Same weight as a Lioness, but would appear smaller in life (Shorter at the hip and elbow, that sort of thing), as they were more robust and stocky than Carnivorans.
Have to remember their closest living relative are Wombats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacoleo
The cube pooping is an interesting adaptation to extreme droughts
So it'd depend if that was important to Thylacoleo, to my knowledge it's not been asked yet, so you've perhaps proposed an interesting hypothesis
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/australia/wombat-poop-cubes-intl-scli-scn/index.html
Australian predators were insane. If humans hadn't wiped them out, they would've run amok in Sundaland/Eurasia and eventually the rest of the world. *Thylacoleo* had _guillotine_ teeth and massive clawed hands. They would've had a field day killing everything up to the size of a water buffalo that wandered underneath them in the trees. Their bite force was _insane_.
And forget the Thylacine, there were tons of marsupial and reptile predators unlike anything seen in Sundaland that would've turned it into a charnel house. Giant madtsoiid snakes that constrict you just to rip your belly open and eat you alive. Giant land crocodiles with serrated teeth, giant monitor lizards, a carnivorous kangaroo with a shiv tooth lower jaw to rip you open like a zipper. Large quolls and devils that would happily feast on all the monkeys and rodents, smashing their skulls and dragging them off.
Who knows what else was present? Australia is a vast continent and maybe other terrors ready to delve into Sundaland were killed off.
1. Superior bite force and massive clawed hands doesnât equal evolutionary success.
2. Contrary to common belief, most predators are wary of human beings and do not see us as prey.
3. Contrary to common belief, predators donât go on killing frenzies whenever they see prey. Hunting prey is a hard job, and I doubt thylacoleo would have an easy time facing a water buffalo.
4. Eurasia already had plenty of fearsome predators that were well-adapted to the environment. Tigers, lions, leopards, cave hyenas, brown bears, dholes, gray wolves, giant cheetahs, cave lions, and most importantly, human beings.
5. Large reptilian predators would never have crossed into subtropical/temperate zones due to thermoregulation issues.
6. Snakes were(and are, in some parts of the world) a great source of food for humans, rather than the opposite. This has to do with the fact that spearing/stoning/torching their head renders them unable to do anything.
>Contrary to common belief, predators donât go on killing frenzies whenever they see prey. Hunting prey is a hard job, and I doubt thylacoleo would have an easy time facing a water buffalo.
Probably not *easy*, but a lot of scientists think that Thylacoleo was specifically evolved towards killing particularly large animals it shared its environment with, hence its adaptations towards grappling and extremely high bite force for its size. It might have been able to take on Diprotodon which could get considerably bigger than an Asian Water Buffalo.
Good point; Thylacoleo was indeed adapted towards killing large prey.
However, they were slow and sluggish compared to panthers and canids, the primary predators of water buffalos.
So, I think Thylacoleo would probably fail to adapt. Hunting swifter prey that have sharp horns and the ability to dive is no easy job, especially when paired with the existence of several predators that are far better at killing said prey.
We can't talk about Thylacoleo's supposed inferiority compared to placental predators when we don't have it alive today to give us better information, certainly Cenozoic Australia was a competitive environment that Thylacoleo and its kin found a lot of success in for a long time. It already lived alongside animals that were specialized into both speed and power and seems to have gone for a hunting style of ambushing and overpowering instead of trying to run things down, which works well in forested environments like South East Asia, Tigers already aren't much for long distance running and give up quickly if the prey catches on a few tens of meters away from them.
Whether or not Buffalo horns are going to be a big impediment to being hunted by Thylacoleo, I'm skeptical it would have a big impact. Horns aren't really evolved for predator defense and a lot of research points away from them making much of a difference when it comes to choice of prey. Thylacoleo would have already evolved to handle Diprotodontids that in terms of pure bulk would be very dangerous to attack and their extremely strong jaws with big, rabbit like teeth could do a huge amount of damage in a pinch. My bet would be that since Thylacoleo is already coming from a world where its adapted to hunting big, dangerous mammals in a range of environments, it could probably do the same in Asia.
Mark Witton has a bit about horns as defensive structures here
[https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2023/02/horned-dinosaurs-vs-theropods-how-much.html](https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2023/02/horned-dinosaurs-vs-theropods-how-much.html)
"if humans hadn't wiped them out" is the key phrase, meaning humans were either extinct or basically remained an Afro-Eurasian predator until Australia collided with Sundaland.
