And by a much larger human population, especially in Africa. It can only get worse.

Land-clearing for agriculture, especially cattle grazing, is one of the biggest causes of habitat loss and declining animal numbers worldwide.

But according to new research, our taste for meat has a much more direct impact on the world’s largest animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-02-07/hunting-meat-causing-extinction-megafauna/10778370

PermeateFree said:

And by a much larger human population, especially in Africa. It can only get worse.

Land-clearing for agriculture, especially cattle grazing, is one of the biggest causes of habitat loss and declining animal numbers worldwide.

But according to new research, our taste for meat has a much more direct impact on the world’s largest animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-02-07/hunting-meat-causing-extinction-megafauna/10778370

“The researchers identified a total of 362 living megafauna species”

What ! That many?

I’d love to see a list. Found it.
I’ve never thought of a Wobbegong as Megafauna before, but of course they’re right.
Calling the Weddell Seal a “Terrestrial Mammal” is pushing credibility a bit, but we’ll forgive them that.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

And by a much larger human population, especially in Africa. It can only get worse.

Land-clearing for agriculture, especially cattle grazing, is one of the biggest causes of habitat loss and declining animal numbers worldwide.

But according to new research, our taste for meat has a much more direct impact on the world’s largest animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-02-07/hunting-meat-causing-extinction-megafauna/10778370

“The researchers identified a total of 362 living megafauna species”

What ! That many?

I’d love to see a list. Found it.
I’ve never thought of a Wobbegong as Megafauna before, but of course they’re right.
Calling the Weddell Seal a “Terrestrial Mammal” is pushing credibility a bit, but we’ll forgive them that.

There are other minor errors in the list. The weight of the Amethystine Python is 30 kg, not 246 kg, it doesn’t count as megafauna.

The killer whale (Orca) and false killer whale (Pseudorca) are missing from the list, despite being 4500 kg and 2000 kg.

But overall, startlingly good.

Text
import
from
pdf
is
driving
me
mad
Each
word
in
a
table
appears
on
a
separate
line

mollwollfumble said:

Text
import
from
pdf
is
driving
me
mad
Each
word
in
a
table
appears
on
a
separate
line

It
can be
a pain.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Text
import
from
pdf
is
driving
me
mad
Each
word
in
a
table
appears
on
a
separate
line

It
can be
a pain.

Malfunctioning text
Spreadsheets are in disarray
Really annoys Moll

mollwollfumble said:

Text
import
from
pdf
is
driving
me
mad
Each
word
in
a
table
appears
on
a
separate
line

Check your import method. Set the delimiters.

Else: global – find special character and replace.

Fixed text import problem – switched computer off and on again !!

“The International Union for Conservation of Nature assesses the orca’s conservation status as data deficient”

Oh, that’s ridiculous. You mean nobody knows if the Killer Whale is critically endangered or least concern? For starters, they have a range of – all of every ocean.

I’ve taken the dolphins, seals and manatees out of the “Terrestrial Mammals” section. Yes, they had actually classed three dolphins as “terrestrial mammals”.

I’ve found more whales not on the “Marine Mammals” list, but if the conservation and population status is unknown then these omissions would be both deliberate and justified.

Startlingly few of the 300+ megafauna species on this list are actually eaten regularly by anyone. American alligators are and tuna is. Cows are megafauna, but not on the list. I’m starting to look through the list for more. Most are protected species – with fines and imprisonment for anyone hurting them.

Bycatch is always a problem, a snare for deer can sometimes catch a gorilla for example.

mollwollfumble said:

Fixed text import problem – switched computer off and on again !!

“The International Union for Conservation of Nature assesses the orca’s conservation status as data deficient”

Oh, that’s ridiculous. You mean nobody knows if the Killer Whale is critically endangered or least concern? For starters, they have a range of – all of every ocean.

As I’m sure you know, there are plenty of endangered marine animals with a wide geographic range … including the blue whale!

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Fixed text import problem – switched computer off and on again !!

“The International Union for Conservation of Nature assesses the orca’s conservation status as data deficient”

Oh, that’s ridiculous. You mean nobody knows if the Killer Whale is critically endangered or least concern? For starters, they have a range of – all of every ocean.

As I’m sure you know, there are plenty of endangered marine animals with a wide geographic range … including the blue whale!

