy 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tasmanian wolf and Tasmanian tiger are two different animals.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked, and I am wrong. So sorry about that. Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Categorization
I just put this in category:Legendary creatures (and redirected a duplicate page). Couldn't decide, though, if it should go in that category or category:Cryptids. Any thoughts? The Literate Engineer 04:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I say both. If the Beast was genuinely a creature, there is a definite cryptozoological slant to it, as well as it being a legendary creature.Drago 03:38, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit curious as to why this should be categorized as a legendary creature, given that there is numerous historical evidence for the beast's existence. Yes, there's doubt as to what it actually was, but there's not much debate over whether it existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.101.232 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Both categories are acceptable. The animal has since attained folkloric aspects. In any case, at the time of its maraudings there was disagreement as to whether the beast was even flesh and blood. Note that many true aspects of history have passed or become reworked into legend. Cupbearer 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

well?
didn't they prove that at least one of the two beasts was a hyena?
 * If they did, this is the first I've heard about it. Any links to information on this? Drago 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That was the conclusion that the show "The Real Wolfman" on the History Channel came to. I think that's sufficient to merit a mention in the article, at least. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The proof lies in what people want to see. Look at the article on the chupacabra. Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dire wolf
The article states that the Beast may have been a Dire Wolf, because the dire wolves were larger. But the dire wolf article states that dire wolves were no bigger than regular wolves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.37.114 (talk • contribs)
 * This article says "marginally" larger, which agrees with the dire wolf article, which says, "On average it was a little larger at about 1.5 metres (5 feet) in length and about 50 kilograms (110 pounds)." [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 14:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article says that the beast was about the size of a cow. At Morril Hall in Lincoln, Nebraska they have displays of dire wolves as they are believed to have looked.  Those puppies are not the size of a cow, but they are pretty good sized pooches.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nessie
The loch ness monster didn't kill a lot of people: i'm not sure if the Gevaudan beast/Nessie comparison is or necessary or usefull, especially since the Gevaudan beast has a very traumatic component that nessie (to my knowledge) doesn't have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.254.76 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it looks odd. I deleted. Totnesmartin 15:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory
Would be wolf hunters (Jean Chastel and sons), with or without external interests, using armored attack dogs. 100 human deaths in 3 years in a very narrow zone makes for a very, very angry lupus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.254.76 (talk • contribs)

Did it die?
Did the beast actually die Karzack 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * er, yes, eventually... Totnesmartin 18:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An animal died and the attacks did stop, if it was the same animal is unknown. 81.152.196.94 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo

Where's the body?

 * If they killed the beast, what happened to its corpse? Why is its identity such a mystery?
 * Sadly, they failed to preserve any of it - either because they didn't want to, or because they tried to but did it badly and it decayed anyway. A shame, because nowadays a tuft of hair or a single bone would tell us easily...
 * Well not exactly, all that's known is that the king's hunter shot a wolf and claimed it was the beast. Although the attacks stopped soon after, there were attacks after the wolf had been shot and it's quite possible that he was just trying to preserve his reputation, so as it's doubtful that the wolf was the beast any information about it is of negliable value. 81.152.196.91 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Elmo
 * Perhaps, as in the story Rogue Angel: Destiny by Alex Archer, the body was in a cave that got sealed off for some reason.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Gender of the BEast
It is written in the article that the beast is referred as "her". May be this should be deleted. There is no neutral gender in french. "La bête" is just as feminine as "la voiture" which means "the car". It doesn't say anything about the supposed gender of the beast.

You make a good point, but the beast is indeed often referred to as a "she," and that is fact irrespective of it also being bad grammar. Cupbearer 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's most likely caused by literal translation. "She" should be changed to "it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it has behavior that could be seen as territorial, it may have been male. Or I could be chasing shadows, and we'll never know.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Beast was definitely a "he." Both autopsied specimens were males, and the autopsy documents give the penis' length and testicles' size. A few testimonies say it was accompanied by a smaller "beast," most probably a female, once described as pregnant, which never took part in the attacks. 90.62.2.78 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article contains wrong facts
"It is to be noted that there is no proof of human involvement, and that all descriptions of the animals killed point to canines". Complete nonsense! Most of the victims were decapitated and naked. Which canine could do that? I suggest someone to complete the article, but a serious work is needed! Moreover, the article has no references and the links are ridiculous! Perhaps it would be better just to delete the article and write a new one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.31.75.80 (talk • contribs).


