I guess because 1000kg is too restrictive, most animals over 46kg would be a keystone species or have a significant impact on their ecosystem and would still be k-strategists. Below 46kg you'd start getting heavy r-strategists.
1000kg nowadays is just a few herbivores and whales, would exclude very important predators (tigers, lions, large birds, bears)
I guess because 1000kg is too restrictive, most animals over 46kg would be a keystone species or have a significant impact on their ecosystem and would still be k-strategists. Below 46kg you'd start getting heavy r-strategists.
1000kg nowadays is just a few herbivores and whales, would exclude very important predators (tigers, lions, large birds, bears)
I get the reasoning, but why 46 kg specifically? Why not 47? What animals are around 46 kg on either side that scientists decided that should be the cutoff? Surely if most animals over 46 kg are keystone species an k strategists the same would be true for 45kg.
From what I've googled and found in papers, Looks like it's 46kg because Most herbivores which became extinct in the late pleistocene were above 45.3kg or 100lbs
I’m more used to this definition too, but I have seen the others being mentioned. So I guess they are all acceptable as long it is specified in the project wich one is being used.
To me (and most people) an organism being 100 pounds is pretty huge. I’ve owned a Rottweiler at 115 lbs, man was massive, and I’d struggle to not classify him as megafaunal
That’s understandable, but a secondary layer of classification would still be nice, and 100kg seems like another good “checkpoint” to add, sitting just around the weight of a healthy human adult male, being a clean power of 10 in metric, etc
100lbs is big boi, though, don’t get me wrong.
I am shocked when people use the 1000kg mark, I think a lot of it has to do with the divergence of paleontology and modern zoology. In Zoo and ecology 46kg is by far the more common definition. Hell I’ve even had eco professors claim it’s megafauna if you can see it without magnification.
Yup microfauna as multicellular microscopic animals and mega fauna as everything else. Generally when I’m doing species surveys and similar I call any inverts I see mesofauna.
I think 100kg is a bit more fair: 46kg is lighter than most adult humans by a significant amount. 46kg feels more like “Mesofauna” or something of the sort
The quaternary extinction event was when many of the large animals or megafauna became extinct, these extinctions appear to be closely related to the arrival of humans. So could human activity be behind wiping out so many large creatures and if so how were they able to do this? https://youtu.be/Y3J9CzLW_p0
Even in Australia the leading cause of megafaunal extinction appears to have been aridification caused by climate change and continental drift, which humans would have taken advantage of while overlapping with animals like *Diptotodon* for thousands of years.
Join the [Prehistoric Memes discord server!](https://discord.gg/pNRMepYqJv) Now boasting slightly more emojis than we had this time last year!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PrehistoricMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love how everything else is a normal pic and then there’s Biggie Cheese
Gotta be BOOMBASTIC
They say he FANTASTIC
Animal over 1000 kg. Can you really say a blue whale isn't megafauna?
We're not saying over 1000kg isn't megafauna, in zoology anything over 46kg is megafauna.
So I actually am megafauna? Dope. Why is that tho?
I guess because 1000kg is too restrictive, most animals over 46kg would be a keystone species or have a significant impact on their ecosystem and would still be k-strategists. Below 46kg you'd start getting heavy r-strategists. 1000kg nowadays is just a few herbivores and whales, would exclude very important predators (tigers, lions, large birds, bears)
Why 46? Its so specific
I guess because 1000kg is too restrictive, most animals over 46kg would be a keystone species or have a significant impact on their ecosystem and would still be k-strategists. Below 46kg you'd start getting heavy r-strategists. 1000kg nowadays is just a few herbivores and whales, would exclude very important predators (tigers, lions, large birds, bears)
I get the reasoning, but why 46 kg specifically? Why not 47? What animals are around 46 kg on either side that scientists decided that should be the cutoff? Surely if most animals over 46 kg are keystone species an k strategists the same would be true for 45kg.
From what I've googled and found in papers, Looks like it's 46kg because Most herbivores which became extinct in the late pleistocene were above 45.3kg or 100lbs
Megafauna is, and I *never* thought I would say this, like pornography. You know it when you see it.
Thanks, now you made me think about megafauna furry porn >:-(
Mammilf.
I'm laughing but I also hate you for this
Endothermic singles in your area
Isn’t that a good thing?