Hard to escape from large fishing vessels with harpoons who are actively hunting them

too many humans

try saying it

transition said:

too many humans

try saying it

if the threatened species could have the thought, and speak, they’d say too many humans

I guess they are expressing it, with declining numbers. They don’t have a political voice, no defense, and the situation is improved none as human numbers increase.

so really humans are fucked, no idea when enough of their own kind is enough, climate change apparently doesn’t even convey the message. An arrogant species.

transition said:

transition said:

too many humans

try saying it

if the threatened species could have the thought, and speak, they’d say too many humans

I guess they are expressing it, with declining numbers. They don’t have a political voice, no defense, and the situation is improved none as human numbers increase.

so really humans are fucked, no idea when enough of their own kind is enough, climate change apparently doesn’t even convey the message. An arrogant species.

Intelligence hey, makes us dumb even the negative feedback of war, famine and disease isn’t enough to keep us in check

transition said:

too many humans

try saying it

And even more coming in more ways than one.

Humans probably won’t stop eating meat, maybe lab grown meat needs significant money and research invested to try and replace most animals in the next 20 years. Mimic the taste and texture of meat with a vegetable protein so you can’t tell the difference

Cymek said:

Humans probably won’t stop eating meat, maybe lab grown meat needs significant money and research invested to try and replace most animals in the next 20 years. Mimic the taste and texture of meat with a vegetable protein so you can’t tell the difference

There’s a brand called Quorn, they make a mince ‘meat’, that’s made from mushroom protein, pretty hard to tell the difference between the ‘shroom protein and mince IMO.

the worlds been overpopulated since late seventies, and has been on a trajectory of more of the same then some since

poikilotherm said:

Cymek said:

Humans probably won’t stop eating meat, maybe lab grown meat needs significant money and research invested to try and replace most animals in the next 20 years. Mimic the taste and texture of meat with a vegetable protein so you can’t tell the difference

There’s a brand called Quorn, they make a mince ‘meat’, that’s made from mushroom protein, pretty hard to tell the difference between the ‘shroom protein and mince IMO.

Mushrooms are nice on their own, I’ll have to check it out.

If government decided collectively to promote a massive reduction in meat consumption including paying out cattle/sheep/chicken farmers and getting them to grow food crops instead would it work or would the various industries sue them.

Cymek said:

If government decided collectively to promote a massive reduction in meat consumption including paying out cattle/sheep/chicken farmers and getting them to grow food crops instead would it work or would the various industries sue them.

We the people would revolt.

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

If government decided collectively to promote a massive reduction in meat consumption including paying out cattle/sheep/chicken farmers and getting them to grow food crops instead would it work or would the various industries sue them.

We the people would revolt.

Probably

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

If government decided collectively to promote a massive reduction in meat consumption including paying out cattle/sheep/chicken farmers and getting them to grow food crops instead would it work or would the various industries sue them.

We the people would revolt.

Strictly in terms of protein production, non-methanogenic grazing animals would be better for the environment than veg options because grazing can be done on existing savannah without significant land-change. Cows of course are methanogenic … if we could domesticate the kangaroo that’d be sweet.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

If government decided collectively to promote a massive reduction in meat consumption including paying out cattle/sheep/chicken farmers and getting them to grow food crops instead would it work or would the various industries sue them.

We the people would revolt.

Strictly in terms of protein production, non-methanogenic grazing animals would be better for the environment than veg options because grazing can be done on existing savannah without significant land-change. Cows of course are methanogenic … if we could domesticate the kangaroo that’d be sweet.

How much milk do kangaroos give?

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

We the people would revolt.

Strictly in terms of protein production, non-methanogenic grazing animals would be better for the environment than veg options because grazing can be done on existing savannah without significant land-change. Cows of course are methanogenic … if we could domesticate the kangaroo that’d be sweet.

How much milk do kangaroos give?

No one strictly needs milk other than babies.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Strictly in terms of protein production, non-methanogenic grazing animals would be better for the environment than veg options because grazing can be done on existing savannah without significant land-change. Cows of course are methanogenic … if we could domesticate the kangaroo that’d be sweet.

How much milk do kangaroos give?

No one strictly needs milk other than babies.

I was just pointing out that if replacing cows with kangaroos there is a bigger tissue than domesticating them.

And I like cheese. And ice cream. Hate milk.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

How much milk do kangaroos give?

No one strictly needs milk other than babies.

I was just pointing out that if replacing cows with kangaroos there is a bigger tissue than domesticating them.

And I like cheese. And ice cream. Hate milk.

Not sure how kangaroos will cope with big udders but I’ll work on it

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

No one strictly needs milk other than babies.

I was just pointing out that if replacing cows with kangaroos there is a bigger tissue than domesticating them.

And I like cheese. And ice cream. Hate milk.

Not sure how kangaroos will cope with big udders but I’ll work on it

If we reduced cows to just for milk and not for meat it would be a big reduction I imagine.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Strictly in terms of protein production, non-methanogenic grazing animals would be better for the environment than veg options because grazing can be done on existing savannah without significant land-change. Cows of course are methanogenic … if we could domesticate the kangaroo that’d be sweet.

