Yowiehunters Forum

I just know this post will cause a bit of controversy but anyway, here goes....

Don't know about anyone else but the word "Yowie" just makes me cringe. It doesn't describe the creature at all. In fact, it sounds somewhat childish.
People are not even sure of the derivation of the word. The Australian National Dictionary Centre describes it thus:

YOWIE

An ape-like monster supposed to inhabit parts of eastern Australia. The yowie is Australia’s equivalent of the Himalayan yeti, or the American bigfoot or sasquatch. Yowie may come from the word yuwi ‘dream spirit’ in the Yuwaalaraay language of northern New South Wales. However, another possiblity is that yowie is an alteration of the word yahoo, a name given by Aboriginal people to an evil spirit. Yowie is first recorded in the 1970s.

1980 M. McAdoo If Only I’d Listened: ’E’d be about six foot easy tall, broad, an’ a sort of brownish fur lookin’ stuff all over ’im, an’ standing up like a man… We didn’t know what the name of it was then, but .. a lot of people’ve been seein’ them around the eastern parts, an’ they’re known as the ‘Yowie’.

I would prefer it be called something more descriptive, such as "The Australian Forest Ape" or some such term.
I suggest this because the creature is almost always seen in forest, resembles a large, upright ape and no witness (to my knowledge) reports a tail. Apes, unlike monkeys, do not possess a tail. The dictionary definition of an ape is thus:

noun: ape; plural noun: apes

1.
a large primate that lacks a tail, including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons.

Does anyone else agree/disagree or have alternative suggestions for a name?

Mad Academic

I completely agree, I've always despised the term " yowie " . I'd rather "Australian Ape" or " bush ape" myself. But then there's others who believe it's not an ape, perhaps they prefer " yahoo" or " cow face "or " junjadi" or brown jack, either way, mention the word "yowie ", and the eye rolling begins, mention the Australian Ape with references to old news paper articles and suddenly you get a different reaction. Food for thought gentleman

Homo Nocturnus is the name I prefer to use.

Wolf wrote:Homo Nocturnus is the name I prefer to use.

And before anyone says that is the scientific name for vampires... nope, they are called homo usurus.

I think it's embedded into the Australian culture now that no name change will ever work. I don't mind the name, maybe you should ask "YURK", Heal thinks he can talk English see what he thinks.

No one has proven theyre apes or gorrilla. Hairy man, hairys or yowie is fine with me. The name yowie adds to the whole strangeness theyre connected with. I know what MA and Hominid Hunter mean though. I get sick of saying and writing it all the time.

Yurk the Australian bush ape just doesnt have te same ring to it...

Yowie bait wrote:No one has proven theyre apes or gorrilla. Hairy man, hairys or yowie is fine with me. The name yowie adds to the whole strangeness theyre connected with. I know what MA and Hominid Hunter mean though. I get sick of saying and writing it all the time.

Yurk the Australian bush ape just doesnt have te same ring to it...

One does not have to "prove" they are apes. Any primate without a tail is, by definition, an ape. We humans are apes.
They are apes whether you like it or not.
They are apes but not gorillas. Only gorillas are gorillas (obviously).

MA

Mad Academic wrote:

Yowie bait wrote:No one has proven theyre apes or gorrilla. Hairy man, hairys or yowie is fine with me. The name yowie adds to the whole strangeness theyre connected with. I know what MA and Hominid Hunter mean though. I get sick of saying and writing it all the time.

Yurk the Australian bush ape just doesnt have te same ring to it...

One does not have to "prove" they are apes. Any primate without a tail is, by definition, an ape. We humans are apes.
They are apes whether you like it or not.
They are apes but not gorillas. Only gorillas are gorillas (obviously).

MA

We, humans, are apes, are we? .......interesting.

Ask a Yowie their preferred title apparently, they favour Bunyip being from the Bunyip family.

It does not really bother me either....but I understand each to their own

Some contenders :

Hairy Bush Thingy
Blue Mountains Bush Monster (BMBM - or a BumBum )
Yahoo Man or Google Man
He That does not have a name
Homo Yurkis

Yep that was my contribution...

Mad Academic wrote:

Yowie bait wrote:No one has proven theyre apes or gorrilla. Hairy man, hairys or yowie is fine with me. The name yowie adds to the whole strangeness theyre connected with. I know what MA and Hominid Hunter mean though. I get sick of saying and writing it all the time.

Yurk the Australian bush ape just doesnt have te same ring to it...

