Talk:Irish elk

message: Should the coin image be included? It's clearly a depiction of a red deer and not an Irish Elk, as a simple inspection of any decent picture of a red deer, and of the Irish Elk skeleton depicted elsewhere on the page, will reveal it to closely resemble a red deer, but to have an entirely different antler shape from the Irish Elk.
Of course, the red deer is one of the modern animals frequently called ‘Elk’, but even if the thing on the coin is both an Elk and Irish, it's not the animal this article is about, and that should probably be clarified in the caption.
: Agree to remove picture. --Chl 15:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coin image

message: I expanded the reference to its range from "Europe" to "Eurasia," as the deer lived as far east as China. I just read this in Stephen J. Gould's essay of the topic, in "Ever Since Darwin." Zachkchk 12:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Range

message: Should Megaceros redirect here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.51.166.124 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 April 2006.
:Yes.  Megaceros and Megaloceros are slightly different names for the same genus.  Thanks for pointing it out; I'll make the change. bcasterline t 12:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the two has priority and the other is merely a synonym.  The wording in the article as is treats them as if both are valid.  --Aranae 16:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've clarified the confusion.  If not, please correct me. bcasterline t 18:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[Megaceros]] redirect here? 

message: "Some have suggested hunting by man is a contributing factor in the demise of Megaloceros giganteus, but most paleontologists now believe that the last animal died off about 10,600 years ago, over a millennium before the first humans arrived."
Where on Earth was it that there were still no humans as recently as 7600 BC?  This must be a mistake. Haplolology 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The date is 5700 BC, even... I'd think the the paragraph above is taken from a book that is a few decades old... Chl 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, now that I think about it some more, I think that whoever wrote that was most likely thinking about the elk going extinct in Ireland itself, which really was uninhabited until that recently because of the ice age.  I will change the sentence to assume that that is what they meant. Haplolology 12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrived Where?? 

message: Should 'Shelk' redirect here? CarrerCrytharis 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - anyone looking for the article after reading Kurtén's book without reading the explanatory preface would search for "shelk" (for those unfamiliar with the book, Kurtén favored renaming the Irish Elk "Shelk," arguing that the current name suggests the animal had lived only in Ireland). Do it! --Eitch 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. (Actually this was my first redirect, was a bit unsure how to do it.) CarrerCrytharis 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Shelk' redirect 

message: Does anyone think it's strange that "most paleontologists now believe that the last animal died off about 10,600 years ago," (paragraph 4) when "The latest known remains of the Irish elk have been carbon dated to about 5700 BC" (paragraph 2)?  That's a lot of paleontologists without hand-calculators, I'm afraid:(.  Ungtss 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange? 

message: Okay so the last one died out 5000 years ago, and also 10000 years ago. Hmmm... Indigenius 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction Date? 

message: I think we should make a separate article for the genus Megaloceros, as, after all, there were several species other than M. giganteus.--Mr Fink 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are other species of Megaloceros, such as the smaller M. savini of France, and M. giganteus' sister species M. antecedens, plus the dwarf species in Sardinia and the Channel Islands.  And possibly in Crete, too, if Candiacervus is a subgenus rather than a genus proper.--Mr Fink 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I definently think that we should split off Megaloceros from Irish Elk, given as how this article talks only about one species.--Mr Fink 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, perhaps we can once we scrape up enough information on the other species?--Mr Fink 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting off Megaloceros from Irish Elk

message: Should it be noted that its closest relative is the fallow deer?
The Great White Hunter 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closest Relative 

message: See here  for another, more plausible explanation of its extinction. The whole 'it must be the antlers' theory is nonsense of course, as (stated also by the linked article) changes to vegetation were gradual enough to allow the elk to evolve smaller antlers. Antler size differs so much throughout deer populations, within a few generations the effect would be noticeable. Jalwikip (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has no such thing: it is reporting plainly what scientists have published. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New theory on extinction 