How much milk do kangaroos give?

No one strictly needs milk other than babies.

Everyone needs cheese.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

We the people would revolt.

Strictly in terms of protein production, non-methanogenic grazing animals would be better for the environment than veg options because grazing can be done on existing savannah without significant land-change. Cows of course are methanogenic … if we could domesticate the kangaroo that’d be sweet.

How much milk do kangaroos give?

If you insist on non-methanogenic grazing animals then that would push megafauna toward extinction.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

How much milk do kangaroos give?

No one strictly needs milk other than babies.

Everyone needs cheese.

:)

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Strictly in terms of protein production, non-methanogenic grazing animals would be better for the environment than veg options because grazing can be done on existing savannah without significant land-change. Cows of course are methanogenic … if we could domesticate the kangaroo that’d be sweet.

How much milk do kangaroos give?

No one strictly needs milk other than babies.

I need milk. How else am I going to maintain my bones of granite?

Incidentally, I read an interesting suggestion recently that if we could forgo the idea that everything has to be fenced, we could probably farm kangaroos on a communal basis.

I read a science fiction book years ago were they had a engineered tree that gave milk and meat and regrew what you used.

Cymek said:

I read a science fiction book years ago were they had a engineered tree that gave milk and meat and regrew what you used.

Jesus had one, the locust tree.

Cymek said:

I read a science fiction book years ago were they had a engineered tree that gave milk and meat and regrew what you used.

Gottem here, we call them coconut trees.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I read a science fiction book years ago were they had a engineered tree that gave milk and meat and regrew what you used.

Jesus had one, the locust tree.

I wonder if its possible to genetically engineer a meat tree or something similar

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I read a science fiction book years ago were they had a engineered tree that gave milk and meat and regrew what you used.

Jesus had one, the locust tree.

I wonder if its possible to genetically engineer a meat tree or something similar

All trees grow meat if you are willing to harvest what lives on them.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Jesus had one, the locust tree.

I wonder if its possible to genetically engineer a meat tree or something similar

All trees grow meat if you are willing to harvest what lives on them.

The actual tree itself I mean, the wood is edible meat, its unrealistic but in the book it sustained the colony, I can’t find the book title from my vague description

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I read a science fiction book years ago were they had a engineered tree that gave milk and meat and regrew what you used.

Jesus had one, the locust tree.

I wonder if its possible to genetically engineer a meat tree or something similar

That is not such a silly idea. Add genes for actin and myosin to a plant that already has a meat-like texture.

If you feed such a plant steroids, would it grow meat faster?

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Jesus had one, the locust tree.

I wonder if its possible to genetically engineer a meat tree or something similar

That is not such a silly idea. Add genes for actin and myosin to a plant that already has a meat-like texture.

If you feed such a plant steroids, would it grow meat faster?

Wouldn’t NPK be good enough?

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if its possible to genetically engineer a meat tree or something similar

That is not such a silly idea. Add genes for actin and myosin to a plant that already has a meat-like texture.

If you feed such a plant steroids, would it grow meat faster?

Wouldn’t NPK be good enough?

Do you have any ethical objections to feeding testosterone to a plant?

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

That is not such a silly idea. Add genes for actin and myosin to a plant that already has a meat-like texture.

If you feed such a plant steroids, would it grow meat faster?

Wouldn’t NPK be good enough?

Do you have any ethical objections to feeding testosterone to a plant?

None other than “did you ask the plant first”?

PermeateFree said:

And by a much larger human population, especially in Africa. It can only get worse.

Land-clearing for agriculture, especially cattle grazing, is one of the biggest causes of habitat loss and declining animal numbers worldwide.

But according to new research, our taste for meat has a much more direct impact on the world’s largest animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-02-07/hunting-meat-causing-extinction-megafauna/10778370

> The killer whale (Orca) and false killer whale (Pseudorca) are missing from the list, despite being 4500 kg and 2000 kg.

All the missing megafauna species seem to be those that the conservation status is listed as “data deficient”, or are domesticated human animals (cow, water buffalo, horse)

Some domesticated food animals are included, including the reindeer.

So well done, authors.

I assume that you’ve all seen this diagram from wikipedia. The number of terrestrial mamalian megafauna worldwide has remained basically constant over the past 400 years.

The most recent megafauna to go extinct was the Baiji, or Yangtze river dolphin, in 2002. For reasons unknown.

