Talk:Australian megafauna

New UNSE Research
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)

Scope of article
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'?
 * 'megafauna' means 'big animals', basically. Dinosaurs were megafauna. If you want to narrow down the definition, you might use geologic era/epoch/age as a signifier. Or, maybe a particular animal family or order, such as 'mammalian megafauna'. --Leperflesh 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * You're saying the article should talk about dinosaurs and no living species. That would be a rather different article. Qemist (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying it should encompass animals of mass greater than 30 kilograms in the case of extant (and extinct) species, and in the case of extinct species 30% larger than their closest living relative, as it already does. The only thing that would need expansion in this case are the lists, to include Australian dinosaurs. The introduction already provides a definition then briefly discusses the most recent mass extinction of the megafauna in the Pleistocene. I also think the lists regarding the extinct megafauna should only include the genus (such as the case with Sthenurus) and people can follow the link there and explore the individual species, except in the case where only one or a few species from a genus are extinct. T.carnifex (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Adopting that definition would put the article in contradiction with the one in Megafauna. Can the use of a special definition in the Australian context be verified?


 * Note nearly all the examples in Megafauna are from the Pleistocene. Similarly dinosaurs are noticeably absent from List of Central and South American megafauna, List of African megafauna, List of Arctic megafauna, List of Eurasian megafauna, List of North American megafauna etc. I think it is safe to say that in Wikipedia the term megafauna is typically used to refer to extant species and Pleistocene species.


 * I suggest that if pre-Pleistocene fauna are to be included it should be made clearer which period each animal came from. References to non-megafauna such as the Broad-faced Potoroo should be removed. Qemist (talk) 23:35, 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)


 * The smallest body mass listed in Megafauna is 40kg, so going lower than that makes the concept even less specific and wikipedia less clear. Your preferred definition is not supported by the paper you cite (it confines the term to extinct mammals). A parenthetical gloss of a term in a paper about something else is not a suitable source for an authoritative definition. That paper is not specifically about megafauna, it is not a foundational or review article focusing on megafauna. Your preferred definition does not respect the normal meaning of the word; it would include, for example, extinct species of insect weighing a few grams that happened to be more than 30% heavier than their nearest living relative. The statement that this definition is used "often" is misleading. Every other paper I checked that actually had the words "Australian" and "megafauna" in the title used a different criterion (45kg seems popular).


 * As to the examples, I did say "nearly all the examples in Megafauna". That page is exceptional in having any pre-pleistocene megafauna listed. If dinosaurs etc are included there should be hundreds of such species listed. We should strive for consistency. Qemist (talk) 21:38, 24 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)
 * On the subject of age constraints, the article Megafauna states the term refers to "large animals, both to extant species and, more often, those that have become extinct in the geologically recent Quaternary period." Having thought about it, that seems quite correct. I have heard the term megafauna applying to animals prior to the Pleistocene, but not much earlier than the Pliocene (sometimes Miocene). Having Dromornis in the article the article, or other Pliocene animals, isn't a contradiction within Wikipedia, or in literature. - T.carnifex (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the answer is to make this article about all terrestrial megafauna that ever existed in Australia (e.g., cassowary, marsupial lion). With only extant species, this article does not have much worth. The question that defines this article is: When did Australia (the continent) properly come into existance? StevePrutz (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Role of man
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)
 * The issue is that, scientifically, correlation is not causation. Clearly the spread of humanity worldwide is positively correlated with the decline and extinction of megafauna worldwide. However, actual evidence for human-caused extinction is lacking. We know humans in North America hunted and ate Mastodons, but we cannot prove that this caused or even assisted their extinction. I think it's reasonable to guess that humanity caused many or most megafauna extinctions, but it is not a factual statement to say that this is true. See the Pleistocene megafauna page for a good example of how to accurately represent this correlation without overstating it.--Leperflesh 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a slight correction: correlation is, in essence, causation when the other variables are accounted for. Not all other variables have been accounted for everywhere, but they're increasingly being narrowed down. Esn 06:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Science is not about proving things. The said correlation is pretty damn good evidence of what we've done.  I don't wonder, though, why this is so debated.  Admission of guilt leads to the expectation that we change our ways.  Changing of our ways leads to the reduction of our profits. Jɪmp 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody should debate the role in MODERN times about the wildlife extinction, indeed. But Here we talk about the ancient Australia. What about the 'blitzkrieg' theory, if the old Aussies were there not 45,000 years ago, but let's say, 60,000, as some argue? This is a very open question, and the blabla about men kills the megafauna are just like are said, CORRELATION, not PROOF. Show me massive killings of big game in Australia or USA or Europe. The only really 'massive' are those about buffalo cliffs. Incidentally, buffalos are still alive. So what?

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)
 * not all the human diseases can harm animals and vice-versa. And when and how the mammuth would have been killed by human diseases? Even an huge salmon became extinct in North America, FWIW.
 * Not obvious at all, as the 'humanist' are trying to spin the animal extinction dates to their agenda numbers. Just see, OTOH, this one http://www.pnas.org/content/110/22/8777.full and tell me, what is 'obvious'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

PC
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)
 * The context should have been dabbed to Australian Aborigines anyway, but I think you're right - man works better in context. --Scott Davis Talk 06:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * PC - Polite and correct.  I'm changing it.  Fred.e 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pleistocene megafauna
Should this page fold in to, or be related to or in a heirarchy with, Pleistocene megafauna? --Leperflesh 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This page is mentioned on Pleistocene megafauna.--Peta 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Extinct species list
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)


