Talk:Phorusrhacos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Biology Portal Phorusrhacos is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit MAJOR taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae For new cat: Category:Natural history of the Americas, replace "Hummingbird" article (by Some collaboration, hopefully) an artcle: along title LINE of: Hummingbirds--the bird of the Americas

[edit] How do you??

How do you pronounce Phorusrhacos? --e. 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

'FOR-rus-RAH-kos' (at least that's how Kenneth Branagh pronounces it in Walking With Beasts). Jerkov 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 50,000 years ago?

The Walking With Beasts book says Phorusrhacos didn't go extinct until 50,000 years ago; is this true? Pretty damn recent. Jerkov 21:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some relatives of Phorusrhacos lived up to 50,000 years ago (the one from Florida I think, forget the genus). P. itself is only known from the Miocene.Dinoguy2 21:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Jerkov 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dinoguy2, the Florida guy way Titanis walleri. The 50000 figure is apparently based on faulty dating. Dysmorodrepanis 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

From the upcoming research results by McFadden et al:

[T]he refined age of Titanis is late Hemphillian in Texas (~5 Ma) and late Blancan (~2.4 to 2.0 Ma) in Florida . No evidence currently exists for latest [ Rancholabrean (15000 years ago)] Titanis in North America.

Dysmorodrepanis 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Walking With... guys think that Phorusrhacos is the same as Titanis. On the website, that's what it says, and in the Walking With... encyclopedia it states the name Titanis is "redundant". Dora Nichov 07:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, they should read the thorough review by Alvarenga & Höfling. See page. Dysmorodrepanis 13:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, don't get it. Dora Nichov 09:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)