The only other known megafauna mammals that went extinct after 1500 are:

early 1500s Malagasy hippo
1627 Aurochs
1768 Steller’s sea cow
1932 Schomburgk’s deer
1952 Caribbean Monk Seal
1970s Japanese sea lion

Quite possibly the next to go extinct is the Bornean rhinoceros. The three in captivity can’t breed and there are only 15 or so in the wild.

A couple more points.

In at least one case, scientists are deliberately and actively killing a critically endangered megafauna. The Chinese Giant salamander is being killed off in Japan where it is considered an introduced pest. It interbreeds freely with the local, smaller, critically endangered Japanese giant salamander.

Native peoples in at least three continents have been given the right to kill and eat endangered animals, a right denied to non-natives.

https://www.iucn.org/ssc-groups/mammals/antelope-specialist-group/species-account/critically-endangered-species

Addax (Addax Nasomaculatus) (94 kg)
The Saharan bovid species at highest risk of extinction in the near future

Status justification: Listed as Critically Endangered as the species is believed to have undergone a decline well exceeding 80% over the past three generation (21 years). The total population is estimated at less than 300 individuals across the range, with the majority of the population in the Termit/Tin Toumma region of Niger. The population continues to decline due to ongoing threats of hunting and habitat loss.

Hirola (Beatragus hunteri) (79 kg)
One of the most highly threatened antelopes in Africa

Status justification: Given a conservative estimate of generation time at nine years, the 85 to 90% decline (and continuing) since 1980 has occurred over three generations and meets the thresholf for Critically Endangered under criterion A2, and on the basis of direct observation, decline in area of occupancy and habitat quality and levels of exploitation.

Ader’s (Aders’ ) duiker (Cephalophus adersi) (9.2 kg)
The most highly threatened duiker in the world

Status justification: Listed as Critically Endangered as there has been an observed decline on Zanzibar from 5,000 individuals (1983), to 2,000 (1966) to 640 (1999). There are no recent population estimates, but on the basis that the known reasons for the decline are still occurring (i.e., a continued decline in the area and quality of habitat due to illegal wood-cutting, and the continuation of illegal hunting), it is suspected that the population will continue to decline at a similar rate.

Dama gazelle (Nanger dama) (75 kg)
The Dama Gazelle is following the same trail into extinction in the wild as the Scimitar-horned Oryx

Status justification: The sustained decline due to uncontrolled hunting and habitat loss has continued and is now estimated to have exceeded 80% over 10 years. Extensive field surveys have been made since 2001, but all subpopulations encountered are very small, with all at risk from unmanaged large-scale hunting, and the total population certainly numbers well less than 500 individuals. Decline is expected to continue base on ongoing hunting and unpredictable arrival of large hunting parties with high destructive potential from the Gulf states.

Saiga (Saiga tatarica) (69 kg)
The most highly threatened antelope in Asia

Status justification: The population has shown an observed decline of over 80% over the last 10 years and the decline is continuing. Severely skewed sex ratios are leading to reproductive collapse.

———————-

The basis of “critically endangered” here is not number of individuals, 300 to 650 individuals is quite a lot compared to many other species. The basis is continuing rapid decline in numbers And being all antelope and similar makes them seem fair game to native hunters.

I totally agree with the IUCN assessment here. My faith in IUCN assessments has increased.

> The basis of “critically endangered” here is not number of individuals, 300 to 650 individuals is quite a lot compared to many other species. The basis is continuing rapid decline in numbers And being all antelope and similar makes them seem fair game to native hunters.

> I totally agree with the IUCN assessment here. My faith in IUCN assessments has increased.

But not too much, their web search is atrocious. And they don’t seem to include any invertebrates other than corals and molluscs. They used to.

At least I’ve confirmed that ~30 whale species not on the megafauna list are missing because IUCN claims that they are “Data Deficient”.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

And by a much larger human population, especially in Africa. It can only get worse.

Land-clearing for agriculture, especially cattle grazing, is one of the biggest causes of habitat loss and declining animal numbers worldwide.

But according to new research, our taste for meat has a much more direct impact on the world’s largest animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-02-07/hunting-meat-causing-extinction-megafauna/10778370

> The killer whale (Orca) and false killer whale (Pseudorca) are missing from the list, despite being 4500 kg and 2000 kg.

All the missing megafauna species seem to be those that the conservation status is listed as “data deficient”, or are domesticated human animals (cow, water buffalo, horse)

Some domesticated food animals are included, including the reindeer.

So well done, authors.

I assume that you’ve all seen this diagram from wikipedia. The number of terrestrial mamalian megafauna worldwide has remained basically constant over the past 400 years.

The most recent megafauna to go extinct was the Baiji, or Yangtze river dolphin, in 2002. For reasons unknown.