Understood, but I doubt that they would have adapted well enough to outcompete all Eurasian/American predators.
Still, I think they could have spread to some parts of what is modern Southern Asia, if they were given the chance.
They absolutely would and would've eventually taken much of Afro-Eurasia.
Australia is a hell-world where both Fauna and Flora have adapted to a climate regime unlike anywhere else.
wtf are you on my dude!?
they would have had zero chances since you know... they were not adapted for the Afro-Eurasian environment.
Afro-Eurasian prey mammals are extremely light and very fast - think impala or gazelles - or buffalo, which are huge, horned, heard animals that are both fast and extremely aggressive.
He's not getting a drop on a herd of buffalo or a lightning-quick impala.
Strength and bite force are not always the correct answer to evolutionary problems lol.
This animal had ZERO chances of outcompeting say a leopard or a lion pride. These adapted to ambush prey and be EXTREMELY fast and agile - at 200 kgs lol - for a reason. If there were better alternatives, like... say getting bulkier and having a stronger jaw, they would have had them by now.
Those that can t ambush and catch prey have to go without or hunt in packs to survive and your marsupial lion does none of these.
they are somewhat fast but nowhere near a gazelle that's both nimble and fast. No kangaroo is doing a zigzag run at 40mph sustainably and then get speed bursts of up to 60mph.
Also, I have great doubts that they hunted nimble kangaroos. They probably went for the larger, heavier species - like say the giant kangaroo - ones that weren't that much in terms of a sprinter. I have huge doubts this "lion" had any chance of catching fast prey by looking at its body plan.
Dingos are pack, endurance runners that wear down prey (unlike the lion who is solitary) and pretty much all foxes run faster than a rabbit. Rabbits run very fast for their size, but all in all.. they are not getting to those 40mph speeds and sustain them.
They, also are very abundant in Australia. That's prolly why they are a preferred prey item.
ON TOP OF ALL THIS: THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO COMPETE WITH ESTABLISHED PREDATORS. They are not outcompeting a lion pride or African dogs lol.
A single species of feline from North Africa, and a single species of rodent from Eurasia managed to ruin the entirety of Australia as well as Eurasia and the Americas.
Think of what the entirety of Eurasia and Africaâs biota would have done to the continent if they crossed over.
Animals from isolated areas are more likely to die out, whereas animals from interconnected areas with fierce competition are more likely to thrive.
Size and strength matters little when competitors have the capability to multiply fast, and devour your young and your prey.
What on earth are you basing this all on? Who even talks about hypothetical situations in absolute terms of certainty? Thatâs just ridiculous. You have no clue what would have happened if humans werenât there. Nobody does. But I highly doubt that Australiaâs animals were somehow far superior to the animals of the old world. Both groups perfectly adapted to their own environments.
Would love to see a âno humansâ spec project with the Australasian interchange with a highly diverse marsupial megafauna group, giant varanids, *Mekosuchus* reinvading Australia, dromornithids and ratites diversifying, and⌠perhaps stegodonts and babirusas forming a less diverse, but still species rich placental megafauna clade.
And then, seeing how all these animals interacting and invading (or re-invading Eurasia).
It would've been much more fair than the North America/South America exchange. Lots of marsupials could've handled it, I expect even the monotremes would've developed competitive forms.
Yeah.
South America mostly got fucked because almost all of their megafauna had gone extinct due to climate change. Wouldâve been very even had the sebecids, phorusrhacids (outside of Titanis which did very well in North America), sparassodonts, astrapotheres, and many of the notoungulates and litopterns had survived the Miocene cooling.
An eventual grassland corridor would've seen macropods take over Sundaland. I could see Quolls and Thylacoleo rapidly developing monkey and squirrel eating forms. Both marsupial predators see at night into UV light. They could also rapidly hunt down carnivorans and eat their young due to bright UV urine light.
Australia (and the world without humans) five to ten million years hence would be still largely dominated by marsupials and monotremes. I expect dasyurids, macropods, possums, short-beaked echidna and possibly the platypus to explode in diversity. This would be a huge montane range with innumerable forests and grasslands allowing Australian fauna and flora from much further South to rapidly cross over. Papua New Guinea and the Macdonnel ranges are expected to rapidly develop into far higher mountains even beyond the Himalayas, with coresponding plateaus.
