Talk:Megafauna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Introduction to the article

The second paragraph of the introduction to the article starts like this: "Megafauna animals are generally K-strategists, with great longevity, slow population growth rates, low death rates, and few or no natural predators capable of killing adults. These characteristics make megafauna highly vulnerable to human exploitation."

I'm not a biologist, so please forgive me if this is obvious, but I don't understand the causal or logical connection between the characteristics mentioned in the first sentence and the conseqence named in the second sentence. Could someone elaborate or revise? PeterJ 74.12.85.162 09:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying; general questions you may have better luck with the reference desk: WP:RD. To answer, however, slow growing species take a long time to recover from overexploitation. Quickly reproducing species tend to have a high natural mortality and shorter lifespans. Hunting of quicly reproducing species often works a bit better, since the individuals removed are more likely to have already reproduced, and leaving only a few indivuals is enough to repopulate the stock in a short time. --TeaDrinker 13:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"In the last case, they may be further subdivided into " the last case describes uo to 250kg not over this does not make sence.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent changes

I reverted to the 100 lb threshold, which appears to be the standard usage. I also split out North American megafauna into a separate article, this should be done with all of the lists. The way, the truth, and the light 08:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is indeed the case, and not exactly being a biologist as such I really wouldn't know, should humans be included in the list after all? I couldn't find an article on this site listing our species' average adult weight (surprising, honestly! the article "human" lists average adult heights, but not weights), but I imagine it's at least a hundred pounds. (Which renders the term "megafauna" absolutely ludicrous, I feel; 100 lbs doesn't seem like a reasonable threshold for use of the "mega" prefix to me, but that's of course just my personal opinion.)--216.114.194.199 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to look around for a citation, but I think 44kg was commmonly used by Paul Martin, who first proposed late Pleistocene overkill as the cause of extinction in N. America. I recall 100kg also being used, which for NA late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions makes little difference, but would be very important for this list.
Splitting the lists out into seperate articles is a great idea, although the articles should probably be titled "List of..." It will also be a huge task to make them complete. See my proposal below. --TeaDrinker 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

I propose removing the lists entirely from the article. A few examples are fine, perhaps, but at present, even in their woefully incomplete state, they dominate the article. Perhaps they could be moved to List of Pleistocene megafauna of Africa or similar, but they need a lot of work in their completeness. Any objections, thoughts or concerns? --TeaDrinker 13:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is going totally in the wrong direction. Megafauna is not a term in alpha taxonomy. A canonical and complete list of members is neither possible nor interesting. Meanwhile, the stuff that is interesting, such as the cultural and economic importance of the concept, is ignored. I strongly agree with TeaDrinker's proposal. Hesperian 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree... I dislike these listified articles that seem to exist only for the sake of listing things at best, and to shoehorn 'controversial' items into well-established groups at worst. It almost reminds me of one of those awful "In popular culture" articles. Dinoguy2 09:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, exactly what's the proposal? I've said that ultimately the lists should be separated into other article, as I did with North American megafauna already. I do not think the lists should be deleted entirely. The way, the truth, and the light 02:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
How are geese included in megafauna??? Is this vandalism? Must be a real sicko to vandalize a megafauna article.Ndriley97 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't the Komodo Dragon listed under Oceania? It's much bigger than a goanna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.156.84 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I proposed merging Charismatic megafauna into this article. The idea that megafauna are disporportionately funded, studied or presereved is an interesting one which should be included in this article. I don't see how they are conceptually different ideas which need different articles. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The further reading section of the article on charismatic megafauna makes it abundantly clear that it is a distinct concept with a distinct definition and has been the subject of distinct studies. I can't see any basis for a merger. Hesperian 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't really care where the information is, so long as it is somewhere. It was previously added to this article, then marked dubious and challenged on the talk page, survived until 25 April when it was removed, then was recreated as a separate article, survived AfD after I added a further reading section proving it to be a concept worthy of study, then merged back into this article, reverted, and now proposed for merger. It has become quite tiresome. Hesperian 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for stepping on toes and generally blundering around. I had not seen the prior controversy, and did not realize it had previously been in this article. I do think Charismatic megafauna as an idea is important to include in Wikipedia (as an ecologist (student), I certainly think it is a commonly discussed and well established concept). But I guess I think we should not seperate out every interesting aspect of megafauna into seperate articles. -TeaDrinker 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with your actions; my apologies for being snarky over it. Hesperian 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. At least until we agree on the purpose of this page. It seems right now to be mainly an index or list of megafauna. In that case, North American megafauna should probably be merged back in, once all the other lists are done to the same standard. The extinct Pleistocene megafauna (which was actually the first use of the term) already has its own page (two pages, actually, but I proposed their merger). If charismatic megafauna remains split - which it should as it is a distinct use of the term - then this page is left with the definition of megafauna, generalisations about them (which are not numerous, obviously), and those lists. The way, the truth, and the light 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - I agree that we need to sort out these articles. I have marked up List of megafauna recently discovered to be merged into here. My view is that this article should pull the various issues with megafauna together, hence the merge in of Charismatic megafauna, but that a separate article List of megafauna should be created. BTW Australian megafauna should be considered in any rationalisation of Pleistocene megafauna. BlueValour 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I just added to this article by summarizing the charismatic megafauna and Pleistocene megafauna articles. If we can agree on a format, List of megafauna recently discovered should probably be merged into the list of megafauna. The way, the truth, and the light 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charismatic megafauna

