Talk:Straight-tusked elephant

Untitled
I don't really understand this sentence: It is closer to L. cyclotis than L. cyclotis is to the African bush elephant, L. africana, thus invalidating the genus Loxodonta as currently recognized. Surely the solution is simply to transfer Palaeoloxodon antiquus into the genus Loxodonta. If anything is invalidated, it's the idea of Palaeoloxodon as a separate genus. Given that the two Loxodonta species are so similar as to have been thought conspecific until recently, it doesn't seem justified to split the genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graminophile (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense
In the article: ''Since the remains of the trunks do not show human markings, extinction by natural causes can not be ruled out. ''

Well, who could rule out a thing that was never meant to be? In the article there is no other argument about the human extinction of paleoxodon, unless you think that over 500,000 of co-existence did not led some humans to hunt some paleoxodon. But when they came extinct and why it's totally another matter. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge
See the discussion at talk:Schöningen forest elephant

Very specific uncited claims about diet
This artifle has way too much uncited text. One of the main culprits of this is this massive 5kb dump by a now inactive user. In it are made very specific claims about the specific kinds of plant that P. antiquus consumed, based on supposed "tooth residues" that have no citations at all, and I can't find after extensive searching what source they would have used. Other studies on the diet of this species based on dental microwear are much less specific. I am inclined just to remove the text entirely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)