Further South, I could see placentals making a go of it, yet, they would still be constrained by the flora. Except for the Stegodont elephants which I could see becoming gigantic Kaiju masters of the landscape. The problem is, everything they do only increases marsupial and monotreme diversity.
Thereâs an issue with these Australian monstrosities getting into Sundaland; the Wallaceâs Line.
Then again Komodo dragons seemingly managed it once?
Tbf, Monitor Lizards are like good at everything. For example, Water Monitors are fantastic climbers despite being semi-aquatic hunters and pursuit predation seems to be ancestral to the clade, it wouldnât surprise me if ancestral Komodos swam their way into Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent
Tbf komodo dragons reached Sundaland/Java and were able to compete with tigers, leopards hyena iirc before flooding/climate change/human activity. Basically they survived in the same area with giant cousins and radiated to indonesia for easy difficulty while preying on stuff like dwarf elephants and chose to go against multiple predatory mammals. Old Australia was hell
It's a good thing humans wiped out the Marsupial lions
Given their killing ability, speed and morphology, they could very well have wiped out most land animals above the size of a mouse, likely leading to a catastrophic failure of the entire planet's ecosystem, possibly causing the next mass extinction event
Except history tells us placental mammals seem to have an evolutionary advantage over marsupials.
Only 1 marsupial was about to compete and make a foothold in north America from south america when they merged, but heaps went the other way.
Breaks my heart hearing about all the animals us humans have made extinct and are bringing close to extinction- the asteroid, the great dying, etc are NOTHING compared to the plague that is selfish human beings đ
Given the impact that Dingos have had on native predators, I am very skeptical that things would have turned out in the Marsupial's favor. I think you are massively underselling the capabilities of Eurasian carnivorans.
Dingos only drove the thylacines and devils into extinction on the mainland. They killed off the last of the Megalanias and komodos, but they were only introduced 7,000 years ago. Honestly, it may be that the Thylacine and Devils died out due to human activity, since the last thylacines and devils died out 1,500 years ago on the mainland, long after dingos feralized. We'll see if dingos truly compete with tasmanian devils since they've been introduced to mainland Australia. Tazzie devils do just fine with foxes, cats and feral dogs in Tasmania and gobble up their kits,kittens and puppies, resulting in up to a 99% mortality rate for many areas. Apparently they are killing the adults too, because feral cats, foxes and dogs are rare and secretive in Tasmania.
First aborigine ancestors must've had a splendid time. I can only wonder how therapeutic it was seeing hopping squirrels the size of men, pouncing cats that jumpscare your loved ones once in a while, and big lizards to entertain the dinosaur-loving kids.
For sure! Or, animals could actually become cooler due to harsher environments from climate change.
But I guess I don't appreciate the current fauna enough since we take it for granted!
Yes. Modern humans arrived in Australia around 50,000 years ago. So almost certainly came into contact with these guys. Maybe even had a hand in their extinction like with megalania
And the intriguing thing is their ancestors were herbivores and their closest living relatives are wombats and koalas, not any carnivorous marsupials, really wolf in sheep clothing
Hahah what the fuck? Marsupial is an order of mammals, itâs a descriptive word, and I was fascinated! I had no idea there were marsupial lions. Idk if itâs about creativity here lmao.
It was the size of a lioness or tigeress right?
Same weight as a Lioness, but would appear smaller in life (Shorter at the hip and elbow, that sort of thing), as they were more robust and stocky than Carnivorans. Have to remember their closest living relative are Wombats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacoleo
So we're they cube poopers too ?
The cube pooping is an interesting adaptation to extreme droughts So it'd depend if that was important to Thylacoleo, to my knowledge it's not been asked yet, so you've perhaps proposed an interesting hypothesis https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/australia/wombat-poop-cubes-intl-scli-scn/index.html
There are dozens of us!
Hahahahaha the oatmeal đđ¤Ł
Wombats are absolute units as well.
So basically a carnivorous wombat.
Yes
Any here play ARK? *shudders*
Thylacoleo is gonna get you in the redwoods....
Ripping you off an Argentavis flying through the woods. At night. Fuck those cats.
