Are numbats related to Thylacines?

Answered by Willian Lymon

The relationship between numbats and thylacines is an interesting and somewhat complex topic. While both numbats and thylacines are marsupials, they are not closely related to each other. In fact, the numbats and thylacines belong to different families within the marsupial order.

Numbats are members of the family Myrmecobiidae, and they are the sole representative of this taxonomic family. This means that they do not have any close living relatives. However, one of their closest relatives is believed to be the thylacine or Tasmanian tiger, which is now extinct.

Thylacines, on the other hand, belonged to the family Thylacinidae. They were once found in various parts of Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea but sadly became extinct in the early 20th century. Thylacines were unique marsupials that resembled a mix of a dog and a kangaroo, with some similarities to numbats as well.

Despite these similarities, numbats and thylacines are distinct in many ways. One notable difference is the presence of a pouch. Numbats, like other marsupials, have a pouch where they carry their young. Thylacines, however, did not have a pouch. This distinction is significant and sets them apart from each other.

Another interesting difference between numbats and thylacines is their activity patterns. Numbats are diurnal, which means they are active during the day. This is quite rare among marsupials, as most of them are nocturnal or crepuscular. Thylacines, on the other hand, were believed to be nocturnal or crepuscular, meaning they were active primarily during the night or at twilight.

While numbats and thylacines are both marsupials, they are not closely related. Numbats are the sole member of their taxonomic family, the Myrmecobiidae, and they have a pouch and are diurnal. Thylacines, which are now extinct, belonged to the family Thylacinidae, did not have a pouch, and were believed to be primarily nocturnal.