message: As noted in the opening paragraph, the vernaular name "Irish Elk" is no longer in wide usage due to the widespread range of the species and not belonging to the genus Cervus.  The name giant elk is noted as being used now, and the binomial, Megaloceros giganteus is the most common name in scientific lit.  Should this article be moved to either giant elk or preferably, following fauna naming conventions, Megaloceros giganteus as there are at least to vernacular names in use?--Kevmin (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The common names used are too inconsistent. More often than those, I guess it's actually referred to as just "Megaloceros", but for our purpose, the full binomial is of course better, since the other Megaloceros species are then excluded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it, often never works, but did this time... Seems most foreign language articles use the scientific name too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhinocerous, Elephant, Skunk, Toad, Dog, are we forgetting something here? As any real person knows, only a very small percentage of the population use those terms because it is a foreign language method of indexing, not a commonly spoken language. Not only would I need to concentrate very hard to pronounce it, Kevmin had to abbreviate it and put "Quotation" marks around it each time. You are supposed to write the article for the layman who can understand English but has no prior knowledge of the subject, and you are supposed to title the article to maximise search hits. What would someone searching for this item call it? They would call it Megamalicipose Giganticas, no. They wouldn't. Would they call it Megalomessypose after reading this article? Even then, unlikely. So it is not a Megalomissypose, it is in fact some sort of elk deer which just happens to be indexed as a Megalloomustaprose. ~ R.T.G 16:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All those animals you mention are extant. We don't call Tyrannosaurus "tyrant lizard king" or some such here either. Anyway, Megaloceros gets 126.000 hits on Google, Irish Elk only gets 48.900. Giant deer gets 71.800. So much for "common" name and search hits. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Rhinocerous genus and species are you referring to? The link goes to the family level page. Which Elephant genus and species are you referring to, there are two living an a large number of extinct taxa called that? Again, which Skunk genus and species are you referring to, the link is to a family page, and Toad is even worse linking to an Order level page so which Family, genus, and species are you looking at? Dog is the only article that matches the same level as this article but doesnt compair as it is not only an extant species, but one of the most familiar animals to humans.  "Those terms" are names just like any other name and no odder then Rhinocerous and Elephant in spelling. the abbreviation is standard grammatical formatting for binomial names is literature.  Plus the species is neither a deer or an elk, but a totally extinct genus. --Kevmin (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, yeah, I missed that obvious self-contradiction, Rhinoceros and elephant are Latin or greek names that have become common names in English, just like Megaloceros. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about the Wooly Rhinoceros, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the Javan rhinoceros, the Black rhinoceros, the White rhinoceros, the Indian rhinoceros, a Dürer's Rhinoceros and probably the International Rhino Foundation. Of course I can learn right here on Wikipedia that it's taxonomical name is the rhinocerotidae of which is branched no less than 48 genus most having articles or links in this encyclopaedia but if you want to get all technical about it, why name it in Greek here for any reason other than taxinomists insisting on naming everything in Greek. It's jargon (although probably a wise choice for those memorising long lists of taxa) and if you do the search right, "Megaloceros Giganteus" specific phrase you get only 7,000  "Irish Elk" = 31 Million hits  and "Giant Deer" 41 Million. So much for your so much? How many hits for Giant Deer are something about a huge deer? Lots. How many hits for Irish Elk are about the "Megaloceros Giganteus"? All of them? ~ R.T.G 08:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty safe to say that probably 90% of all appearances of "Megaloceros" on the web refer to M. giganteus. FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article be given it's English language name or classified in Greek? Obviously it should be listed in the English language on this Wikipedia and in the Greek language on the Greek Wikipedia. That is why most articles about life forms tend not to be titled in Greek. Is there something more understandable about Greek for those who speak English? No. You must admit it is a common classification method though, right? Even life forms without a given name will have some classification term in Greek rather than giving them a number but we are speaking English here. There are various merits to using Greek for taxonomy but this website is in English and other languages are only used for notation not