![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Priority 4
|
Tannin 09:33, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
uhhh the picture of the moa is the same one of the picture on the haast's eagle page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeet ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"Moa experts say the likelihood of any moa remaining alive is extremely unlikely, since they would be giant birds in a region often visited by hunters and hikers." While it is extremely unlikely any survive, the confirmation that moose still exist in NZ would give the lie to the 2nd part of this sentence. A citation for the "moa experts" is needed. Nurg 10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This article needs to be expanded and somewhat beautified. I started with moving the stuff from Extinct Birds (which deals with post-1500 extinctions, so moa shouldn't be there anyway except a note on Megalapteryx possible survival to C19). Also, I updated the taxonomy to current standards and expanded the references. As it stands, it is passable, but I am not really satisfied - too many gaps and the formatting could be improved (rm redundancies created by "Extinct Birds" section merger etc). Since I work on the avian extionction lists most of the time, I will only visit here occasionally top dump some new reference when I feel like it (there are tons of moa papers). Stuff on feeding habits etc would be highly appreciated, for example, as they have been reconstructed in detail for some species at least. Dysmorodrepanis 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard that Maori stories described large moas with colorful crests - is it true? Also, HBW in article of extinct birds mentions live sightings from 19. century by very respectable political figure and Maori chief. Were they refuted? Jurek
I've read that the Moa was 12-13 ft tall? but infact it was only 9-10?
The article states that the female giant moa (extinct) was "150% taller" and "280% heavier" than the male. If the female was 9-12 feet tall and 250lbs that would make the male only about 4 feet tall and a disproportionately heavy 66lbs (for a bird smaller than an emu). Perhaps, "150% as tall" and "280% as heavy" was meant, making a male about 7 feet tall and bit under 100lbs (though that looks light as a large emu can weigh ~130lbs). The citation listed isn't a link and I find anything anything to go on.
In Taxonomy, it talks about how the kiwi was once thought to be the moa's only living relative, then emus and cassowaries are mentioned as relatives... Which are related to who? Moas + emus & cassowaries, or kiwis + emus and cassowaries?-- Mr Fink 03:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not impressed with the yellow blurry pic of a reconstructed moa. Can we revert? Kahuroa 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this: "the widespread physical evidence that they had actually existed was never closely examined by early European settlers", because the next line begins "In 1839, John W. Harris, a Poverty Bay flax trader who was a natural history enthusiast, was given a piece of unusual bone by a Māori who had found it in a river bank. He showed the 15 cm fragment of bone to his uncle, John Rule ..." and 1839 is pretty early in the settlement of NZ, which really began in earnest after 1840. So that is evidence being 'closely examined' bya very early settler and leading to the identification of Dinornis. Kahuroa 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
i was looking at the Maori article which mentions the Moa and it seems to contradict what was said inthe article about the extinction of the Moa. In the section Development of Māori culture is says Current anthropological theories, however, take account of the fact that there is no evidence for a pre-Māori people while in the current version of this article it says The extinction of the moa species is generally attributed to hunting and forest clearance by the Polynesian ancestors of the Māori. Neither of them have references attached to them. cheers Philbentley 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The picture is currently under consideration as a featured picture, but there have been questions raised about how accurate it is. If you'd care to comment, you should visit the nomination page here. The specific concern is that the scale of the two birds is off, with the eagle being too large. Matt Deres 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The claims by Cryptozoologists section seems to me to be rather too long in relation to the rest of the article. We need to mention that such claims exist, but the section could be cut back a bit, and the photo of a blur is unnecessary. The comparison with the Takahē isn't necessary, and is unsourced. Shall I take a knife to the section, or would someone else like to?- gadfium 07:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Freaneymoa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nominated January 11, 2008;
Support:
1.
Sabine's Sunbird
talk 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2.
Rufous-crowned Sparrow (
talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
3.
User:totnesmartin
Totnesmartin (
talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Just removed the "preserved foot" pic. The original http://www.flickr.com/photos/98513784@N00/2558439706/ is labelled "Reptilian Claw" - no mention of moa or nhm. Snori ( talk) 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't in Maori, so why do we write "moa" here when it's in plural? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This image appears in the article with the caption "life restoration" and there is nothing to tell us what species this is supposed to be or who is the authority for the restoration and whether or not it has come from a reliable source. Apart from the 'which moa is it' issue, the bird appears to be rather vertically stretched - tall and thin - whereas most modern reconstructions seem to be a lot dumpier and robust. I will see if the uploader can clarify Kahuroa ( talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Because of its lack of vegestial wings, wouldn't moas be the only chordates with only two appendages? QuackOfaThousandSuns ( talk) 05:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Allo,
Just a quick note (because I like to explain why I revert things, so nobody mistakes it for vandalism or fundamentalism.
