Talk:Beast of Gévaudan

message: Wolf? Hyena? Creodont????   Look at the picture of the right, it's a lion with no doubt!
* It has a clear mane over head, shoulders and torax.
* 5 fingers, yet it only walks on four. All fingers have the large curve claws of a feline, and the beast is said to make thuds. This is consistent with a feline and not other type of carnivore.
* The tail is long and curves upright, like any member of the Panthera genus.
* There is a tuft at the end of the tail!
* The long tongue, supposely to suck up the blood of its victims. Lions lick the blood over their hair after killing a victim, in order to clean up it.
* A large male lion is consistent with the large size ("like a young bull calf"), speed (up to 90 km/h in short distances) and unusual strenght that the beast was said to be. They can easly root away arms, heads or cut human bodies in two, thing that a wolf cannot do. Plus, the witnesses, who were familiar to wolves, said that it didn't look like any of them, and the hunters who chased the beast used anti-wolves useless tactics.
This picture and other similar works strongly look like how an artist would draw a lion after the description of people who had not seen a lion before - like the peasants of Gevaudan. Of course, there aren't lions in Europe, so the beast would be introduced by man... and what happen to lions who are bred by man? They lose their natural instinct to fear/avoid humans. If a lion escaped, or was released at some point in central France, it would not have large game animals to prey but would find humans abundant, weak, stupid, slow and easy to kill compared to other animals. And everybody knows that after a lion kills a human, it develops a clear tendence to do it again. Remember the Tsavo maneaters.--Menah the Great 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is the problem that the victims didn't resemble typical big cat kills, and the sexualized stripping and mutilation of the corpses strongly implies a human element which would be more problematic with lions. But it does tie in better with the physical descriptions and behavioural patterns of the beast than it does with wolves, hyenas or alot of the other creatures suggested. If you can find sources with other people making the case for the beast being a lion and citations for the evidence backing up this theory then there's nothing to stop you from adding it to the explainations section. 81.152.196.91 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's one big problem with this theory: lions were indeed already well known in Europe at that time. Countless Coat of Arms are bearing lions and there were menageries all over France showing lions. Although a lot of peasant might never have seen one, it is unthinkable that all those people involved in the hunting would not have identified a lion. 84.167.164.36 09:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that the Gevaudanais had been pastoralists for centuries, and since the wolf was an absolute staple of their culture there is no reason to doubt their identification of the Beast as such. Bearerofthecup (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong color.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe a skilled Wikipedia editor could draw an image for the article, based off of Beauterne's description, which not only gives the dimensions of the Wolf of Chazes but its other singular characteristics. Bearerofthecup (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't we be keeping our pet theories out of this? In any case, as the other's have said, the actual descriptions of the Beast, as well as its behaviour don't line up with what I've read about lions that have developed a taste for long-pig.  Interiorcrocodile (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a lion!! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Beast of Gévaudan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209090711/http://www.nina.no:80/archive/nina/PppBasePdf/oppdragsmelding/2002/731.pdf to http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/PppBasePdf/oppdragsmelding/2002/731.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This actually happened, there are historical references that prove this. So why is it a part of WP folklore?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, folklore includes topics like recipes, jokes, and games. It also includes genres like legends, of which this and related entities have been subject. Whether or not it "actually happened" is irrelevant. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folklore? 

message: Some notes on the article (please excuse my bad English; I am not a native speaker): 
 
Introduction
 
•      “Victims were often killed by having their throats torn out.” 
 
Many victims were killed by attacks on their neck, but very few victims were reported to have had their throats torn out; this was probably inflicted on them postmortem. – My suggestion is: “Victims were often killed by attacks on their neck.” (François Fabre: La bête du Gévaudan. Edition complétée par Jean Richard. De Borée, 2002. Tableau des victimes de la Bête).
 
Section “Description”
 
•      “… and a white heart-shaped pattern was noted on its underbelly.”
 
This is not in the quoted text (Pourcher, p. 5); but another observation is on the page quoted: the beast had “very big claws”. This characteristic was reported by several witnesses, including the dragoon officer Duhamel (Alain Bonet: La Bête du Gévaudan. Chronologie et documentation raisonnées; 2008–2011; online available; p. 122).
 
