File talk:Meigle 26 end.jpg

(what *scholarly* source calls this a manticore? looks nothing like one, and manticores are not Pictish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.214.110 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not everything on the stones is Pictish in origin - the Picts were well connected with Europe and derived some of their imagery from classical sources. The official guide to the stones, purchased at the museum and written by Anna Ritchie (a trustworthy source I would say), describes this as a manticore on page 27. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever her expertise is with the stones, her mythology/legends knowledge is quite lacking. Again, it looks nothing like a manticore, it's the wrong culture, and we certainly should not let someone who is not an expert on the topic who makes a mistake in a book about an unrelated topic be presented as if she were an expert on the topic at hand. 68.53.169.211 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Representations in different cultures can change notably. The source cited is a reliable source on the Picts. As for the "wrong culture", the manticore wasn't the property of a single culture, it was spread widely through Europe. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)