 * If you can do a better job please do so. Entirely or in part. Thanks for your help! -- Stbalbach 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

what's the source for victims being naked? if so, that would throw out the whole identity of the beast as an animal, suggesting a human element. Totnesmartin 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't. Its not unheard of for wild animals to claw the clothing off a person in order to expose the edible flesh. I don't have a page number offhand (its been a while since I looked through it), but the memoir, "The Man Eating Leopard of Rudraprayag" describes this in some detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.101.232 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder where this information is coming from. "Most" of the victims were neither decapitated nor naked. Of the decapitated, several had their heads removed by the animal in front of witnesses. Of the naked, several were discovered lying beside the remnants of their clothing, shredded and torn by the obvious wiles of the beast as it fed. Debate the human element by all means, for surely there were many folk taking advantage of the situation at the time, but do not dismiss the number of killings that were conclusively performed by an animal. Cupbearer 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As an argument for the human element, it has never been proven one way or the other in a definitive fashion as to whether or not werewolves have ever existed, and in the traditional werewolf stories they are quite intelligent. Perhaps it was a loup garou, and it had people that it wanted dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Beautor (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now see here, these crpyto articles are vandalized enough by skeptical extremists without deliberately being made targets (an example of this would be suggesting that the behaviour of the Beast of Gévaudan can be explained with lycanthropy). Add it in when/if shapeshifting between man and animal is verified scientifically as being possible. Bearerofthecup (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure 'skeptical extremists' is a contradiction in terms. The problem here seems to be that this is being treated as a 'crypto article' instead of what it is a 'history article' we're talking about real events with real killings here, so prehaps we should hold off on filling it with information about werewolves an aliens, no? 86.162.139.196 (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, the line was supposed to read "skeptics and extremists" - the former camp advocating a series of hoaxes and the latter werewolves (and other explanations unsubstantiated by science). This 'beast' was most assuredly a number of wolves, but an exceptional group to be sure. Try convincing the editors of that, 86.162.139.196, and you'll be destroyed. Remember that on Wikipedia, consensus determines truth, not evidence. Bearerofthecup (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Creodont
I have doubts about the B of G being a surviving creodont. If the last fossils are from 8 million years ago, then how did one pop up in 18th century France? A carnivore that large and voracious would not have gone unnoticed in the intervening time. Totnesmartin 12:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take the creodont ref out of the infobox - it's only one theory among many. Totnesmartin 12:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish wolfhound
The picture looks similar to an Irish wolfhound. These are the tallest dogs and this one could have gone feral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutley (talk • contribs).


 * It's quite possible, the beast was regularly discribed as having red fur(other than the tiny 'mexican wolf' no wolves have this colouring) and a white 'heart-shaped' patch of fur on it's chest(yet again, this isn't found on wolves but is sometimes found on domestic dogs like wolfhounds). Also behaviour such as wagging it's tail while it attacked (wolves attack with a straight tail) suggests a large domestic breed of dog like an Irish wolfhound. Even it's lack of fear towards humans suggests a domesticated animal(feral or otherwise). 81.152.196.94 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * i asked above but i'll ask again here, in case anyone knows. if the beast was killed, why is its breed such a mystery? did chastel kill it but forget to bring the corpse back, or has everyone just taken his word that he killed it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.4.232 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Wouldn't a wolfhound have gone for the throat?Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No they don't (well not the ones from ancient times). Have a look at the article for Irish Wolfhound —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.150.20 (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "It has also been shown that when hunting animals, the wolfhound would bite the neck and crush the spine, killing the creature." Straight from the wolfhound article, from the area where it talks about back in Roman times.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

wrong category?
I am unaware of any instance in which the beast ate it's victims flesh rather than merely killing them, does anyone have any source which states that the beast was a maneater? If not it doesn't belong in 'Category:Famous Maneating Animals'. 217.43.27.180 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Elmo


 * You're right, I've removed it from this category. Masaruemoto 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing the two of you have never read Richard H. Thompson's Wolf-Hunting in France in the Reign of Louis XV or other works on the subject. Many of the victims were discovered partially devoured (and in some cases the evidence suggests that they had been eaten to the last bone). One thing I've never done on Wikipedia is fool around with categories, though.


 * I can insert the necessary information if no one has any objections.


