This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed "* Platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus (first specimens returned to Europe in 1700s, and believed to be taxidermical hoax)" from the "Megafauna initially believed to have been fictitious or hoaxes" section. While I'm sure platypi were thought to be hoaxes, they are hardly megafauna. Okapi should probably be removed as well.
I removed Prezwalski's Horse from this list because according to the information on its page, the population that now exists in the wild was what was released from captivity. It was not discovered.
I just typed these words in the search box. Shall those discoveries still be recent when they're 60 years old ?
Please move to "megafauna discovered since 1850, BC" or what you prefer. Thanks. -- DLL .. T 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. where's the summary box today ?
Is there a reason there are two conflicting entries for the Coelacanth, or is it a silent disagreement between to contributors? CDrecche ( talk) 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The birds and muntjacs (except maybe the Giant Muntjac) don't belong here, as they are under 100 lb/45 kg, the most common definition of megafauna. Vultur ( talk) 22:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to removing the smaller animals from this list? That would probably include the shrew and the birds. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Colossal Squid Ross Ice Shelf.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There is not a clear definition as what a megafauna species actually is, so since one can not definitively state, and source a specific species as yes or no, it's megafauna, the whole list will probably need to go. See List of megafauna for details Googlemeister ( talk) 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of megafauna discovered in modern times. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Should there be a separate category for species like Rice's Whale where scientists knew about it, but didn't realize/discover/decide it was a distinct species until recently? Seems like an important enough distinction. 147.226.198.35 ( talk) 05:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)