As it so happens, the
Manual of Style doesn't actually allow switching AD to CE, or vice versa, unless there's a specific substantive reason. (things like preferring one over the other, or thinking that one is more 'academic' than the other doesn't count)
Anyways, since it started out with neither, with the AD being the first added (in March of this year), that means that AD is the official convention used here. (it's basically the same as trying to change between aluminum and aluminium. People can make valid arguments for either, but the only thing that matters is which convention was used first)
71.186.142.225 (
talk) 00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to mention the rediscovery of the Takahē, it might be worth mentioning the vastly different size, which of course means not noticing or mistaking the Moa for something else is quite a lot more difficult. I don't of course have a source for this claim but it's IMHO more important the the tracks issue Nil Einne ( talk) 07:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
From an anon's edit to the article-
The kiwi were formerly regarded as the closest relatives of the moa, but comparisons of their DNA suggest they* are more closely related to the Australian emu and cassowary. [1]
This use of "they" is ambiguous. Which "they" are they speaking of? Are the moa (as the antecedent would imply) more closely related to the emu and cassowary, or are the kiwi more closely related to the emu and cassowary? There's no reason for such unclearness to persist. Rufous-crowned Sparrow ( talk) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
References
I came here looking for this bit of information but it isn't here... I think it would be helpful to mention when they figured out that the moa held its neck low instead of towering in the air. Was this something that people actually thought was true until recently, or has it been known for a while but museums still have them mounted wrong? The article doesn't make it very clear what the circumstances were. 97.104.210.67 ( talk) 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
the moa could be the biggest bird ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.98.35 ( talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting developments to be incorporated into the article. First the NZ Herald version, then the paper it derives from:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10623539
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/1/90
Kahuroa ( talk) 07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Have any DNA-preserving moa remains been found? Since moas went extinct so recently, it seems like it might be possible to clone them to bring them back from extinction? I for one would like to see that ;-) Stonemason89 ( talk) 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
in the bit about the fuana of north and south island it would we be eisier to understand if you used the proper names for the moa and not the sceintific why do you even use the scientific name instead of the other name e.g north island giant moa the people that read the article dont dont know all the sceintific names and they have to look up at the taxonomy part to see what it is every time they see a name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevamoorphe ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm completely baffled by the taxonomy, "The Lost World of the Moa" states D. robustus is a junior synonym of D. novaezealandiae, but newer articles seem to use both D. robustus and D. novaezealandiae? Whatever happened to D. giganteus? And a new dna study, if correct, has completely obliterated former postulated relationships, lead to new binomial combinations, as well as resurrected synonymised species. Anyone have a better overview than me? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, just uploaded some nice studio snaps of the Yorkshire Museum Moa. There's a persistent rumour among staff here that this specimen is the same one as in this photo with Richard Owen but according to the current species labels this isn't the case. Can anyone find a source for this? Also, I'm currently hoping that one of the staff or volunteers might photograph the soft tissue samples in the next month or so. There are some existing snaps but they're very low quality. I hope that these or other photos should be useful and please let me know if there's other stuff I can help with. PatHadley ( talk) 10:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Verne writed of living moas in his 1867's Les Enfants du capitaine Grant. The story is set in the same span.-- 37.227.140.92 ( talk) 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The article says they were once considered ratites, but have now been found to be closest to the tinamous, once considered the sister group of ratites. The tinamous page says tinamous were once considered the sister group of ratites, but are now considered to be well within the ratites. This means moas themselves are also ratites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.73.39 ( talk) 02:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moa. 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) 03:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The Description section should include quantitative attributes including at least height and weight. — Adallace ( T| C) 20:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The biggest challenge with getting this article upgraded to GA is that page numbers for the book references are absent. If anybody were to read any of the cited books, it would be good if you could add the page numbers to the various references. Schwede 66 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Please add the IPA pronunciation of this word. Is it said the same as the name of the Chinese Chairman Mao or is it pronounced as two syllables? 1.126.109.198 ( talk) 13:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Priority 4
|
Tannin 09:33, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