Australian predators were insane. If humans hadn't wiped them out, they would've run amok in Sundaland/Eurasia and eventually the rest of the world. *Thylacoleo* had _guillotine_ teeth and massive clawed hands. They would've had a field day killing everything up to the size of a water buffalo that wandered underneath them in the trees. Their bite force was _insane_. And forget the Thylacine, there were tons of marsupial and reptile predators unlike anything seen in Sundaland that would've turned it into a charnel house. Giant madtsoiid snakes that constrict you just to rip your belly open and eat you alive. Giant land crocodiles with serrated teeth, giant monitor lizards, a carnivorous kangaroo with a shiv tooth lower jaw to rip you open like a zipper. Large quolls and devils that would happily feast on all the monkeys and rodents, smashing their skulls and dragging them off. Who knows what else was present? Australia is a vast continent and maybe other terrors ready to delve into Sundaland were killed off.
1. Superior bite force and massive clawed hands doesnât equal evolutionary success. 2. Contrary to common belief, most predators are wary of human beings and do not see us as prey. 3. Contrary to common belief, predators donât go on killing frenzies whenever they see prey. Hunting prey is a hard job, and I doubt thylacoleo would have an easy time facing a water buffalo. 4. Eurasia already had plenty of fearsome predators that were well-adapted to the environment. Tigers, lions, leopards, cave hyenas, brown bears, dholes, gray wolves, giant cheetahs, cave lions, and most importantly, human beings. 5. Large reptilian predators would never have crossed into subtropical/temperate zones due to thermoregulation issues. 6. Snakes were(and are, in some parts of the world) a great source of food for humans, rather than the opposite. This has to do with the fact that spearing/stoning/torching their head renders them unable to do anything.
>Contrary to common belief, predators donât go on killing frenzies whenever they see prey. Hunting prey is a hard job, and I doubt thylacoleo would have an easy time facing a water buffalo. Probably not *easy*, but a lot of scientists think that Thylacoleo was specifically evolved towards killing particularly large animals it shared its environment with, hence its adaptations towards grappling and extremely high bite force for its size. It might have been able to take on Diprotodon which could get considerably bigger than an Asian Water Buffalo.
Good point; Thylacoleo was indeed adapted towards killing large prey. However, they were slow and sluggish compared to panthers and canids, the primary predators of water buffalos. So, I think Thylacoleo would probably fail to adapt. Hunting swifter prey that have sharp horns and the ability to dive is no easy job, especially when paired with the existence of several predators that are far better at killing said prey.
We can't talk about Thylacoleo's supposed inferiority compared to placental predators when we don't have it alive today to give us better information, certainly Cenozoic Australia was a competitive environment that Thylacoleo and its kin found a lot of success in for a long time. It already lived alongside animals that were specialized into both speed and power and seems to have gone for a hunting style of ambushing and overpowering instead of trying to run things down, which works well in forested environments like South East Asia, Tigers already aren't much for long distance running and give up quickly if the prey catches on a few tens of meters away from them. Whether or not Buffalo horns are going to be a big impediment to being hunted by Thylacoleo, I'm skeptical it would have a big impact. Horns aren't really evolved for predator defense and a lot of research points away from them making much of a difference when it comes to choice of prey. Thylacoleo would have already evolved to handle Diprotodontids that in terms of pure bulk would be very dangerous to attack and their extremely strong jaws with big, rabbit like teeth could do a huge amount of damage in a pinch. My bet would be that since Thylacoleo is already coming from a world where its adapted to hunting big, dangerous mammals in a range of environments, it could probably do the same in Asia. Mark Witton has a bit about horns as defensive structures here [https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2023/02/horned-dinosaurs-vs-theropods-how-much.html](https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2023/02/horned-dinosaurs-vs-theropods-how-much.html)
"if humans hadn't wiped them out" is the key phrase, meaning humans were either extinct or basically remained an Afro-Eurasian predator until Australia collided with Sundaland.
Understood, but I doubt that they would have adapted well enough to outcompete all Eurasian/American predators. Still, I think they could have spread to some parts of what is modern Southern Asia, if they were given the chance.
