![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506181711.htm Will this change the information on this page at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.22 ( talk) 03:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Bah - think I've been mixing in pre-"megafauna" fauna. E.g. Dromornis was probably extinct 4 MY ago? and Palorchestes even earlier?
Should 'megafauna' be defined as species which survived to the last ice age? And became extinct maybe 40,000 years ago? Then would need to split page into 'megafauna' and 'pre-megafauna'?
A quick google shows every reference to "Australian megafauna" refers to pleistocene fauna, not miocene fauna or dinosaurs. I think this usage should be followed. Qemist ( talk) 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
As is cited in the article, and as Leperflesh simply put it; Megafauna are "often defined as species with body mass estimates of greater than 30 kilograms, or equal to or greater than 30% greater body mass than their closest living relatives." T.carnifex ( talk) 08:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Really, it wouldn't be in contradiction with
Megafauna, which states that the "definitions of what constitutes 'large' vary." For the use of the definition stated in the
Australian megafauna article, see
Mammalian responses to Pleistocene climate change in southeastern Australia.
I also noticed in the lists in
Megafauna the
Bluff Down Euryzygoma, a large diprotodontid marsupial which lived in the early Pliocene and
Taniwhasaurus, a mosasaur of the late Cretaceous.
Perhaps a reference to the animals period would be a good idea, however perhaps not necessary, as it would be in the animals actual article anyway. I agree with removing references to non-megafauna. A recent edit changed the "Post 1788 extinctions" list to "Extinctions (non-megafauna) post 1788." I think that the correct course would have been to remove the non-megafauna animals in the list, rather than change the title. They belong in a different list in a different article. -
T.carnifex (
talk)
23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
From Mammalian responses to Pleistocene climate change in southeastern Australia, "megafauna (extinct species with body mass estimates of >30 kg or attaining estimates of ≥30% greater body mass than their closest living relatives)..." In this context it is referring to extinct species, but extant species such as Macropus rufus are generally accepted as surviving megafauna. Although the Megafauna article does not agree specifically with this definition, it doesn't refute it when it states that that the definition is unclear. Could you please place links to some of these articles? I'm short of time, so I'll return later to discuss age constraints (feel free to reply in the mean time) - T.carnifex ( talk) 23:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Everywhere that man appeared outside of Africa, there were large scale extinctions. I really wonder why man's role is so debated. IMHO, it is quite obvious, and it is still going on.-- Wiglaf 09:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just as animals can pass diseases and viruses to man, it is possible for man to pass them to animals. As the European brought small pox to the North American natives and decimated the native populations by as much as 90%, maybe the same happened to the large animals man came into contact with. -- Zarcom ( talk) 09:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
How about with the arrival of man instead of Aborigines. Aborigines in this context doesn't make sense to me. freshgavin TALK 03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Should this page fold in to, or be related to or in a heirarchy with, Pleistocene megafauna? -- Leperflesh 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The linkification of species listed is inconsistent: in many cases, the exact species is linked, while in others, only the genus is linked. Obviously this has been done to create operating links, where no species page has been created: however, the inconsistency is bad, and one cannot know if a given species page will be created in the near future. I think we should either link to the genus in all cases, or to the species in all cases, or both (a link for each of the two words), consistently. -- Leperflesh 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Great show on Nova ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bonediggers/thylacoleo.html) about Thylacoleo carnifex. It should be added to this page. -- Leperflesh 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Should a new section relating to Megafaunal Extinction in Australia be added to this article? It woud make a some sense, since Australia lost 90% of its megafaunal species in the Pleistocene. I'm rather new to the world of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure on how to work on a new section, but I would propose a few people collaborating to write the new section, corresponding via email, rather than simply posting a poorly prepared brief section. I would happily contribute my time to writing the section, but I'm a bit short of time at the moment, as I am currently completing tear 12. I would also be wary about posting on a such a hotly disputed topic without expert contribution. Is there an Australian paleontologist in the house?