Section “Beginnings”
 
•      “The beast of Gévaudan committed its first recorded attack in the early summer of 1764. A young woman named Marie-Jeanne Valet …”
 
Marie-Jeanne Val(l)et was attacked in August 1765; the name and the age of the first attacked girl or woman in 1764 are unknown. She should be referred to as “a shepherdess”. (1) Jay M. Smith: Monsters of the Gévaudan; Harvard University Press, 2011; p. 205. (2) Bonet, p. 19
 
•      “Reports note that the beast seemed only to target the victim's head or neck regions.”
 
In this absoluteness that was not the case; see e. g. the table in the appendix of Fabre’s book: “injured in the back / claw injury on the left shoulder / seized at the kidneys / bitten on the left hip“ (“blessé au dos / coup d'ongle à l'épaule gauche / saisi aux reins / mordu à la hanche gauche”; Fabre. Tableau des victimes de la Bête). – My suggestion: “Reports note that the beast often targeted the victim's head or neck regions.”
   
•      “… while others report that the beast was accompanied by its young”
 
If there is no historical source available, this should be deleted. Some of the wolves that were killed in Gévaudan were reported (not surprisingly) to have young, but no attacker was reported to have been in the company of its young.
 
•      “On 12 January 1765, Jacques Portefaix and seven friends were attacked by the beast. After several attacks, they drove it away by staying grouped together.”
 
Jacques Portefaix and six comrades: five boys and two girls altogether. “… drove it away by staying grouped together” is not the reason why the children became famous and were rewarded by the king: the beast carried off one boy of the group, the eight-year-old Jean Veyrier. Jacques prevailed over the others with his request not abandon Jean to his fate: the six children followed the beast and its victim to a bog where the beast partially sank into the swamp, but held Jean with a paw. While the children stabbed the beast with their lances, Jean could escape. (1) Smith, p. 159. (2) Jean-Marc Moriceau: La bête du Gévaudan: Mythe et réalités. Tallandier, 2021, pp. 104-108
 
Section “Royal intervention”
 
•      “On several occasions he almost shot the beast, but was hampered by the incompetence of his guards.”
 
The problem was not incompetence, but unfortunate circumstances; according to Smith (p. 87): “… moisture caused by pelting snow had threatened the dragoons’ gun powder and forced their muskets under their cloaks, thus preventing them from getting off a shot during the beast’s one brief appearance”. And on another occasion, near the castle La Baume: “… Duhamel, who was positioned in a copse of trees on the perimeter, had the beast square in his sights, and he was set to fire on it at only a few paces’ distance. Then disaster struck. Several of his companions, on horseback and unaware of their leader’s optimal position, appeared suddenly behind Duhamel and made their own charge at the animal. The beast quickly ‘changed direction,’ and in the confusion no one managed to fire a shot” (Smith, p. 87). – My suggestion: “On several occasions he almost shot the beast, but was hampered by unfortunate circumstances.”
 
•      “Cooperating with d'Enneval was impossible as the two differed too much in their strategies; Duhamel organised wolf hunting parties while d'Enneval and his son believed the beast could only be shot using stealthy techniques”
 
Duhamel proposed a cooperation, but the d'Ennevals refused (Smith, p. 142). Duhamel did not organize wolf hunting parties, but hunts on the individual animal that was called “la Bête” and that he had seen from up close (see above: incident at La Baume). Killing wolves was not the aim of these hunts, but “would be permitted” (Smith, p. 96). Duhamel was the hunter who used “stealthy techniques”; e. g., he disguised his dragoons as women and sent them together with women and children to the pastures; furthermore, he ordered that the remains of human victims were left at the place where they had been found and waited with his men in an ambush (Smith, p. 95; Moriceau, p. 197). – Suggestion: “The d'Ennevals refused to cooperate with Duhamel, who organised hunts on the beast with up to tens of thousands of hunters and beaters. Duhamel also used ‘stealthy techniques’: for example, he waited with his men in an ambush near the remains of human victims. (Smith, p. 142; Moriceau, p. 197)” 
 
•      “Father and son D'Enneval arrived in Clermont-Ferrand on 17 February 1765, bringing eight bloodhounds that had been trained in wolf hunting.”
 
The hounds arrived only weeks later (on 9 March; Smith, p. 144); they had been trained in wolf hunting, but proved ineffective in hunting the beast and therefore became “an object of mockery” (Smith, p. 140).
 