 * Maybe at the genus level would surfice. Only if the article becomes too big do we start on the species level. I have also expanded the mammals list according to Flannery. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Marsupial Lion
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)

Megafaunal Extinction in Australia
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)
 * I think such a section would be fine. but please add good references.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have access to several journal articles reating to the subject. Finding reliable references should be no trouble. A few of them are already referenced for various other reasons. T.carnifex (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction of Australian archaeology article
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)


 * There does indeed appear to be a contradiction, but I think the problem lies in the Australian archaeology page. No reference is cited on the archaeology page, however, on the megafauna page, I direct you to New Ages for the Last Australian Megafauna. T.carnifex (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that reference. Other sources vary, but I couldn't find anything close to the archaeology page's 6000 years BP. The fault lies with the archaeology page, but the tag should remain until it is fixed. Qemist (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. T.carnifex (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hard to be sure since the 6kya statement was not cited in the Australian archaeology article, but it might possibly be referring to results reported in the 1980s of disarticulated Diprotodon remains dating to the Holocene or ca. 6500 BP, at sites such as Trinkey, Lime Springs and Tambar Springs on the Liverpool Plains. See for eg. James Kohen, Aboriginal Environmental Impacts 1995 p.51, and Mulvaney & Kamminga Prehistory of Australia 1999, p.124. David Horton & Richard Wright (no relation!) were the original investigators, I believe.


 * In any case, AFAIK these and other late-extinction dates obtained from other sites (Cuddie Springs, Kangaroo I, Lancefield) are generally open to challenge, and have been much debated. At least, there would be plenty of researchers who would not agree that Megafaunal survival to such a late date is in any way 'proven'. So I've removed the statement & rewritten the para.


 * I also removed the statement "...but exact dates for their extinction have been lacking until recently" from the lead of this article. I don't think we can say that we now have 'exact dates', since there is still considerable variation in dates and opinion on the matter. Also all of these "dates" are in reality date ranges, the confidence intervals are usually measured in 1000s of years. As the Roberts, Flannery et al. article cited in the lead notes, "The timing and causes of these extinctions remain uncertain." The whole set of questions surrounding Australian megafauna &mdash;just when they became extinct, how it was differentiated across the continent, what if any anthropogenic causes there were&mdash;is still an active and at time contentious research area. I would suggest that this article should try more to describe this debate and the competing proposals, rather than single out any one recently published result as representing any sort of consensus. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 07:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, also because the 'bliztkriegist' are growning often forgetting to link the datas that they don't like. It's really incredible that the megafauna in Australia is dated as 'ultimate' appareance, between 46 and 7 k years ago. But the wiki-editors have no much doubts about the 'real' causes of the extinction. They sentenced and pressed for humans, nothing else despite there are source like this that disagrees: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/22/8777.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Extinctions
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)


 * Deleting the section makes sense... any objection? MurfleMan (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, and would go further to suggest that we could delete the "Other Large Australian Species" since they're beyond the scope of the article. They might well be interesting fauna, but it's superfluous. T.carnifex (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. MurfleMan (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

First sentence is very badly worded
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)
 * I'd like some clarity here as well. I am inclined to think the body mass of at least 130% of their closest living relative is correct because they are supposed to be large. Coralshin (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Endemism ? and geological scope
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114003012/http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/research/cuddie/cuddie.html to http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/research/cuddie/cuddie.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901122642/http://www.parks.sa.gov.au/naracoorte/about/index.htm to http://www.parks.sa.gov.au/naracoorte/about/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Too unbalanced (NPOV) article devoted to the human made extinctions
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)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927111457/http://www.control.com.au/bi2008/299megafauna.pdf to http://www.control.com.au/bi2008/299megafauna.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory statements
"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
 * This whole section is a mess and needs to be reviewed and updated. TheDragonFire (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. So it's 'absolute rubbish' is it? Ha ha. Well, here are some serious scientists who don't think so, but what do they know? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14142 Varnebank (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry for pinging you 2 years later, but I think the IP user has a point, suggesting that "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" is a contentious POV insertion from a contentious book (see this review) citing it without any supporting evidence is massively inappropiate. The Sporomiella abundance as a megafauna proxy is unreliable, see . Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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)


 * The issue has become politicized in Australia (and New Zealand, and elsewhere), in part because members of indigenous cultures have been held up as positive role models for environmental custodianship.  To take one example, from The Conversation:
 * https://theconversation.com/to-address-the-ecological-crisis-aboriginal-peoples-must-be-restored-as-custodians-of-country-108594
 * First Peoples have a relationship with Country that is loving, reciprocal and engaged. This “kincentric” relationship includes custodianship obligations – often lacking within non-Indigenous views of Country. Instead of being seen as kin – something to be cared for, listened to, deeply respected and nurtured – Country is seen by many non-Indigneous people as a resource to be exploited and controlled.
 * It's impossible to reconcile that view (Rousseau's myth of the noble savage, retold for modern environmentalist sensibilities) with the knowledge that indigenous land management practices, especially fire-stick farming and hunting, profoundly changed the flora and fauna of Australia, leading to the extinction of all of our remaining megafauna. (I don't mean to criticize those practices.  In fact, they were phenomenally effective, allowing the first Australians to live for tens of millennia in a country that routinely killed early European settlers from drought, famine, flood, and fire.)
 * The politicization is further exacerbated by the well-documented history of institutional and individual racism towards those indigenous people, and in at least one case (Tasmania) outright genocide. So any criticism of indigenous history is fraught; and as environmentalism treats extinction as a moral issue, stating that indigenous people caused mass extinctions is very fraught. Duncan bayne (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Order
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)