The only other known megafauna mammals that went extinct after 1500 are:

early 1500s Malagasy hippo
1627 Aurochs
1768 Steller’s sea cow
1932 Schomburgk’s deer
1952 Caribbean Monk Seal
1970s Japanese sea lion

Quite possibly the next to go extinct is the Bornean rhinoceros. The three in captivity can’t breed and there are only 15 or so in the wild.

New megafauna species are being discovered very much faster than they are going extinct. For example, here is the list of the 14 new cetacean species discovered in just the past 100 years:

1926 Tropical bottlenose whale
1937 Shepherd’s beaked whale
1956 Fraser’s dolphin
1958 Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale
1958 Vaquita
1963 Deraniyagala’s beaked whale
1963 Hubbs’ beaked whale
1971 Arabian common dolphin
1991 Pygmy beaked whale
2002 Perrin’s beaked whale
2003 Omura’s whale
2005 Australian snubfin dolphin
2014 Araguaian river dolphin
2014 Australian humpback dolphin

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

And by a much larger human population, especially in Africa. It can only get worse.

Land-clearing for agriculture, especially cattle grazing, is one of the biggest causes of habitat loss and declining animal numbers worldwide.

But according to new research, our taste for meat has a much more direct impact on the world’s largest animals.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-02-07/hunting-meat-causing-extinction-megafauna/10778370

> The killer whale (Orca) and false killer whale (Pseudorca) are missing from the list, despite being 4500 kg and 2000 kg.

All the missing megafauna species seem to be those that the conservation status is listed as “data deficient”, or are domesticated human animals (cow, water buffalo, horse)

Some domesticated food animals are included, including the reindeer.

So well done, authors.

I assume that you’ve all seen this diagram from wikipedia. The number of terrestrial mamalian megafauna worldwide has remained basically constant over the past 400 years.

The most recent megafauna to go extinct was the Baiji, or Yangtze river dolphin, in 2002. For reasons unknown.

The only other known megafauna mammals that went extinct after 1500 are:

early 1500s Malagasy hippo
1627 Aurochs
1768 Steller’s sea cow
1932 Schomburgk’s deer
1952 Caribbean Monk Seal
1970s Japanese sea lion

Quite possibly the next to go extinct is the Bornean rhinoceros. The three in captivity can’t breed and there are only 15 or so in the wild.

New megafauna species are being discovered very much faster than they are going extinct. For example, here is the list of the 14 new cetacean species discovered in just the past 100 years:

1926 Tropical bottlenose whale
1937 Shepherd’s beaked whale
1956 Fraser’s dolphin
1958 Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale
1958 Vaquita
1963 Deraniyagala’s beaked whale
1963 Hubbs’ beaked whale
1971 Arabian common dolphin
1991 Pygmy beaked whale
2002 Perrin’s beaked whale
2003 Omura’s whale
2005 Australian snubfin dolphin
2014 Araguaian river dolphin
2014 Australian humpback dolphin

What, so they never existed before people discovered them? Supposed we should be grateful that we now have some others to replace any that do go extinct. It is worth reflecting that if they have only recently been discovered, they must either very localised or rare already.

PermeateFree said:

What, so they never existed before people discovered them? Supposed we should be grateful that we now have some others to replace any that do go extinct. It is worth reflecting that if they have only recently been discovered, they must either very localised or rare already.

Thank you for your response. You’re right of course.

Still working my way through the megafauna list. Now done the pinnipeds.

35 species (including extinctions).

Two extinctions.

• Caribbean Monk Seal – last confirmed sighting in 1958 – confirmed extinct in 2008.
  “The most visible factor contributing to the Caribbean monk seals’ demise was the nonstop hunting and killing of the seals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to obtain the oil held within their blubber.”
  “By the time it was placed on the endangered species list in 1967 it was likely already extinct.”
  Very closely related to an extant species, the Hawaiian Monk Seal.

• Japanese Sea Lion – last confirmed record in 1974 – confirmed extinct in 2003.
  “They were hunted commercially in the 1900s, leading to their extinction”.
  “Efforts to reintroduce sea lions to the Sea of Japan” have been unsuccessful, so far.
  Very closely related to an extant species, the California Sea Lion, divergence date 2 million years ago.

One new species in the last 100 years.
1953 – Galápagos Sea Lion
Previously considered a subspecies of the California Sea Lion.

One species lost by merger with another species in the last 100 years.
The Australian Fur Seal has been found to be a subspecies of the Brown Fur Seal, found in South Africa.

