# Talk:Megaherbivore

Let's talk about what to add, fix or improve about this page.  20 upper (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You should ensure whatever you have here is in alignment with what's at Megafauna. For instance, that the category isn't locked at being 1000kg and larger, but rather a lower weight of as low as 46 kg. Keep consistencies like this in mind as you gather your information and do your writing. Also, that article is a great source of reference material as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This draft is in perfect alignment with the article Megafauna. In that article they said an animal that is 46 kg or more is considered to be a Megafauna not a Megaherbivore. Megaherbivores are a very large type of Megafauna and the largest herbivores on Earth.  20 upper (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not what it says. While megaherbivores are a type of megafauna, it is just a subgroup based on diet, not based on size. UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

20 upper thanks for the page numbers here. But a problem/question:Owen-Smith is cited 6 times in the article:
a b c d e f Owen-Smith, R. Norman (1988). Megaherbivores: The Influence of Very Large Body Size on Ecology. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-521-42637-4.
Ray is cited 3 times in the article:

a b c Ray, Justina; Redford, Kent H.; Steneck, Robert; Berger, Joel (2013-04-09). Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Island Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-59726-609-3.
When you are citing books, or multiple page numbers in a journal article, using cite templates can be cumbersome. Are all six instances of Owen-Smith found on page 1, and are all three instances of Ray found on page 87?  If the page numbers are different on each instance cited, you can use instead the {{rp}} template to specify page numbers, or you can switch to the sfn method of citing (see for example Palladian architecture for sfns in action). SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

PS, at this stage, my recommendation would be to use the rp template, as learning sfn might be more than you want to take on right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
20 upper now you're cooking with gas on page numbers.  I did not flag them all, but I see you have the gist now; there are more. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we need these? I find them excessive. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That somehow slipped under my radar; I'll be reverting the IP's edits shortly. Wolverine XI  (talk to me) 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! - UtherSRG (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The article switches between including only terrestrial mega herbivores, and also including the aquatic ones. The lead says nine terrestrial species; but the Evolution section, Recent subsection, says "There are nine extant species of megaherbivores, found in Africa and Asia" just under a cladogram that in fact shows 13 (4 sirenians + 3 elephants + 4 rhinoceroses + 1 giraffe + 1 hippopotamus). Giraffes being just one species isn't totally uncontroversial, but it makes sense not to get into that here.

Also, if sirenians are included then the lead statement about "megaherbivores becoming entirely extinct in Europe, Australia and the Americas" is wrong, as manatees are in fact found in the Americas.

However, the manatee articles make it sound like only unusually large individuals reach 1 ton... 
Also, gaur reach 1500 kg so should fairly clearly be included. Their mass is pretty comparable to giraffes & the smaller rhinoceros species. (For example this article gives 0.8 - 1.2 tons for giraffe; A Guide to the Mammals of China cited in the gaur article gives 650 - 1500 kg for gaur. 
I think gaur clearly qualify, regularly reaching >1000kg; the manatees are more questionable and if they're included what about the American bison? 1000 kg is larger than average for it but not terribly exceptional.

Vultur~enwiki (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)