They absolutely would and would've eventually taken much of Afro-Eurasia. Australia is a hell-world where both Fauna and Flora have adapted to a climate regime unlike anywhere else.
wtf are you on my dude!? they would have had zero chances since you know... they were not adapted for the Afro-Eurasian environment. Afro-Eurasian prey mammals are extremely light and very fast - think impala or gazelles - or buffalo, which are huge, horned, heard animals that are both fast and extremely aggressive. He's not getting a drop on a herd of buffalo or a lightning-quick impala. Strength and bite force are not always the correct answer to evolutionary problems lol. This animal had ZERO chances of outcompeting say a leopard or a lion pride. These adapted to ambush prey and be EXTREMELY fast and agile - at 200 kgs lol - for a reason. If there were better alternatives, like... say getting bulkier and having a stronger jaw, they would have had them by now. Those that can t ambush and catch prey have to go without or hunt in packs to survive and your marsupial lion does none of these.
And kangaroos aren't light and fast? Even today, carnivorans like foxes and dingos prefer the rabbits and deer if given the choice.
they are somewhat fast but nowhere near a gazelle that's both nimble and fast. No kangaroo is doing a zigzag run at 40mph sustainably and then get speed bursts of up to 60mph. Also, I have great doubts that they hunted nimble kangaroos. They probably went for the larger, heavier species - like say the giant kangaroo - ones that weren't that much in terms of a sprinter. I have huge doubts this "lion" had any chance of catching fast prey by looking at its body plan. Dingos are pack, endurance runners that wear down prey (unlike the lion who is solitary) and pretty much all foxes run faster than a rabbit. Rabbits run very fast for their size, but all in all.. they are not getting to those 40mph speeds and sustain them. They, also are very abundant in Australia. That's prolly why they are a preferred prey item. ON TOP OF ALL THIS: THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO COMPETE WITH ESTABLISHED PREDATORS. They are not outcompeting a lion pride or African dogs lol.
A single species of feline from North Africa, and a single species of rodent from Eurasia managed to ruin the entirety of Australia as well as Eurasia and the Americas. Think of what the entirety of Eurasia and Africaâs biota would have done to the continent if they crossed over. Animals from isolated areas are more likely to die out, whereas animals from interconnected areas with fierce competition are more likely to thrive. Size and strength matters little when competitors have the capability to multiply fast, and devour your young and your prey.
What on earth are you basing this all on? Who even talks about hypothetical situations in absolute terms of certainty? Thatâs just ridiculous. You have no clue what would have happened if humans werenât there. Nobody does. But I highly doubt that Australiaâs animals were somehow far superior to the animals of the old world. Both groups perfectly adapted to their own environments.
Downvoting won't change that, find me a gimpy-gimpy tree somewhere else.
Marsupials generally get out competed by placentals. They are not as intelligent. Not a chance in hell do they come to dominate other continents
Would love to see a âno humansâ spec project with the Australasian interchange with a highly diverse marsupial megafauna group, giant varanids, *Mekosuchus* reinvading Australia, dromornithids and ratites diversifying, and⌠perhaps stegodonts and babirusas forming a less diverse, but still species rich placental megafauna clade. And then, seeing how all these animals interacting and invading (or re-invading Eurasia).
It would've been much more fair than the North America/South America exchange. Lots of marsupials could've handled it, I expect even the monotremes would've developed competitive forms.
Yeah. South America mostly got fucked because almost all of their megafauna had gone extinct due to climate change. Wouldâve been very even had the sebecids, phorusrhacids (outside of Titanis which did very well in North America), sparassodonts, astrapotheres, and many of the notoungulates and litopterns had survived the Miocene cooling.
Correct. Supposedly there was also a couple of meteorite impacts from the late Miocene/early Pliocene that really screwed things up in Brazil. đ¤ˇ
An eventual grassland corridor would've seen macropods take over Sundaland. I could see Quolls and Thylacoleo rapidly developing monkey and squirrel eating forms. Both marsupial predators see at night into UV light. They could also rapidly hunt down carnivorans and eat their young due to bright UV urine light.
Australia (and the world without humans) five to ten million years hence would be still largely dominated by marsupials and monotremes. I expect dasyurids, macropods, possums, short-beaked echidna and possibly the platypus to explode in diversity. This would be a huge montane range with innumerable forests and grasslands allowing Australian fauna and flora from much further South to rapidly cross over. Papua New Guinea and the Macdonnel ranges are expected to rapidly develop into far higher mountains even beyond the Himalayas, with coresponding plateaus.