One does not have to "prove" they are apes. Any primate without a tail is, by definition, an ape. We humans are apes.
They are apes whether you like it or not.
They are apes but not gorillas. Only gorillas are gorillas (obviously).

MA

Sorry i should have said that they may be a type of man.

ChrisV wrote:It does not really bother me either....but I understand each to their own

Some contenders :

Hairy Bush Thingy
Blue Mountains Bush Monster (BMBM - or a BumBum )
Yahoo Man or Google Man
He That does not have a name
Homo Yurkis

Yep that was my contribution...

Wolf wrote:Homo Nocturnus is the name I prefer to use.

Hi Wolf,

Any reason why you choose that? I know they are active at night but are often seen during the day as well.

Actually, if "proven" to exist they will have to be given a Latin name.
There are some "rules" as to choosing names for new species. It should be descriptive and may contain the name of the person who discovered it, or someone may be honoured by having their name included.

So, the giant ape reputed to have lived in Asia and known only from some molars and fragments of jaw is Gigantopithecus blackii.

Perhaps, if the Australian Bush Ape is discovered to be closely related, it might be named something like "Gigantopithecus australis".
Or some such similar name.

Cheers,

MA

MA[/quote]
Sorry i should have said that they may be a type of man.[/quote]



Given the obvious differences in size, hair, neck structure etc. I am betting they are very distantly related.
I certainly don't believe they are even in the same Genus and I don't believe they could breed with humans (a rather frightening thought!) as the Neanderthals did.

Just a hair follicle or a tiny piece of tissue could answer all these questions.
For a start, a chromosome count would be very interesting. If the count is different to our 46, then it is a different species without doubt.
Then sequencing would reveal "relatedness". It could be placed on the evolutionary tree due to how far its DNA has diverged from other primates.

Cheers,

MA

I too think the name yowie has now got the stigma of disrespect attached to it. The writing was on the wall when the name became better known as a chocolate with a toy inside. I favour an original indigenous name be used for the creature.. dooligal or jungadee suit me fine.

Mad Academic wrote:

Wolf wrote:Homo Nocturnus is the name I prefer to use.

Hi Wolf,

Any reason why you choose that? I know they are active at night but are often seen during the day as well.

They have excellent night vision, indicating they have adapted to be nocturnal (or never adapted to be diurnal).
Many nocturnal critters are seen during daylight hours.

Mad Academic wrote:Actually, if "proven" to exist they will have to be given a Latin name.
There are some "rules" as to choosing names for new species. It should be descriptive and may contain the name of the person who discovered it, or someone may be honoured by having their name included.

So, the giant ape reputed to have lived in Asia and known only from some molars and fragments of jaw is Gigantopithecus blackii.

Perhaps, if the Australian Bush Ape is discovered to be closely related, it might be named something like "Gigantopithecus australis".
Or some such similar name.

Cheers,

MA

No way are they gigantopithecus IMHO... the eyewitness descriptions do not fit. They are closer to us than that. For starters they do not have an 'ape' foot structure. Although proportionally wider and having a midtarsel break their foot structure is very, very similar to ours.

Apparently the bloke who invented the whole species, genus, subgenus nomenclature actually named these things a few centuries back... he called them homo ferus (feral human).

ChrisV wrote:It does not really bother me either....but I understand each to their own

Some contenders :

Hairy Bush Thingy
Blue Mountains Bush Monster (BMBM - or a BumBum )
Yahoo Man or Google Man
He That does not have a name
Homo Yurkis

Yep that was my contribution...

You're refusing to take this important subject at all seriously, aren't you???
Perhaps they should add a question about it to the SSM thingy.

If a change is needed I like the native name Doolagarl

Wolf wrote:Homo Nocturnus is the name I prefer to use.

According to this article and from what I've seen myself , the Dooligah is not in the Homo family .

https://www.reference.com/world-view/ma ... 0d27a76da1

The difference ? Homo had weaker limbs , larger brains , smaller mouths .

The Dooligah I saw was a monster . Definitely no Homo .

The Junjurri might be Homo just like Homo floresiensis .

Their mouths are very large on what i saw. The face i saw was the rawest most primitive thing i have ever seen. Whatever they are they look like something from another time.

Yowie bait wrote:The face i saw was the rawest most primitive thing i have ever seen.

I bet that's something you'll never forget !

The middle sized ones may be Australopithecines , who knows ?

Rusty2 wrote:

Yowie bait wrote:The face i saw was the rawest most primitive thing i have ever seen.

I bet that's something you'll never forget !

The middle sized ones may be Australopithecines , who knows ?