•      “… lieutenant of the Hunt, who arrived in Le Malzieu on 22 June.[citation needed]”
 
Regarding the required citation: Smith, p. 155.
 
•      “The animal was further identified as the culprit by attack survivors, who recognised the scars on its body inflicted by victims defending themselves.[1]”
 
It is correct that the cited source (Linnell et al.) claims this; but while Linnell et al. is a reputable source, the authors are wrong in this case. The wording of the original source has been published by several authors: today (but perhaps not at the time the Linnell report was written) it is easy to check that there is no hint in the “procès-verbal” that witnesses had identified the wolf by its scars (e. g. Bonet, pp. 408 f.). Marie-Jeanne Vallet, who had fought against the beast with a lance, was shown a scar on the animal’s shoulder and “she answered that she could not say where she had hurt it” (“elle a répondu qu'elle ne pouvait déclarer où elle l'avait blesse”). According to the history professor Jay M. Smith, the summoned witnesses had no other choice than to identify Antoine’s wolf as attacker (but no witness referred to scars). Smith concludes that the witnesses did not dare to deny the identity of this wolf as the beast: “the circumstances of their testimony call into question the reliability of the message they conveyed”. But if the witnesses had dared to dispute the wolf’s identity, Smith wrote, their critical comment would not have been recorded (Smith, p. 208). – Suggestion: “According to a report of 21 September 1765, attack survivors and other witnesses, among them children, identified the animal as the culprit; however, the historian Jay M. Smith considers these testimonies to be questionable. (Smith, p. 208)”  
 
•      “At the examination of the pup, it appeared to have a double set of dewclaws, a hereditary malformation found in the Bas-Rouge or Beauceron dog breed.[5]”
 
The quoted website about a dog breed is, of course, not evidence that the wolf in Gévaudan had a double set of dewclaws: it would be necessary to cite a historical source here. I suppose that the following sentence about the young wolf was misunderstood: “It already had like the big wolf 4 hooks in front and 4 behind“ (“Il avait déjà comme le gros loup 4 crochets en avant et 4 en arrière”; Bonet, p. 441). If "crochets" referred to the dewclaws, then this wolf would have had a double set of dewclaws not only on the front legs but also on the hind legs – very strange. According to the historical sentence, the 4 plus 4 “crochets” are normal in wolves (“like the big wolf”). Antoine referred to this characteristic because the young wolf “already” had this characteristic: he probably wanted to point out that the young wolf already had well-developed teeth; “crochets” was used in the 18th century as a term for the canine teeth of carnivores (and today means e. g. the fangs of snakes); the “hooks behind” probably meant the carnassials. – My suggestion is that the sentence in question be deleted.
 
•      “However, on 2 December, two boys aged 6 and 12 were attacked”
 
According to a letter of the subdelegate de Boissieu, they were 7 and 14 years old (Bonet, p. 462). 
 
•      “… some of the shepherds witnessed that the beast showed no fear around cattle at all.[6]”
 
That is not in the cited source (Bressan); the source says: “Notable the attacking animal seemed to be less interested in the cattle, as in the girl”. 
 
•      “A dozen more deaths are reported to have followed attacks near La Besseyre-Saint-Mary.[citation needed]”
 
Precisely: “25 more deaths are reported …”. All places of deadly attacks from December 1765 to June 1767 are not farther than about one dozen kilometers from La Besseyre-Saint-Mary or happened within the latter parish. (1) Fabre. Tableau des victimes de la Bête. (2) Moriceau, pp. 449 f. 
 
Section “Final attacks”
 
•      “… who shot it at the slopes of Mont Mouchet (now called la Sogne d'Auvers)”
 
“La Sogne d'Auvers” is not a modern name for the Mount Mouchet or its slopes, but an old name (still used today) for a marshy place at the edge of the forest of Ténezère. Pourcher referred in the 19th century to the Sogne d'Auvers as that place where the wolf probably was shot. (1) Pierre Pourcher: The Beast of Gevaudan. La Bête du Gévaudan. AuthorHouse, 2007, p. 475. (2) Bonet, p. 522. – Suggestion: “… who shot it in the forest of Ténezère at the slopes of Mont Mouchet, probably at a marshy place called la Sogne d'Auvers.
 
