I disagree. While the “recent evidence” does indeed refer to the condition of the evidence at the time of observation, the photo of a thylacine shouldn’t be posted as an observation on iNat.
Staff have clarified that one of the reasons for the 100 year number (which used to be 130) is that it excludes observations that could not plausibly have been made by a living person.
A thylacine observation from the 1800’s would not have been made by a living person. An observation represents the observer’s experience - not just any historical observation. Observations like this shouldn’t be uploaded to iNat. For a fuller explanation from staff, you can see
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/museum-specimens-antique-photos-and-inaturalist/31638/28
and numerous other forum threads.
That doesn’t mean the thylacine observation isn’t valuable - iNat just isn’t a good place for it.