Three of the 35 pinniped species are not counted as megafauna (> 100 kg for largest adults)
Galápagos fur seal - 64 kg
Caspian seal - 85 kg
Ribbon seal - 95 kg

Many pinniped species have males significantly larger than females, but occasionally it’s the other way around.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

What, so they never existed before people discovered them? Supposed we should be grateful that we now have some others to replace any that do go extinct. It is worth reflecting that if they have only recently been discovered, they must either very localised or rare already.

Thank you for your response. You’re right of course.

Still working my way through the megafauna list. Now done the pinnipeds.

35 species (including extinctions).

Two extinctions.

• Caribbean Monk Seal – last confirmed sighting in 1958 – confirmed extinct in 2008.
  “The most visible factor contributing to the Caribbean monk seals’ demise was the nonstop hunting and killing of the seals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to obtain the oil held within their blubber.”
  “By the time it was placed on the endangered species list in 1967 it was likely already extinct.”
  Very closely related to an extant species, the Hawaiian Monk Seal.

• Japanese Sea Lion – last confirmed record in 1974 – confirmed extinct in 2003.
  “They were hunted commercially in the 1900s, leading to their extinction”.
  “Efforts to reintroduce sea lions to the Sea of Japan” have been unsuccessful, so far.
  Very closely related to an extant species, the California Sea Lion, divergence date 2 million years ago.

One new species in the last 100 years.
1953 – Galápagos Sea Lion
Previously considered a subspecies of the California Sea Lion.

One species lost by merger with another species in the last 100 years.
The Australian Fur Seal has been found to be a subspecies of the Brown Fur Seal, found in South Africa.

Three of the 35 pinniped species are not counted as megafauna (> 100 kg for largest adults)
Galápagos fur seal - 64 kg
Caspian seal - 85 kg
Ribbon seal - 95 kg

Many pinniped species have males significantly larger than females, but occasionally it’s the other way around.

Is there a lower size limit for megafauna? When does an animal qualify to be classified as megafauna?

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

No one strictly needs milk other than babies.

I was just pointing out that if replacing cows with kangaroos there is a bigger tissue than domesticating them.

And I like cheese. And ice cream. Hate milk.

Not sure how kangaroos will cope with big udders but I’ll work on it

well their pouches can stretch pretty significantly so it’s like a ready udder pocket

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

What, so they never existed before people discovered them? Supposed we should be grateful that we now have some others to replace any that do go extinct. It is worth reflecting that if they have only recently been discovered, they must either very localised or rare already.

Thank you for your response. You’re right of course.

Still working my way through the megafauna list. Now done the pinnipeds.

35 species (including extinctions).

Two extinctions.

• Caribbean Monk Seal – last confirmed sighting in 1958 – confirmed extinct in 2008.
  “The most visible factor contributing to the Caribbean monk seals’ demise was the nonstop hunting and killing of the seals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to obtain the oil held within their blubber.”
  “By the time it was placed on the endangered species list in 1967 it was likely already extinct.”
  Very closely related to an extant species, the Hawaiian Monk Seal.

• Japanese Sea Lion – last confirmed record in 1974 – confirmed extinct in 2003.
  “They were hunted commercially in the 1900s, leading to their extinction”.
  “Efforts to reintroduce sea lions to the Sea of Japan” have been unsuccessful, so far.
  Very closely related to an extant species, the California Sea Lion, divergence date 2 million years ago.

One new species in the last 100 years.
1953 – Galápagos Sea Lion
Previously considered a subspecies of the California Sea Lion.

One species lost by merger with another species in the last 100 years.
The Australian Fur Seal has been found to be a subspecies of the Brown Fur Seal, found in South Africa.

Three of the 35 pinniped species are not counted as megafauna (> 100 kg for largest adults)
Galápagos fur seal - 64 kg
Caspian seal - 85 kg
Ribbon seal - 95 kg

Many pinniped species have males significantly larger than females, but occasionally it’s the other way around.

Is there a lower size limit for megafauna? When does an animal qualify to be classified as megafauna?

Yes. The minimum size limit is 40 kg for birds, reptiles and amphibians, 100 kg for fish and mammals.

So for birds we only have Ostrich as Cassowary, not Emu.

For amphibians we only have Chinese Giant Salamander, not Japanese Giant Salamander.

For reptiles that includes turtles and crocodiles, but only one lizard, the Komodo Dragon.

For mammals, the elephant/rhino/hippo/giraffe, whales, dolphins, seals, cows, camels, horses, bears, pig, tapir, some deer and antelope, big cats, and the largest of the sheep.

For fish, that includes sharks, rays, tuna, marlin and relatives, sturgeon, grouper, Murray River cod, and weird stuff.

I count as megafauna, because I weigh more than 100 kg.