 * Cupbearer 05:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nude Victims?
People keep saying on this page that the victims of these attacks were found nude. Not even that movie, from what I've read, seems to imply that. Wondering where people get this idea. --IronMaidenRocks 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the victims were found to be nude, mostly because their clothes had been shredded or seemingly removed by the animal as it killed and ate. Cupbearer 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call, former version of myself. Bearerofthecup (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the beast really was I think it was very clever animal. Not only it attacked when the chance for successful kill was 90+ but the animal removed the cloths because logically it didn't wanted to eat them. So we must check which annimal is clever enough to do such things. --LucaTurilli89 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved from top of page
For what it's worth...
 * I think that the hybrid theory is the correct theory: a Tiger fecundated by a Lion, an experience that has already took place, results in a hybrid which has the growing hormones not regulated...he grows until he dies. the same thing could happen with the "Gévaudan Beast". A mix between a Tazmanian Wolf and a big house dog could have really created such a creature: fearless against humans, trainable, big, ferocious, bloody, with powerful jaws...it was a genetic coincidence that gave birth to such a fantastic predator! It would be amazing studying that beast!

Try reading the discussions before blurting this stuff, whoever you are. Mind you, isn't "fecundated" a great word? Totnesmartin 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

do u know how to start a new topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.110.142 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes type this in at the bottom of the page

==New topic==

("New topic") being whatever your comment is about. Another way is to click the "+" tab at the top of the discussion page and go from there. WP:TALK is a page all about how to use talk pages. Hope this helps! Totnesmartin 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference to the "Beast of Seven Chutes"
I do not think that the reference to the "Beast of Seven Chutes" at the bottom of the page (under "Possible photo same type of creature!") is noteworthy. It does not remotely look like the descriptions of the Gévaudan Beast, modern or past. I think that it should be removed, unless there arguments to keeping it there.

While we are at it, there was something in the news some time ago and I couldn't help thinking about the Beast of Gévaudan. This beast was killed in Maine:

http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=1436

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14383883/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208683,00.html

Too small and on the wrong continent to be related in any way to the beast. What do you think?

Contradiction
...perhaps lending further credence to the reports that the Beast was seen in the company of a human. No recorded testimony implies the presence of a man nearby.

Which is correct?  Oc t  ane  [ improve me ] 06.11.07 1459 (UTC)

The last one. The action or even mere presence of a man is in no way suggested by the evidence we have. Only unverifiable oral traditions - not reports - mention anything of the kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.201.186 (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The sinister human collaborator is a staple of wolf and werewolf folklore, so it's no surprise that it arose as rumour in Gévaudan. But, as stated above, no record exists of the wolves having been seen in the company of men. It was suggested by the Gévaudanais that the Chastels were magicians, and that Antoine Chastel himself either tamed wolves, spoke their "language," or had entered into pacts with them, but their is no proof of that either. So the rumour was essentially a product of standard wolf lore as well as whisperings about the Chastels who, while unlikely magicians, were unsavory nevertheless. Look back through the French stories of man-eating wolves; you'll find that the evil wolf-tamer was almost as common an antagonist as an actual werewolf. Bearerofthecup (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Much of this material is also covered in the article on Antoine de Beauterne.--Wetman 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep them separate. A merge will give undue weight to the activities of Antoine de Beauterne while playing down the contributions of other notable figures who were also in the field.


 * Once I complete the articles on Duhamel, d'Enneval, and Jean Chastel the amount of information will be too great to catalogue effectively in a single article. Better to keep this page more focused on the animal itself, maybe adding a section on the victims (I can handle that since I have a complete list), etc. Let readers go to each article if they want additional information. If this article covered all of the aspects of the Beast without any links you would wear out your scroll key getting to the end.


 * Since this issue is listed in WikiProject Paranormal and WikiProject Cryptozoology, and the talk pages are still seeing conspiracy theorists every now and again, it might be better to keep the biographies separate, since they present only facts and not speculation, unlike the Beast's article.


 * Plus, they're biographies to begin with. Biographies shouldn't just be filed together with the events that befell the person they describe, especially when the biography is longer than the article on the event in question, otherwise the amount of information present is unbalanced.