This issue seems to have gone back and forth with several reverts (see [1]). I don't quite see, given the above discussion, the reason for not at least mentioning charismatic megafauna; it seems entirely possible someone would come here looking for information on it. There should, it seems to me, also be a link to the main article on late Pleistocene extinctions. Given the discussion here on the talk page, I didn't see another side, but am interested to hear the reason for the other version. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to Pleistocene megafauna already, in the section Recent extinctions. By the way, there's also a stub article Pleistocene extinctions which should probably be merged also. The way, the truth, and the light 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Penguins!

I just heard a thing on NPR about finding fossils of five foot tall Penguins in Peru. Wouldn't this qualify? Murderbike 19:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And the Giant beaver of North America. However, comprehensiveness of lists is not prominent among the problems of this article. Jim.henderson 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Seems to me most of this article shouldn't be an article at all, not even a list article, but a category. With something like 200 items, a single level category would become a bit crowded, but a second level for half a dozen geographic/taxonomic subcats would take care of it all and a dozen would not necessarily become too sparse. Then with most of the length of this article gone, merge the mergeable articles into, for example, a charisma section. Jim.henderson 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A list of megafauna is problematic in all kinds of ways, & a category would be a helpful way of alleviating a lot of the problems with it, & pruning an opening for actual growth of encyclopedic content. Colour me convinced. --mordicai. 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, I made Category:Megafauna as subcat to Zoology, and placed this article in it, along with one neglected megabeast. Come to think of it maybe the cat belongs as a subcat to Category:Animals instead, since "Megafauna" isn't taxonomic or climatic or even geographic or otherwise a scientific classification, despite being a popularly interesting class. Anyway I won't start the rest of the plan for another 15 or maybe as many as 25 hours, giving anyone the chance to squawk first that the endangered megalistic article must be saved from habitat destruction.
The rest of the plan is something like, create a subcat for Category:African megafauna and put a bunch of African beasts in it. Some hours later, delete them along with their subsection from the Megafauna article. Some other day, down the alphabet or some other order with Asia and whatever. Later do the same to the North America article. Probably take me more than a week unless someone thinks it should be faster and joins in. Rufous megalinkia I'll probably simply delete, on ground that if it were truly much bigger than User:Y or otherwise interesting, it would be a blue link already. Anybody think all or some of this scheme is a large or small error in the making? Jim.henderson 00:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Megafauna of Africa is made and filled. A few species didn't make the cut because I thought them too small to be Mega. I mean, if you're only thrice as big as me, I don't think of you as Megafauna, so my cutting line is ordinary adult a quarter ton. Vague lines between different kinds of tons and different kinds of ordinary create a fuzzy zone where I give points if you hunt and eat people, or died out in the past few million years, or are on the edge of doing so, or are otherwise remarkable. I also omitted some because they're just a variety or a very close species like, only one gorilla article made the cut, and even that animal fell in my fuzzy zone and got through by favoritism that would not be given to, say, a big deer that stumbled into the fuzz. Probably a few Megas just slipped through the cracks in my mind. Several live or lived in other continents, and went to the parentCategory:Megafauna. Anyway my plan is to get some sleep and do other things for twenty hours or so, and then cut everyone out of the Africa section. Then go to work on the Eurasia section or the oceans or wherever. Unless a few people scream, "Stop, you're bringing the Megas to ruin!" or something. Jim.henderson 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The category 'megafauna' is fine but I'm not sure they should replace lists like this. I know I seldom use categories.
Anyway, your list is subjective - as you just admitted above, you arbitrarily decided which animals should be 'megafauna'. If you are using a threshold of 500 pounds, why is Secretary bird on the list?
I restored the list in this article. I would like this to be worked out, so if there's a consensus on making this into a category, OK - but please keep the objective threshold. I would discourage such a change, though; for one thing, categories don't allow listing the scientific name and whether it's extrinct, as we do in the current list. The way, the truth, and the light 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Drat. Not to be angry, but it's slightly late. I asked, and someone said yes, and I waited, and nobody squawked, and I started, slowly, and took a couple days to fill the African category, and then deleted the Africa section list a few days after the proposal. And now comes the objection. All right; one squawk brings me screeching to a halt. Well, with a pace alreadly like a tortoise it's not much a screech.
Yes, the class of megafauna has no more scientific basis than those of draft animal, pet, or vermin. Maybe less. Like those, it is an interesting class with no scientifically dictated boundaries. Unlike those, what is interesting about this class is not what they do, but how they impress people. For example, there isn't as big a market for TV shows about Sturgeon or ocean sunfish as about Great White Sharks because one is not big and other not violent, so only the last tears people into little shreds and makes viewers gasp. Now, if someone wants to set a precise boundary, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but we should bear in mind the difficulties it may present to the purposes of the class. For one thing there's the idea already discusssed of which individuals are ordinary. Then there's the question of where the boundary is. 45 Kg is as small as my teenage niece, and of thousands of species of antelope, deer, fish, kangaroos and other critters. Any attempt to be comprehensive with such a definition will fill an article many times larger than this one.
As for who thought the secretary bird was a good addition yesterday, I haven't the foggiest notion. That's the thing about a category; it doesn't have a door where a doorkeeper can easily stand with a broom and shoo away every pufferfish that pokes its face in and wants to pass itself as a grouper. Certainly I won't take the job. Generally what happens to popular categories is they become teeming with vermin until someone comes along with a machete and chops away the excess, as I did this spring with Category:Telecommunications and intend to do with Category:Telephony one of these days.
So one alternative I can think of is the North America approach, hiving off every continent (and other broad habitat) into its continental megafauna list article. Like the category approach, it leaves this article clear for sections about charisma and island ecology and the Pleistocene and other aspects of the topic. I'd be glad to hear of other proposals. What I'd rather not hear is a few people who say yes, it must change somehow but no, not this change and not that change and not the other change. I mean, if that's someone's opinion, then they shouldn't hesitate to make me unhappy, but I'll be unhappy. This weekend I've got lots to do, for example Delta-sigma modulation where there's a snit about someone grabbing credit for another editor's work, and a British family of defunct electronic telephone switches whosy family pictures are in disarray, and the trolley lines of Brooklyn, and a bunch of others. So, this weekend I shan't press for progress on Megafauna, but hope that in a couple days there will be a clear consensus. Please squeak up, anybody who thinks they've got a good idea, or a relevant opinion of the old ideas. Jim.henderson 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. That's what I was thinking of before, and I have now done it. I have all these pages watched so I can see any incorrect or inappropriate additions (which is not possible with categories). The way, the truth, and the light 14:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A definition