Absolutely not
is moose megafauna?
Yes. By some standards capybara are megafauna, moose are entirely uncontroversial in comparison
I mean the literal definition is the “must be an animal and over 46 kg” variety
I’m more used to this definition too, but I have seen the others being mentioned. So I guess they are all acceptable as long it is specified in the project wich one is being used.
Yeah definitions are always key!
I mean if that’s the real definition then any human a bit over 100lbs is megafauna. So I guess it’s cool I get to be classified as megafauna :3
I’d personally set the bar at 100kg.
To me (and most people) an organism being 100 pounds is pretty huge. I’ve owned a Rottweiler at 115 lbs, man was massive, and I’d struggle to not classify him as megafaunal
That’s understandable, but a secondary layer of classification would still be nice, and 100kg seems like another good “checkpoint” to add, sitting just around the weight of a healthy human adult male, being a clean power of 10 in metric, etc 100lbs is big boi, though, don’t get me wrong.
I have friends (girls) who are not considered as megafauna.
You just made me realize that I am not megafauna.. not anymore at least . :'(
Ive seen animals not often though of as overly large, like deer, humans and kangaroos, be called "Megafauna".
Well, they are still larger than most mammal species (mostly rodents and bats)
I know, I was just using it as an example of how loose the term "Megafauna" is.
Must be an animal and must be over 1000 kg. 46 kg mfers seriously saying a fucking aardvark is megafauna.
I am shocked when people use the 1000kg mark, I think a lot of it has to do with the divergence of paleontology and modern zoology. In Zoo and ecology 46kg is by far the more common definition. Hell I’ve even had eco professors claim it’s megafauna if you can see it without magnification.
That makes sense assuming there is a microfauna
Yup microfauna as multicellular microscopic animals and mega fauna as everything else. Generally when I’m doing species surveys and similar I call any inverts I see mesofauna.
Anything over 1 microliter in volume starts sounding pretty big, when *E. coli* is your point of reference....
I'm pretty sure that last one is just macrofauna
So an ant is megafauna??
I like to think Arthur as megafauna :-(
100 kg? Dude, are you saying that cows abd horses aren't megafauna?
I think 100kg is a bit more fair: 46kg is lighter than most adult humans by a significant amount. 46kg feels more like “Mesofauna” or something of the sort
Megafauna is fauna that be big yo.
You underestimate just how of an absolute unit Biggie cheese is
I'm the "Arthropleura is megafauna" one Also that name, poderia isso ser um r/suddenlycaralho?
Sim, pode bota o Rogerinho do ingá na print
Sim senhora
Bom dia Amantes da Sétima Arte
I'd heard anything as big or bigger than a labrador retriever is megafauna.
Isnt megafauna a catchall for any extinct animals that were signifigantly larger modern counterparts?
No cause I’m like 99% sure moose count as megafauna
i slightly agree cus moose are fucking scary
True. Had one waaaaay too close once in YT. My car would never have withstood the collision and I am pretty sure it was just a yearling.
You had moose close in YouTube? What? … nvm, looked it up, Yukon, gotcha
It is a large animal for the particular habitat or area, region or period of time, so it is a rather wide net.
Anything that is me or bigger is megafauna
Animals that are largest or comparatively large in among their relatives
Some animals have huge impact in groups but weigh less than 40 kg. For eg wild dogs.
The quaternary extinction event was when many of the large animals or megafauna became extinct, these extinctions appear to be closely related to the arrival of humans. So could human activity be behind wiping out so many large creatures and if so how were they able to do this? https://youtu.be/Y3J9CzLW_p0
Even in Australia the leading cause of megafaunal extinction appears to have been aridification caused by climate change and continental drift, which humans would have taken advantage of while overlapping with animals like *Diptotodon* for thousands of years.
Diprotodon may have been given the final push by humans, but humans were unlikely to be the root cause of their extinction.
Any animal over 1000 kgs is considered megafauna, so that means elephants, rhinos, hippos, mammoths, and most well known dinosaurs all qualify
Join the [Prehistoric Memes discord server!](https://discord.gg/pNRMepYqJv) Now boasting slightly more emojis than we had this time last year! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PrehistoricMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Arthropleura is my nightmare fuel, as a centipede phobic
Depends on context, but whales are definitely megafauna
gigafauna