T.carnifex ( talk) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This article contradicts the Australian archaeology article which makes the unqualified assertion that "It is proven that that Megafauna existed in Australia alongside Aborigines until about 6,000 years ago". Qemist ( talk) 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a section of post-1788 non-megafauna extinctions? This article is about Australian megafauna. Can we please eliminate the section? Joelito ( talk) 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I can think of three or four different intended meanings for the very awkward phrase: "equal to or greater than 30% greater body mass than their closest living relatives". The most likely is "130% or more of the body mass of their closest living relative", but there are other possibilities. What should it actually say? Luwilt ( talk) 22:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The scope of the article appears to be about endemic megafauna, but this is not explicitly stated, the article uses the preposition "in" rather than "of". So what about the huge number of introduced species including of course humans "in" Australia ?? Then a huge number of significant sea-based megafauna found in Australian waters. For example the dugong and a number of whale, dolphin and seal species listed here List of marine mammals of Australia, List of placental mammals introduced to Australia along with sharks and big fish found there. Also, what about dinosaurs ? I suggest renaming to Continental Australian Megafauana of the Quaternary Period -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian megafauna. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
Pay attention to not exceed in the man-did-it theories. As example, the infamous Genyornis eggs, the 'smoking gun' of that bird extinction, were found to be no Genyornis egg at all. See https://theconversation.com/a-case-of-mistaken-identity-for-australias-extinct-big-bird-52856 And this was the best 'documented' extinction megafauna animal by australians. It seems that many wiki-contributors and scientist are a bit too afraid to show the 'man fault' in the megafauna extinction, despite the lack of any direct proof about it. That Flannery is quoted, is also quite disturbing as he, frankly speaking, could be a lot better in this field. See Wroe http://www.pnas.org/content/110/22/8777.full as example. This article seems to ignore largely anything that don't say 'man did it'. And this is common in wikipedia, i admit, even if there are a lot of open question about it. Just see Clovis first theory (and blitkrieg model made by Martin and quoted and supported by Flannery) and its total and final demise. 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 00:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian megafauna. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"The cause of the extinction is an active, contentious and factionalised field of research where politics and ideology often takes precedence over scientific evidence, especially when it comes to the possible implications regarding aboriginals (who appear to be responsible for the extinctions).[4] It is hypothesised that with the arrival of early Australian Aboriginals (around 70,000~65,000 years ago), hunting and the use of fire to manage their environment may have contributed to the extinction of the megafauna.[5] Increased aridity during peak glaciation (about 18,000 years ago) may have also contributed, but most of the megafauna were already extinct by this time.
New evidence based on accurate optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-thorium dating of megafaunal remains suggests that humans were the ultimate cause of the extinction of megafauna in Australia.[6][7] The dates derived show that all forms of megafauna on the Australian mainland became extinct in the same rapid timeframe — approximately 46,000 years ago[1] — the period when the earliest humans first arrived in Australia."
The original theory of "Humans come, Megafauna go. Coincidence? I think not!" is absolutely rubbish. The first paragraph literally states it. The second paragraph is an outdated conclusion on outdated data that should be removed in its entirety. It does not add anything the previous paragraph did not. The second is that we really are determined to blame human habitation for the loss of animals. We've gone from "It's not a coincidence." to "It must have occurred over a longer period of time"
We now have a better understanding of the timeline of a long gradual decline is more up to date and more realistic in terms of a small human population getting ready to expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.162.114 ( talk) 12:48, 28 July 2017
i honestly dont understand the massive objection to the idea that humans are a factor in the extinction of mega-fauna Clone commando sev ( talk) 03:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I find the order of the sections very odd. Wouldn't it make more sense to describe the megafauna first, then discuss the reasons for extinction? Putting the reasons for extinction first leaves the reader with no background as to what has become extinct and introduces a specialized topic (since it does not involve the extant megafauna) first. I suggest moving that section to follow the sections on the living and extinct megafauna. Bill ( talk) 02:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506181711.htm Will this change the information on this page at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.22 ( talk) 03:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Bah - think I've been mixing in pre-"megafauna" fauna. E.g. Dromornis was probably extinct 4 MY ago? and Palorchestes even earlier?