•      “The body was then brought to the castle of Marquis d'Apchier, where it was necropsied by Dr. Boulanger, a surgeon at Saugues.[12] … but the remains were incomplete by the time Boulanger acquired them, precluding conclusive identification of the animal.[13]”
 
I didn’t find any evidence in historical texts that Boulanger was a “Dr.”. Gibert, a domestique in the service of the Marquis d’Apcher, referred to Boulanger as “a bad apothecary surgeon” (“un mauvais chirurgien apothicaire”; Bonet, p. 523). According to the Marin Report the autopsy was performed by three persons: Boulanger, his son (also a “surgeon”), and the medical doctor Lamothe. Gibert was sent to Paris with the carcass in August, where it was examined by the famous naturalist Buffon, who concluded that was “only a big wolf” (“ce n’était qu’un gros loup”; Bonet, p. 535; Moriceau, p. 341). – Suggestion: “… where it was necropsied by the surgeons Court-Damien Boulanger and Antoine Boulanger (father and son) and the medical doctor Jean-Baptiste Aiguillon de Lamothe.”
 
•      “Upon being opened, the animal's stomach was shown to contain the remains of its last victim.[14]”
 
What is certain is that the carnivore had eaten from a sheep (Bonet, p. 533; Moriceau, p. 339). The examiners claimed that they also had found the femoral head of a child in the wolf’s stomach, but 18th century examiners were very probably unable to differentiate a femur fragment of a child from that of a sheep. The femoral head of a child is very similar to that of a sheep; even today, in archaeological contexts, distinguishing human bone fragments from those of sheep or goats can pose problems. Therefore, the alleged human bone fragment in the wolf’s stomach should not be presented as fact. – Suggestion: “The examiners found in the animal's stomach bones and entrails of a sheep and a bone fragment which they referred to as the femoral head of a child”.
 
•      “The Marin Report describes the creature as a wolf of unusually large proportions …”
 
The data presented in the Marin Report show that the creature was a normal Eurasian wolf with normal body proportions. Although the authors of the report claimed that the wolf was unusual, Buffon’s diagnosis confirms that was not the case. According to Smith, the Marin Report was part of a “counternarrative of the conquest of the beast of the Gévaudan”: the “locals … consciously mimicked the procedures of late September 1765”; they presented a “new narrative … and put local heroes in the place of Antoine” (Smith, pp. 208 f., 240 f.). – Suggestion: “The authors of the Marin Report claimed that the animal was unusual, but the renowned naturalist Comte de Buffon was reported to have concluded ‘after a careful examination that it was only a big wolf’ (‘après un examen sérieux, jugea que ce n’était qu’un gros loup’. (Bonet, p. 535; Moriceau, p. 341)”
 
•      “In a 2021 talk by François-Louis Pelissier, based on the described appearance of the animal and specific details of behaviour and what can be inferred about historical distribution, he argued that beast encounters could most likely be blamed on the Italian wolf Canis lupus italicus.[24]” 
 
Neither the hint on “a talk” nor the linked website are suitable as a source. In the 18th century the French Massif Central was part of the very wide range of Eurasian wolves (Canis lupus lupus; see Nowak: Wolf Evolution and Taxonomy. In: Mech & Boitani 2003: Wolves, p. 245 f.). After the last surviving wolves had been eradicated from France at the beginning of the 20th century, wolves of the subspecies italicus migrated from Italy to France and live today (!) in the Massif Central (Monnier & Figuet 2013: Le loup en France. Plan national d'action sur le loup 2008-2012; online available). The descriptions of the wolves killed in Gévaudan do not contain any indication that these wolves belonged to another subspecies than Canis lupus lupus. My suggestion is to delete the sentence. Charles-Jacques (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the content 

message: Multiple attestations of the beast having a muzzle like a calf but razor sharp teeth suggest something other than a standard carnivore - perhaps just a formidable set of defenses & defensive displays.  The European introduction of the Crested Porcupine species - now restricted to Italy - is believed to have been in late medieval times.  It is the heraldic badge - le Porcépic - of Louis xii & may have been promoted by him. It may alternatively be a failed introduction of the Long-tailed Porcupine from an Asian trade ship or a similar relative from West Africa. 2001:8003:3E02:E501:491A:6878:62D6:633E (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find some credible sources for this, then add it to the article. FULBERT (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible early French record of the Crested Porcupine