 * Bearerofthecup 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mesonychia
Though not mentioned in this article, the Mesonychia entry thinks it might be one of those (and that it has hooves).Originalname37 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The REAL Beast
People, I think may have found the beast. The beast is Hemicyon. And here are some reasons.
 * The beast sure as hell can't be a dog (or a Canis) because dogs are more pack hunting animals and there wasn't a species of dog as big a cattle.
 * It's not a hyena because there no hyena species that has a tail long as a lion's.
 * Hemicyon fits the description of the beast.
 * And as for the cats, the killing don't match and the snout too long.--4444hhhh (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my! Look, the beast is eating a kind unicorn! --->
 * The conjecture and WP:OR going on throughout this talk page violates the purpose of talk pages, and I am inserting the Template:Talk header on this page to encourage the discussion of the article, as opposed to discussion of the topic of the article. • Freechild   'sup?   22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Given the number of other creatures that have survived from long ago, I can't argue with it except on one minor detail: fossils for Hemicyon have been discovered in China.  Seems to need a bit more thought to get it worked out completely.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great ! And where have hemicyons been all the time between prehistory and the 18th century ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.201.186 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you think Hemi engines come from? Bearerofthecup (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add the fact that it bears a strong ressemblance to Pliny's crocotta : []Longfinmako (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be Original Research. You can add the link to the See also section if you think it's relevant. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Was it an inspiration?
Was the Beast the inspiration for Beauty and the Beast? Both supposedly happened in France, and it would not be the only time that a prior story has caused a story to be written (see: Arthurian legend and Lucius Artorius Castus).Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this beast the inspiration for The Beast of Craggy Island in Father Ted? (Tk420 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Father Ted = great show. But no, the inspiration for Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale (hijacked by Disney of course). Bearerofthecup (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The question was intended to ask about whether or not the fairy tale could have been inspired by the Beast. I am sorry that I did not state this in my original post.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The first written version of that fairy tale predates the Wolf of Gévaudan. The oral version could possibly be centuries older. So, no, it could not have been the inspiration. Bearerofthecup (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Another theory
It seems that it could have been a wolf with a genetically altered coloration, possibly a slight case of mange to explain the tuft on the tail, and Proteus Syndrome to increase the size, without the normal side effects. (The Proteus Syndrome is what the Elephant Man had) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Beautor (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. Now all you have to do is provide a source. By the way, the Elephant Man was hardly an athlete. One would expect a wolf with proteus to be a weak creature barely able to stand or even breatheDark hyena (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Proteus Syndrome does not necessarily affect the creature in a malicious fashion. For example, the Elephant Man eventually died from his Proteus Syndrome.  However, if you check, you will find that there is a man who has Proteus Syndrome in his testicle.  If the Proteus Syndrome affects it in a manner that merely makes it larger, it could eat and run around to its heart's delight until it decides to chomp somebody.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

French Poodle
After careful cosideration of all the relevant information, we have concluded that la bete was most likely a...

...French Poodle, as the tuft and face are characteristic of the species.

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.212.52.194 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hate to poo on your party, but isn't this supposed to be serious?Cyrus Beautor (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

POV issues?
The sentence "The areas in the world today where wolf attacks are still a common occurrence are usually poverty-stricken with a general lack of predator control technology" is problematic. Wolf attacks are not "common" anywhere - they are known in Asia, but still rare. The statement is sourced, but the source (Abundant Wildlife Society) is an organization opposing wolves (if you hit the "back to main page" link on the bottom of the essay, it's a web site talking about how wolves are a big game-killer, hurt game populations, etc. It's very biased against big predators.