Should 'megafauna' be defined as species which survived to the last ice age? And became extinct maybe 40,000 years ago? Then would need to split page into 'megafauna' and 'pre-megafauna'?
A quick google shows every reference to "Australian megafauna" refers to pleistocene fauna, not miocene fauna or dinosaurs. I think this usage should be followed. Qemist ( talk) 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
As is cited in the article, and as Leperflesh simply put it; Megafauna are "often defined as species with body mass estimates of greater than 30 kilograms, or equal to or greater than 30% greater body mass than their closest living relatives." T.carnifex ( talk) 08:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Really, it wouldn't be in contradiction with
Megafauna, which states that the "definitions of what constitutes 'large' vary." For the use of the definition stated in the
Australian megafauna article, see
Mammalian responses to Pleistocene climate change in southeastern Australia.
I also noticed in the lists in
Megafauna the
Bluff Down Euryzygoma, a large diprotodontid marsupial which lived in the early Pliocene and
Taniwhasaurus, a mosasaur of the late Cretaceous.
Perhaps a reference to the animals period would be a good idea, however perhaps not necessary, as it would be in the animals actual article anyway. I agree with removing references to non-megafauna. A recent edit changed the "Post 1788 extinctions" list to "Extinctions (non-megafauna) post 1788." I think that the correct course would have been to remove the non-megafauna animals in the list, rather than change the title. They belong in a different list in a different article. -
T.carnifex (
talk)
23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
From Mammalian responses to Pleistocene climate change in southeastern Australia, "megafauna (extinct species with body mass estimates of >30 kg or attaining estimates of ≥30% greater body mass than their closest living relatives)..." In this context it is referring to extinct species, but extant species such as Macropus rufus are generally accepted as surviving megafauna. Although the Megafauna article does not agree specifically with this definition, it doesn't refute it when it states that that the definition is unclear. Could you please place links to some of these articles? I'm short of time, so I'll return later to discuss age constraints (feel free to reply in the mean time) - T.carnifex ( talk) 23:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Everywhere that man appeared outside of Africa, there were large scale extinctions. I really wonder why man's role is so debated. IMHO, it is quite obvious, and it is still going on.-- Wiglaf 09:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just as animals can pass diseases and viruses to man, it is possible for man to pass them to animals. As the European brought small pox to the North American natives and decimated the native populations by as much as 90%, maybe the same happened to the large animals man came into contact with. -- Zarcom ( talk) 09:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
How about with the arrival of man instead of Aborigines. Aborigines in this context doesn't make sense to me. freshgavin TALK 03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Should this page fold in to, or be related to or in a heirarchy with, Pleistocene megafauna? -- Leperflesh 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The linkification of species listed is inconsistent: in many cases, the exact species is linked, while in others, only the genus is linked. Obviously this has been done to create operating links, where no species page has been created: however, the inconsistency is bad, and one cannot know if a given species page will be created in the near future. I think we should either link to the genus in all cases, or to the species in all cases, or both (a link for each of the two words), consistently. -- Leperflesh 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Great show on Nova ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bonediggers/thylacoleo.html) about Thylacoleo carnifex. It should be added to this page. -- Leperflesh 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Should a new section relating to Megafaunal Extinction in Australia be added to this article? It woud make a some sense, since Australia lost 90% of its megafaunal species in the Pleistocene. I'm rather new to the world of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure on how to work on a new section, but I would propose a few people collaborating to write the new section, corresponding via email, rather than simply posting a poorly prepared brief section. I would happily contribute my time to writing the section, but I'm a bit short of time at the moment, as I am currently completing tear 12. I would also be wary about posting on a such a hotly disputed topic without expert contribution. Is there an Australian paleontologist in the house?