Recognise this one? I didn’t. Even though it’s “least concern” and lives throughout India, but only India. The Nilgai.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Thank you for your response. You’re right of course.

Still working my way through the megafauna list. Now done the pinnipeds.

35 species (including extinctions).

Two extinctions.

• Caribbean Monk Seal – last confirmed sighting in 1958 – confirmed extinct in 2008.
  “The most visible factor contributing to the Caribbean monk seals’ demise was the nonstop hunting and killing of the seals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to obtain the oil held within their blubber.”
  “By the time it was placed on the endangered species list in 1967 it was likely already extinct.”
  Very closely related to an extant species, the Hawaiian Monk Seal.

• Japanese Sea Lion – last confirmed record in 1974 – confirmed extinct in 2003.
  “They were hunted commercially in the 1900s, leading to their extinction”.
  “Efforts to reintroduce sea lions to the Sea of Japan” have been unsuccessful, so far.
  Very closely related to an extant species, the California Sea Lion, divergence date 2 million years ago.

One new species in the last 100 years.
1953 – Galápagos Sea Lion
Previously considered a subspecies of the California Sea Lion.

One species lost by merger with another species in the last 100 years.
The Australian Fur Seal has been found to be a subspecies of the Brown Fur Seal, found in South Africa.

Three of the 35 pinniped species are not counted as megafauna (> 100 kg for largest adults)
Galápagos fur seal - 64 kg
Caspian seal - 85 kg
Ribbon seal - 95 kg

Many pinniped species have males significantly larger than females, but occasionally it’s the other way around.

Is there a lower size limit for megafauna? When does an animal qualify to be classified as megafauna?

Yes. The minimum size limit is 40 kg for birds, reptiles and amphibians, 100 kg for fish and mammals.

So for birds we only have Ostrich as Cassowary, not Emu.

For amphibians we only have Chinese Giant Salamander, not Japanese Giant Salamander.

For reptiles that includes turtles and crocodiles, but only one lizard, the Komodo Dragon.

For mammals, the elephant/rhino/hippo/giraffe, whales, dolphins, seals, cows, camels, horses, bears, pig, tapir, some deer and antelope, big cats, and the largest of the sheep.

For fish, that includes sharks, rays, tuna, marlin and relatives, sturgeon, grouper, Murray River cod, and weird stuff.

I count as megafauna, because I weigh more than 100 kg.

Recognise this one? I didn’t. Even though it’s “least concern” and lives throughout India, but only India. The Nilgai.

Have you got a reference for those figures? I would be interested to see how they were arrived at.

Some bovine megafauna.
I count 24 megafauna Bovines (including antelope). Give or take a bit
No recent extinctions, except the Aurochs in about 1627.
One new discovery in the past 100 years, the Kouprey in 1937.

Mountain Anoa – Endangered.

Guar – The largest Bovine – Vulnerable but closely related to a domestic species

Bongo – Near Threatened

mollwollfumble said:

Some bovine megafauna.
I count 24 megafauna Bovines (including antelope). Give or take a bit
No recent extinctions, except the Aurochs in about 1627.
One new discovery in the past 100 years, the Kouprey in 1937.

Mountain Anoa – Endangered.

Guar – The largest Bovine – Vulnerable but closely related to a domestic species

Bongo – Near Threatened

Is it OK for me to say that I have never even fantasised about eating such things?

mollwollfumble said:

Some bovine megafauna.
I count 24 megafauna Bovines (including antelope). Give or take a bit
No recent extinctions, except the Aurochs in about 1627.
One new discovery in the past 100 years, the Kouprey in 1937.

Mountain Anoa – Endangered.

Guar – The largest Bovine – Vulnerable but closely related to a domestic species

Bongo – Near Threatened

You claim megafauna is 100 kg and over for mammals. Would you please supply references.

PermeateFree said:

You claim megafauna is 100 kg and over for mammals. Would you please supply references.

Hmm, so I count as megafauna.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

You claim megafauna is 100 kg and over for mammals. Would you please supply references.

Hmm, so I count as megafauna.

Yes, silly isn’t it. Megafauna is not solely defined by weight, but by a large example of a family and generally over 1,000 kg. However, not all megafauna would reach that size including the large cats of which the tiger and the lion would be good examples, as would have been the smaller marsupial lion, which still qualifies by being the largest (cat-like) marsupial predator.

A 10 metre snake is megafauna regardless of weight, as are the large ground dwelling birds, providing they are generally taller than the average human. Megafauna is consequently not defined by specific measurement, but rather exceptional large animals when compared to closely related species.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

You claim megafauna is 100 kg and over for mammals. Would you please supply references.