Also, it should be clarified just how unusual a "killing spree" like this would be for a wolf. As far as I know, there is no case like it anywhere. I don't know how to put this into the article without pushing my personal POV that it couldn't have been a wolf, though - could anybody help? Vultur (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's tempting to unleash PC rhetoric on this subject, especially for folk who want to whitewash the wolf's reputation. Your perception of wolf behaviour is accurate, but only for modern wolves (and more so New World wolves). Hostility toward humans was very common among Old World wolves in past centuries. "Killing sprees" are certainly rare today, but were all too regular a thing in Europe prior to population decimation through hunting. For example, there are five links at the bottom of the page dealing with "man-eaters" that were roughly contemporary with the Wolf of Gévaudan. Many such wolves existed, and I am in the process of adding them all to Wikipedia. These include two "killing sprees" that had occurred in Gévaudan prior to the 1764-1767 attacks, each of which produced a death toll greater than that of the subject of this article. Up until the mid-19th century these events were cyclical and repetitive, and it's incorrect to portray them as anything but. Bearerofthecup (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is true; I admit I had not heard of these other European incidents. But the point still stands that there is no place where "wolf attacks are still a common occurrence." Also, I wouldn't say they were ever common - regular, yes, but not common, just as lion attacks are today.  (I really think "common" is inaccurate, and a bit sensationalist, applied to attacks on humans by almost any large predator - the risk of death by carnivore attack is negligible compared to other causes of death except in very unusual circumstances, usually involving isolated and invaded habitats - such as the Sundarbans today, and possibly some areas of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, and much earlier. European wolves were likely desperate; the forests were being cleared for farms and towns and the great oaks cut down for ships.) Vultur (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. Modern wolves are completely unlike their aggressive ancestors. Today's wolves are timid, shun Man, are far less numerous, not to mention more easily and frequently 'outgunned' due to the prevalence of more advanced firearms as well as their ubiquity, and their range has been drastically reduced. It's P.C. to say that a wolf poses no threat to the average human, but it's also the truth. However, this was certainly not the case centuries ago. To characterize modern wolves as harmless or posing little threat is accurate; to characterize wolves historically as such is not. To us these stories seem sensationalist, especially to those who consider Nature as being under the dominion of Man, or even capable of domination. Consider, for instance, Primaeval Man huddling around his fire, spear in hand. To him the threat of wolf or bear or tiger was very real. Now consider the Gevaudanais in their cottages at night. To them the threat was real, but less so. Now consider us. Do you look over your shoulder when you take out the garbage at twilight? Probably not. It's difficult to imagine yourself being eaten by anything when you're riding the bus and learning Esperanto from your Kindle while you get directions to a LAN party from Google Earth off of your iPhone. It's just too primitive a notion. Your position is completely understandable. But I think it does a great disservice to human psychology when people cast aside the evil wolf archetype as nonsense, or fear mongering, or some sort of immature response to a world that we don't understand and so fear. It did not develop in a vaccuum. Suggesting that people are misunderstood about wolves because they fear them is irresponsible - that fear has real roots tens of thousands of years old. It's a fear that has developed from instict, and so is universal. The modern wolf does not need people to whitewash its reputation. The modern wolf has done that itself by evolving alongside Man into, essentially, a peaceful and unobtrusive cohabitator. But even a completely reformed felon is always followed by the shadow of his criminal history. All I ask is that we keep things in proper perspective by presenting historical fact objectively. The Big Bad Wolf was real. He's gone now, but there was a time when he was real. Let's represent both wolf and Man well by not forgetting his memory. Bearerofthecup (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a call nonsense on a lot of this. Wolf attacks are still a common occurrence in areas with the right conditions. The conditions in question are: proximity, familiarity, and vulnerability. It should also be pointed out that human meat is, for most predators, an acquired taste; they would rather have something else, but can become accustomed to us. Nonetheless, calling the modern wolf--a social killing machine which has evolved not to coexist but to compete with mankind (remember: habitat losses are commonly implicated where wolf populations are in decline)--"reformed" and "a peaceful and unobtrusive cohabitator" is a bit naive. To argue that a species can have changed so drastically over the course of three centuries is going to require a lot of reliable sources. J.M. Archer (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bah
I love this subject but the article is trash. Just look at the sources! Occultopedia. Cryptozoology websites. What tripe. The only decent citation here is Derek Brockis. I move that the article be entirely rewritten to include only information from Brockis (and Thompson from Antoine de Beauterne). It's high time that this nonsense about hyenas, wolf/dog hybrids, and conspiracies finds its way into the garbage where it belongs. This article should NOT have a place in the Paranormal or Cryptozoology WikiProjects. All of the real research, the real scholarly research, has concluded that the animal(s) in question was nothing more than a pack of especially vicious wolves. There were necropsy records, for crying out loud! As for everything else, it needs to go. This article resembles a GeoCities website.

P.S. - Added neat new picture!

Bearerofthecup (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. However, I have no learning in this topic. Perhaps more information taken from your "Wolf hunting in France" book would help? Dark hyena (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I could do the rewrite, but I'm wondering if I should bother. The crypto freaks and werewolf people would revert mercilessly. Anyone who's read the talk page would be afraid to touch this subject.


 * Bearerofthecup (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonesense. As long as you provide your source, no one will touch it. You have my support anyway, so I'll see to it that no crypto-fascist 12 year olds try anything. Use this as a starting point;

And this for later additions; Dark hyena (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT;

Why not show a scanned page from the text stating that wolves were culprits? You know, for the benefit of the users on the talk pages, just to prove what you're saying is not invented.

Plus, the Derek Brockis site, though well intentioned, was bad science.