uhhh the picture of the moa is the same one of the picture on the haast's eagle page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeet ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"Moa experts say the likelihood of any moa remaining alive is extremely unlikely, since they would be giant birds in a region often visited by hunters and hikers." While it is extremely unlikely any survive, the confirmation that moose still exist in NZ would give the lie to the 2nd part of this sentence. A citation for the "moa experts" is needed. Nurg 10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This article needs to be expanded and somewhat beautified. I started with moving the stuff from Extinct Birds (which deals with post-1500 extinctions, so moa shouldn't be there anyway except a note on Megalapteryx possible survival to C19). Also, I updated the taxonomy to current standards and expanded the references. As it stands, it is passable, but I am not really satisfied - too many gaps and the formatting could be improved (rm redundancies created by "Extinct Birds" section merger etc). Since I work on the avian extionction lists most of the time, I will only visit here occasionally top dump some new reference when I feel like it (there are tons of moa papers). Stuff on feeding habits etc would be highly appreciated, for example, as they have been reconstructed in detail for some species at least. Dysmorodrepanis 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard that Maori stories described large moas with colorful crests - is it true? Also, HBW in article of extinct birds mentions live sightings from 19. century by very respectable political figure and Maori chief. Were they refuted? Jurek
I've read that the Moa was 12-13 ft tall? but infact it was only 9-10?
The article states that the female giant moa (extinct) was "150% taller" and "280% heavier" than the male. If the female was 9-12 feet tall and 250lbs that would make the male only about 4 feet tall and a disproportionately heavy 66lbs (for a bird smaller than an emu). Perhaps, "150% as tall" and "280% as heavy" was meant, making a male about 7 feet tall and bit under 100lbs (though that looks light as a large emu can weigh ~130lbs). The citation listed isn't a link and I find anything anything to go on.
In Taxonomy, it talks about how the kiwi was once thought to be the moa's only living relative, then emus and cassowaries are mentioned as relatives... Which are related to who? Moas + emus & cassowaries, or kiwis + emus and cassowaries?-- Mr Fink 03:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not impressed with the yellow blurry pic of a reconstructed moa. Can we revert? Kahuroa 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this: "the widespread physical evidence that they had actually existed was never closely examined by early European settlers", because the next line begins "In 1839, John W. Harris, a Poverty Bay flax trader who was a natural history enthusiast, was given a piece of unusual bone by a Māori who had found it in a river bank. He showed the 15 cm fragment of bone to his uncle, John Rule ..." and 1839 is pretty early in the settlement of NZ, which really began in earnest after 1840. So that is evidence being 'closely examined' bya very early settler and leading to the identification of Dinornis. Kahuroa 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
i was looking at the Maori article which mentions the Moa and it seems to contradict what was said inthe article about the extinction of the Moa. In the section Development of Māori culture is says Current anthropological theories, however, take account of the fact that there is no evidence for a pre-Māori people while in the current version of this article it says The extinction of the moa species is generally attributed to hunting and forest clearance by the Polynesian ancestors of the Māori. Neither of them have references attached to them. cheers Philbentley 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The picture is currently under consideration as a featured picture, but there have been questions raised about how accurate it is. If you'd care to comment, you should visit the nomination page here. The specific concern is that the scale of the two birds is off, with the eagle being too large. Matt Deres 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The claims by Cryptozoologists section seems to me to be rather too long in relation to the rest of the article. We need to mention that such claims exist, but the section could be cut back a bit, and the photo of a blur is unnecessary. The comparison with the Takahē isn't necessary, and is unsourced. Shall I take a knife to the section, or would someone else like to?- gadfium 07:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Freaneymoa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nominated January 11, 2008;
Support:
1.
Sabine's Sunbird
talk 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2.
Rufous-crowned Sparrow (
talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
3.
User:totnesmartin
Totnesmartin (
talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Just removed the "preserved foot" pic. The original http://www.flickr.com/photos/98513784@N00/2558439706/ is labelled "Reptilian Claw" - no mention of moa or nhm. Snori ( talk) 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't in Maori, so why do we write "moa" here when it's in plural? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This image appears in the article with the caption "life restoration" and there is nothing to tell us what species this is supposed to be or who is the authority for the restoration and whether or not it has come from a reliable source. Apart from the 'which moa is it' issue, the bird appears to be rather vertically stretched - tall and thin - whereas most modern reconstructions seem to be a lot dumpier and robust. I will see if the uploader can clarify Kahuroa ( talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Because of its lack of vegestial wings, wouldn't moas be the only chordates with only two appendages? QuackOfaThousandSuns ( talk) 05:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Allo,
Just a quick note (because I like to explain why I revert things, so nobody mistakes it for vandalism or fundamentalism.