This article has been without a cited definition of megafauna from a reputable peer-reviewed scientific source for far too long; I've found and added one, which uses 250 kg with further bands of 'small megafauna' (250-500 kg), 'medium' (500-1,000 kg) and large (over 1,000 kg). I've removed the old unreferenced idea of "100 pounds", which is patent nonsense; first and foremost, because no scientist would ever base a definition on such stupid crap, but also because it is such a low bar that even quite small animals are included. The "100 pounds" idea was likely first thought up by some scientifically illiterate newspaper journalist to 'wow' children with; I can't see that it has any credibility justifying its inclusion here. The various spin-off articles 'List of Xxx continent megafauna' need to be checked over to remove animals that don't meet the grade. - MPF 09:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The 100 lb (44 kg) threshold was stated by Paul Martin, who first introduced the word. It is quoted in many scientific as well as popular sources (as can be verified by Google). It also makes more ecological sense than 250 or 500 kg; for example, it includes almost all bovids, which fill similar ecological roles. You're right that the list articles include some that don't even meet the 100 lb definition; I'll try to remove those.
Google gives about 3 times as many results for megafauna + 100 pounds/lb as for 500 kilograms/kg, which in turn is twice as many as 250 kilograms/kg (I looked at both versions of each). Your evident prejudice against the English/Imperial system caused you to jump to the wrong conclusion, it seems. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It is one thing to point out that definitions may vary; that, and adding additional cited definitions (as I have now searched for and done), is fair. But you do not revert verified cited material; that is considered vandalism. - MPF 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Accusing me of 'vandalism' is definitely incorrect (and uncivil); it is clear that the purpose of my edits was to clean up by standardising the definition. On the other hand, your attempts to remove English units from Wikipedia are vandalism, as they clearly aren't attempts to improve encyclopeic content but only to import your personal prejudices. By the way, the source that you cite to say that no specific figure should be chosen acknowledges 44 kg as the standard definition.
Also, 44 kg is actually an error, as 100 lb converts to 45.4 kg, rounded to 45. I don't know how 44 kg became the cited figure but it's clearly wrong; your 40 kg is probably also an error, or just a further rounded equivalent (also improper as 45.4 is closer to 50 kg). The way, the truth, and the light 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)