Incidentally, the hyena species, which hunts as much as it scavenges, is genetically more similar to cat than dog, being of the feline family Feloidea, which certainly opens up the possibility of a terribly formidable cross-breed, such as hyena and big cat.

Another candidate for cross-breeding with wolf might be the Lycaon - ''a carniverous wild hunting dog still active, and feared, in Africa. It is perhaps a little small but is very savage and cunning. 'A cross with a wolf would be a formidable animal and a litter of them loose in a district could well be taken as an abnormal phenomenon. ''' http://www.labete.7hunters.net/bete3.htm

Complete bullshit. Both scenarios are totally impossible, simply because, similarities aside, the species are from separate genuses, ergo, that is not enough genetic similarity to produce a hybrid. It's about as asinine as suggesting that a human can successfully crossbreed with a marmoset.Dark hyena (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the idea of a hyena "nonsense"? Hyenas certainly are not native to France, but at the time of the attacks it was commonplace for nobles to stock menageries with exotic animals captured abroad, particularly from Africa. A hyena escaping from captivity and attacking humans (hyenas are quite vicious creatures) is hardly far-fetched. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Beast or Beasts?
Both this and the Antoine article mention multiple wolf culprits, including the Beast's mate and cubs. Should the article be renamed Beasts of Gevaudan? Dark hyena (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That may need to be changed, as somebody went in, killed something, and the attacks stopped. Multiple beasts would, by definition, require multiple kills or at least severe discouragement of the critters to stop the attacks. Cyrus Beautor (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In France, the beast of Gevaudan. Singular. At the time, it was attributed to one animal. The plural should be removed from the articles as it is not factual. Saying that there were several beasts is a theory not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.16.117 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Two 'beasts' were responsible, but they killed in separate timeframes, and both were referred to as the beast. They would have been called 'La Bête' even though both were males, yet this is merely convention. No name changes would be necessary. Bearerofthecup (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Legend of the Beast of Gevaudan
Just corrected some info about the legend of the beast of Gevaudan. According to my source it was not Jean Chastel but Antoine Chastel who shot the beast - using silver bullets of his own manufacture. Jean Chastel was his Antoine's son - and rather than being the killer of the werewolf was suspected of being the werewolf himself...I hasten to repeat that this is a Legend...Colin4C (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All historical records agree that Jean killed the beast. The silver bullets legend was added recently by novelists (Abel CHevalley, 1936). 90.62.2.78 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the story of the Wolves of Gevaudan has indeed passed into legend. Pourcher and Thompson should be read if you're interested in the truth; their books are essentially the definitive works. However, what really happened is only slightly less sensational than a tale of werewolves and silver bullets. Bearerofthecup (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pacte des Loupes 01.jpg
The image Image:Pacte des Loupes 01.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a Were Wolf not a Lion or any thing eles Read the book Encyclopedia Horifica!!!!!
The Beast had a tremendos tail and aimed for the throat and the females stayed behind plus there was only one.

A female lion does the hunting not the male so that could not be a lion even if it was whats it doing in France!!!!


 * Werewolves have not been proven to exist as of this moment, but if they are anytime soon I promise to edit the article accordingly. Bearerofthecup (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A Dinosaur
I belive that la bete was a raptor dinosaur (dromaeosaur) like velociraptor or pyroraptor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Plurals?
Why does the article use the plural, speaking of the beastS? At the time, there was supposed to be only one beast and it is still the common wisdow now. Claiming that there were several beasts is a theory, not a fact. The whole article should be rewritten with the plural removed. It seems also to contain personal research. For instance, there was no mention of "females hunting with the beasts" in none of the books I read on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.16.117 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the attacks were attributed to two different wolves. M. François Antoine killed Beast I as well as its mate and one cub; he also wounded a second cub. Beast II was killed by Jean Chastel long after Antoine left Gevaudan, and the general consensus among the hunters was that Beast II was the surviving cub, having reached maturity. Antoine himself observed a she-wolf and cubs with Beast I on more than one occasion, exhibiting behaviour typical of a wolf pack, but the connection is obvious even for those unfamiliar with canine sociality. If you want to read good books on the subject, there are only two I can recommend, and . Bearerofthecup (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's hardly any evidence to suggest that the wolf killed by Beauterne was responsible for any of the attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.204.127 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