It seems they come in all shapes and sizes. Its mind boggling to think they've probably been here along undetected and we humans just forgot somewhere along the way?

The Aboriginal names are good for the sizes. Like a 12 footer would be a " Quinkin". Doesnt help much for a scientific explanation i suppose.

Rusty2 wrote:

Wolf wrote:Homo Nocturnus is the name I prefer to use.

According to this article and from what I've seen myself , the Dooligah is not in the Homo family .

https://www.reference.com/world-view/ma ... 0d27a76da1

The difference ? Homo had weaker limbs , larger brains , smaller mouths .

The Dooligah I saw was a monster . Definitely no Homo .

The Junjurri might be Homo just like Homo floresiensis .

I always understood the genus homo to mean hominid... bipedal. And the Yowie/Sasquatch tribes are certainly mainly bipedal, hence part of the homo genus pool.

Rusty2 wrote:The Dooligah I saw was a monster . Definitely no Homo .

I admit this made me laugh.

I don't think it matters what any of us think, really - Yowie is the word everyone uses colloquially so that's what we're stuck with. It's incredibly difficult to get people to change an entrenched name; just look at the fact that many people still refer to Ayers Rock rather than Uluru or to The Grampians, despite the concerted effort that was put into "re-branding" it as Gariwerd (the traditional name for the area).

I agree that the word Yowie has undesirable connotations involving tall tales and easter egg chocolate, but I don't think many people will respond to re-naming something they don't even think exists.

Until we get a scientific name and classification, we're stuck with Yowie. Even if such classification occurs, most people will still call them Yowies, I think.

Rusty2 wrote:
The Dooligah I saw was a monster . Definitely no Homo .

The Junjurri might be Homo just like Homo floresiensis .

Ironically, according to certain legal dictionaries, the literal translation of the word 'hu-man' is 'monster'.

This is why many so called 'sovereign citizens' refuse to admit they are human. They prefer the term, Man or Woman.

My research and court experiments indicates there may be some validity to this argument...
The word 'monster' seems to go back to ancient Rome when it was the term used for any non-Roman citizen (not counting slaves).
'Monsters' had no ownership rights, they could not 'own' land for example as monsters had none of the legal rights everyday citizens had.

Some Sov-Cits (the more knowledgable ones prefer the term 'Freemen' or 'Freemen-On-The-Land'... or FOTL) believe you give up your God-given 'Man' rights as soon as you 'contract' with the state via what everyday people call a Birth Certificate.
This 'BC' contract means you literally agree to be a slave for the state, as proven by the fact that EVERY bit of ID you carry around has your name in Capital letters... (an ancient Roman law about loss of status: from Black's Law Dictionary Capitus deminutio maximus ... "The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.")

In other words, by acknowledging the capitalised name on your Drivers License, BC, passport, etc is YOU, you are declaring in law you are a slave and have NO rights!

You give up your status as a man and now declare yourself to be a monster!

My experiences in court allowed me to trial aspects of this with very interesting, if non-conclusive, results.

It goes MUCH deeper and is far more complex, going into biblical passage, Trust Law, Legal Maxims, Maritime Law, Contract Law, Common Law, etc. It is a very complex, intricate web full of deceit, mis-information, conflicting jurisdictions and Hidden Truths that tend to have the following result...

Hi Wolf, That may have been too much for some, but , thank you, very very interesting. I bet that has some of the more regular forum users thinking about why they signed there child's birth certificate, perhaps this would make a great "off topic " discussion at some point in the near future. Cheers.

It is a s#@t name isn't it "Yowie", sounds like a toe stubbing.

How about "THE AUSTRALIAN BUSH APE"

Good enough in colonial Australia, good enough for the modern era.

Cheers

paulmcleod67 wrote:It is a s#@t name isn't it "Yowie", sounds like a toe stubbing.

How about "THE AUSTRALIAN BUSH APE"

Good enough in colonial Australia, good enough for the modern era.

Cheers

THE BOGAN BUSH APE

paulmcleod67 wrote:It is a s#@t name isn't it "Yowie", sounds like a toe stubbing.

How about "THE AUSTRALIAN BUSH APE"

Good enough in colonial Australia, good enough for the modern era.

Cheers

Agreed, Paul. Good suggestion.
I will be referring to it as "The Australian Bush Ape" from now on.

I note that some Americans can't stand the "Bigfoot" tag and refer to theirs as "Wood Apes", which is similar.

MA

Guys "the Australian Bush Ape" sounds loopier than the yowie.