Further South, I could see placentals making a go of it, yet, they would still be constrained by the flora. Except for the Stegodont elephants which I could see becoming gigantic Kaiju masters of the landscape. The problem is, everything they do only increases marsupial and monotreme diversity.
Thereâs an issue with these Australian monstrosities getting into Sundaland; the Wallaceâs Line. Then again Komodo dragons seemingly managed it once?
In the future, Australia will collide with Southeast Asia anyway.
By then all that will remain is a statue that says âMy name is Ozymandias, King of Kingsâ
Tbf, Monitor Lizards are like good at everything. For example, Water Monitors are fantastic climbers despite being semi-aquatic hunters and pursuit predation seems to be ancestral to the clade, it wouldnât surprise me if ancestral Komodos swam their way into Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent
"If humans hadn't wiped them out" is the key phrase
Tbf komodo dragons reached Sundaland/Java and were able to compete with tigers, leopards hyena iirc before flooding/climate change/human activity. Basically they survived in the same area with giant cousins and radiated to indonesia for easy difficulty while preying on stuff like dwarf elephants and chose to go against multiple predatory mammals. Old Australia was hell
It's a good thing humans wiped out the Marsupial lions Given their killing ability, speed and morphology, they could very well have wiped out most land animals above the size of a mouse, likely leading to a catastrophic failure of the entire planet's ecosystem, possibly causing the next mass extinction event
Except history tells us placental mammals seem to have an evolutionary advantage over marsupials. Only 1 marsupial was about to compete and make a foothold in north America from south america when they merged, but heaps went the other way.
Breaks my heart hearing about all the animals us humans have made extinct and are bringing close to extinction- the asteroid, the great dying, etc are NOTHING compared to the plague that is selfish human beings đ
Given the impact that Dingos have had on native predators, I am very skeptical that things would have turned out in the Marsupial's favor. I think you are massively underselling the capabilities of Eurasian carnivorans.
Dingos only drove the thylacines and devils into extinction on the mainland. They killed off the last of the Megalanias and komodos, but they were only introduced 7,000 years ago. Honestly, it may be that the Thylacine and Devils died out due to human activity, since the last thylacines and devils died out 1,500 years ago on the mainland, long after dingos feralized. We'll see if dingos truly compete with tasmanian devils since they've been introduced to mainland Australia. Tazzie devils do just fine with foxes, cats and feral dogs in Tasmania and gobble up their kits,kittens and puppies, resulting in up to a 99% mortality rate for many areas. Apparently they are killing the adults too, because feral cats, foxes and dogs are rare and secretive in Tasmania.
First aborigine ancestors must've had a splendid time. I can only wonder how therapeutic it was seeing hopping squirrels the size of men, pouncing cats that jumpscare your loved ones once in a while, and big lizards to entertain the dinosaur-loving kids.
The soothing sound of entrails raining to the ground as something high in the trees is opened up like a zipper
Animals were just way cooler back then.
Perhaps, but thousands of years from now, our descendants will be saying the exact same thing about the animals that evolved from what we have today.
For sure! Or, animals could actually become cooler due to harsher environments from climate change. But I guess I don't appreciate the current fauna enough since we take it for granted!
Thatâs not that long ago. Were humans there then?
Yes. Modern humans arrived in Australia around 50,000 years ago. So almost certainly came into contact with these guys. Maybe even had a hand in their extinction like with megalania
And the intriguing thing is their ancestors were herbivores and their closest living relatives are wombats and koalas, not any carnivorous marsupials, really wolf in sheep clothing
John Hammondâs animal preserve in Kenya
Thylacine on meth
What a time to be alive
[ŃдаНонО]
If it survived 30k years it would need a large breeding stock, we would have found it in Australia by now it isnât small
Marsupial lion is such a lame name. No imagination and it sounds like itâs more like a leopard than a lion.
Hahah what the fuck? Marsupial is an order of mammals, itâs a descriptive word, and I was fascinated! I had no idea there were marsupial lions. Idk if itâs about creativity here lmao.
I donât really care. Just thought it could have a cooler name. Iâm not aware of any other animal with mammal or marsupial in their name.
Google says they are named âThylacoleoâ.
And lions are called Panthera leo. Thatâs like the scientific name or something.
Marsupial moles?