T.carnifex ( talk) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This article contradicts the Australian archaeology article which makes the unqualified assertion that "It is proven that that Megafauna existed in Australia alongside Aborigines until about 6,000 years ago". Qemist ( talk) 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a section of post-1788 non-megafauna extinctions? This article is about Australian megafauna. Can we please eliminate the section? Joelito ( talk) 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I can think of three or four different intended meanings for the very awkward phrase: "equal to or greater than 30% greater body mass than their closest living relatives". The most likely is "130% or more of the body mass of their closest living relative", but there are other possibilities. What should it actually say? Luwilt ( talk) 22:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The scope of the article appears to be about endemic megafauna, but this is not explicitly stated, the article uses the preposition "in" rather than "of". So what about the huge number of introduced species including of course humans "in" Australia ?? Then a huge number of significant sea-based megafauna found in Australian waters. For example the dugong and a number of whale, dolphin and seal species listed here List of marine mammals of Australia, List of placental mammals introduced to Australia along with sharks and big fish found there. Also, what about dinosaurs ? I suggest renaming to Continental Australian Megafauana of the Quaternary Period -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian megafauna. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
Pay attention to not exceed in the man-did-it theories. As example, the infamous Genyornis eggs, the 'smoking gun' of that bird extinction, were found to be no Genyornis egg at all. See https://theconversation.com/a-case-of-mistaken-identity-for-australias-extinct-big-bird-52856 And this was the best 'documented' extinction megafauna animal by australians. It seems that many wiki-contributors and scientist are a bit too afraid to show the 'man fault' in the megafauna extinction, despite the lack of any direct proof about it. That Flannery is quoted, is also quite disturbing as he, frankly speaking, could be a lot better in this field. See Wroe http://www.pnas.org/content/110/22/8777.full as example. This article seems to ignore largely anything that don't say 'man did it'. And this is common in wikipedia, i admit, even if there are a lot of open question about it. Just see Clovis first theory (and blitkrieg model made by Martin and quoted and supported by Flannery) and its total and final demise. 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 00:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian megafauna. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"The cause of the extinction is an active, contentious and factionalised field of research where politics and ideology often takes precedence over scientific evidence, especially when it comes to the possible implications regarding aboriginals (who appear to be responsible for the extinctions).[4] It is hypothesised that with the arrival of early Australian Aboriginals (around 70,000~65,000 years ago), hunting and the use of fire to manage their environment may have contributed to the extinction of the megafauna.[5] Increased aridity during peak glaciation (about 18,000 years ago) may have also contributed, but most of the megafauna were already extinct by this time.
New evidence based on accurate optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-thorium dating of megafaunal remains suggests that humans were the ultimate cause of the extinction of megafauna in Australia.[6][7] The dates derived show that all forms of megafauna on the Australian mainland became extinct in the same rapid timeframe — approximately 46,000 years ago[1] — the period when the earliest humans first arrived in Australia."
The original theory of "Humans come, Megafauna go. Coincidence? I think not!" is absolutely rubbish. The first paragraph literally states it. The second paragraph is an outdated conclusion on outdated data that should be removed in its entirety. It does not add anything the previous paragraph did not. The second is that we really are determined to blame human habitation for the loss of animals. We've gone from "It's not a coincidence." to "It must have occurred over a longer period of time"
We now have a better understanding of the timeline of a long gradual decline is more up to date and more realistic in terms of a small human population getting ready to expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.162.114 ( talk) 12:48, 28 July 2017
i honestly dont understand the massive objection to the idea that humans are a factor in the extinction of mega-fauna Clone commando sev ( talk) 03:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I find the order of the sections very odd. Wouldn't it make more sense to describe the megafauna first, then discuss the reasons for extinction? Putting the reasons for extinction first leaves the reader with no background as to what has become extinct and introduces a specialized topic (since it does not involve the extant megafauna) first. I suggest moving that section to follow the sections on the living and extinct megafauna. Bill ( talk) 02:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)