As it so happens, the
Manual of Style doesn't actually allow switching AD to CE, or vice versa, unless there's a specific substantive reason. (things like preferring one over the other, or thinking that one is more 'academic' than the other doesn't count)
Anyways, since it started out with neither, with the AD being the first added (in March of this year), that means that AD is the official convention used here. (it's basically the same as trying to change between aluminum and aluminium. People can make valid arguments for either, but the only thing that matters is which convention was used first)
71.186.142.225 (
talk) 00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to mention the rediscovery of the Takahē, it might be worth mentioning the vastly different size, which of course means not noticing or mistaking the Moa for something else is quite a lot more difficult. I don't of course have a source for this claim but it's IMHO more important the the tracks issue Nil Einne ( talk) 07:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
From an anon's edit to the article-
The kiwi were formerly regarded as the closest relatives of the moa, but comparisons of their DNA suggest they* are more closely related to the Australian emu and cassowary. [1]
This use of "they" is ambiguous. Which "they" are they speaking of? Are the moa (as the antecedent would imply) more closely related to the emu and cassowary, or are the kiwi more closely related to the emu and cassowary? There's no reason for such unclearness to persist. Rufous-crowned Sparrow ( talk) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
References
I came here looking for this bit of information but it isn't here... I think it would be helpful to mention when they figured out that the moa held its neck low instead of towering in the air. Was this something that people actually thought was true until recently, or has it been known for a while but museums still have them mounted wrong? The article doesn't make it very clear what the circumstances were. 97.104.210.67 ( talk) 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
the moa could be the biggest bird ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.98.35 ( talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting developments to be incorporated into the article. First the NZ Herald version, then the paper it derives from:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10623539
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/1/90
Kahuroa ( talk) 07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Have any DNA-preserving moa remains been found? Since moas went extinct so recently, it seems like it might be possible to clone them to bring them back from extinction? I for one would like to see that ;-) Stonemason89 ( talk) 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
in the bit about the fuana of north and south island it would we be eisier to understand if you used the proper names for the moa and not the sceintific why do you even use the scientific name instead of the other name e.g north island giant moa the people that read the article dont dont know all the sceintific names and they have to look up at the taxonomy part to see what it is every time they see a name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevamoorphe ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm completely baffled by the taxonomy, "The Lost World of the Moa" states D. robustus is a junior synonym of D. novaezealandiae, but newer articles seem to use both D. robustus and D. novaezealandiae? Whatever happened to D. giganteus? And a new dna study, if correct, has completely obliterated former postulated relationships, lead to new binomial combinations, as well as resurrected synonymised species. Anyone have a better overview than me? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, just uploaded some nice studio snaps of the Yorkshire Museum Moa. There's a persistent rumour among staff here that this specimen is the same one as in this photo with Richard Owen but according to the current species labels this isn't the case. Can anyone find a source for this? Also, I'm currently hoping that one of the staff or volunteers might photograph the soft tissue samples in the next month or so. There are some existing snaps but they're very low quality. I hope that these or other photos should be useful and please let me know if there's other stuff I can help with. PatHadley ( talk) 10:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Verne writed of living moas in his 1867's Les Enfants du capitaine Grant. The story is set in the same span.-- 37.227.140.92 ( talk) 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The article says they were once considered ratites, but have now been found to be closest to the tinamous, once considered the sister group of ratites. The tinamous page says tinamous were once considered the sister group of ratites, but are now considered to be well within the ratites. This means moas themselves are also ratites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.73.39 ( talk) 02:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moa. 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) 03:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The Description section should include quantitative attributes including at least height and weight. — Adallace ( T| C) 20:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The biggest challenge with getting this article upgraded to GA is that page numbers for the book references are absent. If anybody were to read any of the cited books, it would be good if you could add the page numbers to the various references. Schwede 66 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Please add the IPA pronunciation of this word. Is it said the same as the name of the Chinese Chairman Mao or is it pronounced as two syllables? 1.126.109.198 ( talk) 13:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)