crocuta or hyaena?
In the suggested species section, the animal featured in "The Real Wolfman" is said to be of the genus crocuta (spotted hyena), while the television section on the same documentary states that it was a striped hyena. They are two completely different animals. This needs clarification.Mariomassone (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bear?
Importing something as exotic and distant as a Hyeana would seem prohibitably expense in that time period. Could brown bears have traveled west by themselves or in some carnival have gotten to the region? There would have been a lack of large game, and to them humans are just another source of meet. Bears, as well as other carnivores go after the weak stragglers. A child or woman, alone, would appear to them as a weak straggler. These people would not have normally seen bears. A bear can walk on their hind legs, and the brown bear has a dog like snout. Livestock by is kept in groups, and would be near the the homes of the farmers. Bears hideout in caves. Why not a bear? 12-13-2009 Jeff Dranetz  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdranetz (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Because no source has come up with it. Plus, the necropsy of the beast described by Thierry shows that the beast had 42 teeth, which is consitent with canines, not bears and hyenas.Mariomassone (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

bull shit show All the information relating to this programme (mostly who and where and what and ;oh they shot some guns' etc etc) should all be in the TV show subsection and NOT within the suggest species section. Only a brief mention that this show concludes it was an Asian hyena should be present there before motioning people to read (alot) more about the documentary below. FloreatAntiquaDomus —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloreatAntiquaDomus (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Brotherhood of the Wolf error
You need to make a correction. In the movie Brotherhood of the Wolf, it's a lion they claim as the Beast, not a hyena. Whomever wrote this part obviously did not watch the movie as not only do they clearly say it was a lion repeatedly in the movie and one of a pair of lions brought back from Africa, they even show the beast up close before it's killed and that's no hyena but a lion. I would challenge anyone to dispute this who has actually watched the movie and where this creature was called a hyena in the movie... I cannot imagine. (Armorbeast (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC))
 * If you've seen the movie, why don't you edit that part of the article? Wikipedia depends on people being bold rather than asking. If it's wrong, go ahead and put it right, nobody owns the article. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

While the director of the movie clearly states that it's a Lion, the movie DOES NOT Clearly states this. Having seen the movie I thought it was a Hyena for a long while after. It mentions that it was a pair "Beasts" that he brought from Africa, not a LION.Kairos (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? The cripple says that he lost his arm killing a lioness in Senegal. The narrator then says that he brought her cubs and made them fight each other until only the strongest remained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cultists, wolves or bears.
I have a couple of theories about what may have been going on in Gévaudan. It may have been a dire wolf pack, which are believed to be extinct. They had huge heads, powerful jaws, illustrated by their abnormally large zygomatic arches. This is important, because modern wolves don't have the jaw strength required to sever a head, but the dire wolf may have. It's possible that the wolf or wolves were picking off humans, as at this point they were some of the biggest game, and relative to the animal kingdom, they are pretty easy to kill as long as they are unarmed. I also believe that it's possible that the wolves had been domesticated by a human or group of humans. There have been wolf worshipping cults, and werewolf cults since as far back as the ancient greeks. In that same vein, I believe that it's possible that some kind cult may have been killing the people without the help of animals. Perhaps some kind of claw-like gauntlets were used. Although, I think the most reasonable explanation, based on the random nature of the kills, is that humans weren't directly responsible. Another theory I have is related to imperialism, and a german zoo where bears are loosing their hair. During the time of the attacks, French Imperialism was in full swing. At around the same time zoos were beginning to become popular in Europe. At this time, menageries full of exotic animals were being donated to zoos, or turned into zoos. In france, there was the Royal Menagerie which was in Versailles. I wonder if it's possible that a south american bear was brought to Versailles, and escaped in transit, or from the menagerie. It's unlikely that the news of an escaped bear would have been widespread without modern means of communication, so there's probably no way of verifying this. Now, it's important that said bear came from south america, though it could have come from Africa. The point is that it had to be a bear from a warm climate. Enter Dolores, the hairless bear. At a zoo in Germany, a group of South American bears have all lost their fur. The current popular theory for why this happened is that the bears couldn't properly acclimate to the climate change from South America to Germany, so they shed their fur out of stress. It could also be a genetic defect, so I suppose it the beast could have been any kind of bear, if genetics are to blame. These bears don't look like bears at all. I think it's possible that something similar may have happened to a bear brought to france by imperialists, or a wild bear in france, maybe a Eurasian brown bear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.134.197 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Death Assessment Commentary
The article was assessed C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations.Boneyard90 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)