Hmm, so I count as megafauna.

Uh-oh. Me too. (Just.)

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Some bovine megafauna.
I count 24 megafauna Bovines (including antelope). Give or take a bit
No recent extinctions, except the Aurochs in about 1627.
One new discovery in the past 100 years, the Kouprey in 1937.

Mountain Anoa – Endangered.

Guar – The largest Bovine – Vulnerable but closely related to a domestic species

Bongo – Near Threatened

You claim megafauna is 100 kg and over for mammals. Would you please supply references.

You’re right, I didn’t post the link. It’s the technical paper on which the OP article is based.
Are we eating the world’s megafauna to extinction?

“Thus, we considered megafauna to be all species ≥100 kg for mammals, ray‐finned fish, and cartilaginous fish, and all species ≥40 kg for amphibians, birds, and reptiles, because they have smaller body sizes, on average, compared with large mammals and fish.”

I’ve had enough of looking through the megafauna list now, having had a quick run through the sharks, an even quicker look through the bony fish. Weights of animals can be extremely uncertain, a difference of a factor of 2 is not at all uncommon, particularly among the fish. Even for humans.

This wikipedia article is a fun read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mammals . For example the largest rodent, the capybara, isn’t on the megafauna list but perhaps it should be because it has a weight up to 105 kg.

You may have wondered why the giant squids haven’t made the list of megafauna. Well, actually, they should be on the list. Here are some data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_size

495 kg, Colossal squid, Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni – Conservation status LC = least concern.
275 kg, Giant squid of the genus Architeuthis – Conservation status LC = least concern.

The giant octopus can only reach up to about 70 kg.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Some bovine megafauna.
I count 24 megafauna Bovines (including antelope). Give or take a bit
No recent extinctions, except the Aurochs in about 1627.
One new discovery in the past 100 years, the Kouprey in 1937.

Mountain Anoa – Endangered.

Guar – The largest Bovine – Vulnerable but closely related to a domestic species

Bongo – Near Threatened

You claim megafauna is 100 kg and over for mammals. Would you please supply references.

You’re right, I didn’t post the link. It’s the technical paper on which the OP article is based.
Are we eating the world’s megafauna to extinction?

“Thus, we considered megafauna to be all species ≥100 kg for mammals, ray‐finned fish, and cartilaginous fish, and all species ≥40 kg for amphibians, birds, and reptiles, because they have smaller body sizes, on average, compared with large mammals and fish.”

I’ve had enough of looking through the megafauna list now, having had a quick run through the sharks, an even quicker look through the bony fish. Weights of animals can be extremely uncertain, a difference of a factor of 2 is not at all uncommon, particularly among the fish. Even for humans.

This wikipedia article is a fun read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mammals . For example the largest rodent, the capybara, isn’t on the megafauna list but perhaps it should be because it has a weight up to 105 kg.

You may have wondered why the giant squids haven’t made the list of megafauna. Well, actually, they should be on the list. Here are some data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_size

495 kg, Colossal squid, Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni – Conservation status LC = least concern.
275 kg, Giant squid of the genus Architeuthis – Conservation status LC = least concern.

The giant octopus can only reach up to about 70 kg.

Looks like I said goodbye to the megafauna list too soon. I underestimated the size of the giant octopus, and missed other invertebrate sea giants.

http://static.peerj.com/press/previews/2015/01/715.pdf

Xestospongia muta, Caribbean Giant Barrel Sponge
Largest poriferan Base diameter: 2.5 m;
Volume: 7.24 m^3

Nemopilema nomurai, Nomura’s Jellyfish Heaviest medusozoa Bell diameter: 2 m;
Mass: 200 kg

Tridacna gigas, Giant Clam Largest bivalve Shell length: 137 cm;
Soft tissue mass: 333 kg

Enteroctopus dofleini, Giant Pacific Octopus Largest octopod Radial spread: 9.8 m;
Mass: 198.2 kg

All four of these also ought to be on the list of megafauna.

I suppose the dog also counts as megafauna.

The English Mastiff can weigh 110 kg.
The world’‘s heaviest dog weighed 155 kg.

mollwollfumble said:

I suppose the dog also counts as megafauna.

The English Mastiff can weigh 110 kg.
The world’‘s heaviest dog weighed 155 kg.

LOL

>>The world’‘s heaviest dog weighed 155 kg.

Probably a pug.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>The world’‘s heaviest dog weighed 155 kg.

Probably a pug.

are they classified as dogs now?

Peak Warming Man said:

>>The world’‘s heaviest dog weighed 155 kg.

Probably a pug.

That’s a horrible thought for a lap dog…