Talk:Megafauna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed text "Really big plants". (!) Don't bother deleting the empty page, I'll write something to go here tonight. Tannin 22:37 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

---

I know this whole capitalization of species names thing has raged on the mailing list, but this just looks wrong:

the Giant Panda, the Red Wolf, the Blue Whale or the Koala.

-- Tarquin 08:16 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is, however, correct, Tarquin. First and formost, we aim to be correct. Tannin 08:19 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but surely "Koala" is wrong; after all, we write "human". I think both parties are partially correct in this debate, and I'd like to see it cleaned up without this present over-extension in both cases. I've just spent some time going through David Attenborough's Life on Earth. He writes: "the argus pheasant", "elephant fish" but "the King of Saxony Bird", "the Nile crocodile". I think the rules for capitalization are more complex than we think -- Tarquin 08:28 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Koala is an exact one-to-one synonym for Phascolarctus cinereus: it's a formal species name and as such should always be capitalised except in light popular work (such as newspaper articles or fiction) or when we are talking about 2 or more different koalas - which is impossible if we are speaking of living species, because there is only one.

However, it would be perfectly correct to write, say, there are fossils of five koala species in the limstone sediments at Riversleigh.

"Echidna", on the other hand, is wrong. Either we are talking about any of the three species of echidna, in which case we say "echidna", or we are talking about Tachyglossus aculeatus, in which case its name is "Short-beaked Echidna", or else maybe we mean Zaglossus attenboroughi, in which case we don't call it anything because it doesn't have a common name yet! Perhaps this newly discovered species will eventually come to be called "David Attenborough's Echidna", as that is who it was named after. More likely though, it will be something like "Highland Echidna" or "Highland Long-beaked Echidna". Tannin

Contents 1 Introduction of Megafauna into the NA continent 2 Equus 3 Dinosaurs? 4 Confused list

[edit] Introduction of Megafauna into the NA continent

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4160560.stm

I think they should start with the regular animals that became extinct in the last few hundred years not animals that shouldn't be here along with humans. By having 'prehistoric' like beasts here Science Fiction authors warn it could margialize the environment by eliminating smaller animals.

[edit] Equus

There is a link to the equus that leads to a disambiguation page. The page has nothing about an animal called the equus.Alex Klotz 23:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaurs?

Why aren't dinosaurs and other similar animals included? Under the given definition, they would all be megafauna. Or is the definition unclear in this respect? -Rosey

All the Megafauna in this article appear to actually be Pleistocene Megafauna (i.e. Megafauna that were around in that epoch). Perhaps this article should be re-named to Pleistocene Megafauna, so that Megafauna from other timeframes could be on the main Megafauna article, or perhaps we need a Megafauna article for each epoch? -- 63.226.38.196 16:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, wait, why arn't dinosaurs listed here? This article isn't Pleistocene specific...maybe it should be moved, then made to be so. Any objections? --mordicai. 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused list

This listing appears to be using all possible definitions of the term "megafauna" while showing no distinctions. Either that or there a bunch of over 1 ton birds out there. Perhaps the list should be split along definitional lines. Rmhermen 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good eyes. While the Cassowary IS pretty big, it doesn't really meat the criteria for megafauna. I'd say that a heavy editing hand should be shown; why bother re-listing if the other definitions are not accepted? --mordicai. 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now things are definately verging on goofy, with the inclusion of things like the Bald Eagle. A big bird, sure, but not what I would think of as megafauna-- males weigh only 9 pounds. --mordicai. 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the Secretary Bird. Big as far as birds go, but not exactly megafauna. -- T.o.n.y 18:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep meaning to come over here when I have some time & delete everything not over a metric ton, but I've been swamped.--mordicai. 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Many authors have throughout the primary literature defined megafauna as any animal over 44 kg in body weight. This definition appears to be most common, although clearly other definitions exist. Please do not remove species from this list until the definition of megafauna has been clarified and properly referenced, as all of these species may fall into one or more of these categories. I will find the time to do this soon, as I have a long list of references too add to this topic. Also we need make a clearer distinction between Pleistocene megafauna and the extant megafauna of today.--Tug201 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think you are right; the first step should be to define the term, especially since the article currently has 500 kg listed as the lowest cut-off. A good solid reference would be a gem, certainly. I'm glad to know that someone is on the case. --mordicai. 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)