Talk:Pelorovis

this edit was done by altailepard, who has forgotten to sign in. If you have any questions, just ask on my talk.--Altaileopard 12:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was determined that Pelorovis was more closely related to hartebeests or something, and not a true buffalo after all? 97.104.210.67 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that hasn't been determined at all. It is a theory by promulgated by Henri Lhote who believed that the rock art in North Africa depicted hartebeest instead of Pelorovis. He took this, as well as images of elephants, giraffes and other species now restricted sub-Saharan Africa, to be easily explained by means of trips in spaceships which past people took with aliens. Leo Breman (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

2.5 M.a. in Pliocene?
The sentense "which first appeared in the Pliocene, 2.5 million years ago" is somewhat contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.81.1.234 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Aliens
Regarding "to be easily explained by means of trips in spaceships which past peoples took with extraterrestrial aliens" attributed to Henri Lhote, can anyone with access to the source verify this?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I got that from the wikipedia articles on Rock art of south Oran (Algeria) and Henri Lhote, and I just lifted the source from there. See also the articles in French. It's obvious nonsense, but apparently popular due to crappy TV programmes (National Geographic... shame on you!). It explains the comment above and the previous caption under the rock art illustration in this article. A brief look around on internet finds many references to this, but the more reputable websites say Lhote meant calling the images "Martians" was meant more in jest, and it was later authors which took it seriously. A closer look at the sources at the Henri Lhote article insisting in his alien beliefs shows they are spurious -the YouTube films and Alien Astronaut show seems to be the only stuff claiming Lhote believed in this. It is Lhote, however, who insists that the pictures of P. antiquus are actually of hartebeest. I'm happy to get rid of it/happy if it goes; I thought I'd head off future edits of people taking it seriously, and was having a bit of a laugh... Leo Breman (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This genus is being treated as a synonym of Bos in newer lit
Now we're talking, I was reading a few more papers last night and must concede the taxonomic interpretation of Martínez-Navarro et al. is looking more and more compelling. See reference 5, 6 and these: Thoughts? Leo Breman (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Extinction date
The article mentions Pelorovis going extinct 'even during the Holocene, 4,000 years ago'. Last time I checked, this was (possibly) true for Syncerus antiquus, which used to be within Pelorovis, so I'm guessing that's where that's from. Are there any sources that discuss actual Pelorovis sp. remains or rock art possibly dating to that time period, or does this just pertain to S. antiquus back when it was included within Pelorovis? If so, can this part be removed? Cathartornis (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * . Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)