classification. ~ R.T.G 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be unfamiliar with how things are done with paleontology articles, English names are by no means always the most widely used or the most appropriate choices in general. Instead of moving articles around with no support, discuss it first, like we did. FunkMonk (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is known as the Irish Elk which is recently being fazed into the Giant Deer by some. Scientific terminology *is* jargon. It suits where there are no given names or a big list of the same creature with slight differences. When it comes to things like the mammoth, it is a mammoth not a scientific anything. The science comes after the fact so that we can all understand it. It does say in the guidelines that you should try to approach an article as though the reader has a great grasp of English but has no prior knowledge of the subject let alone expertise. That can not always be accomplished with some complicated math topics for instance but there is no way that this article can not be written top to bottom in plain English. This creature is distinct and unique. It may be going through two names at the moment but that is hardly a list of unmanagable length and the last time I read over it the original name name and the change were explained quite well. The original poster claimed something like "The name Giant Elk is now used. Let's move to Megaloceros Giganteus." It doesn't make enough sense and it's incorrect because the new name being used is "Giant Deer" and it's only recent. You might note that the Greek words mean "Gigantic big-horn" rather than deer or elk anything and that many articles such as Megaloceros tell us that it is best known as the Irisk Elk. Changing to Giant Deer is one thing, and still a little premature, but changing to "Gigantic Big-horn" in Greek is another. It's a great method of classification but where there names for a thing we should use them. If I didn't look at this article before this time next year I would have no idea what a Megaloceros was from a list but I would know exactly what a Giant Deer or Irish Elk was. More people are going to search for Giant Deer or Irish Elk because they don't need to concentrate too hard. Megaloceros needs memorizing to recall. We don't want to impair the language of the article but we don't want to memorise each sentence just to follow it, right? ~ R.T.G 06:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: It is a giant deer Kevmin not an elk. The main reason change is discussed is because they reckon the creature is not related to what they call Elk at all. Both names were given with much more accurate than the vague Gigantic Big-horn. A gigantic big horn could be fitted to a car. They found most of this elk-like creature in Irish bogs. They called it the Irish Elk. More recently it was decided that the creature was more of a deer and when alive was not more common in Ireland than in other parts of Europe. It is popularly suggested that the name be changed to Giant Deer and it is likely that will happen. As for the more vague Gigantic Bighorn, if the major public sources of information such as the BBC and the National Geographic prefer English names it is hardly a going concern. National Geographic usually refers to it as "...extinct giant deer or Irish elk..." Why should we argue with the BBC and the National Geographic? Because scientific terms. Um... Jargon. It is nessecary but should not be overwhelming. Most of them seem to call it the Irish Elk then go on to describe as a giant deer which is as accurate as can be. Elk found in ireland which is actually a giant deer. You could use a gigantic big horn to help you put a shoe on but an Irish Elk giant deer you could not. I havent tried to rate this article but I have read it once or twice and thought it was quite good. ~ R.T.G 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC experts , National Geographic . Tell us that those folk are not definitive experts and presenters of information. ~ R.T.G 18:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed It is not an elk as only Cervus canadensis is called "elk", even though it is a member of the type genus for Cervidae, the "deer" family. At no point however did I say it was an elk and I'm not sure where you pulled your information on what "they" think, but clearly it was not from an understanding of the relationships between the taxa.  YOU are the only person who has been constantly misusing a (mis)translation the the Megaloceros giganteus binomial, eg "Gigantic Big-horn", both myself and Funkmonk were discussing moving the article to Megaloceros giganteus.  At no point would readers be confronted with the malformed term "Gigantic Big-horn", excepting the reasonable inclusion of an etymology section noting the name of the species to be a deriviation of the Greek words megalos(great) and keras(horn) referring to the size of the animals antlers and gigantius noting the size of the individuals in the species.  As your mistranslation "Gigantic Big-horn" is not the target name of the article your objections based on ambiguity are moot.  We should argue with the BBC and Nat. Geo. because they are both publication made to be sold and not rigorous in there fact verification (Chinese dino/bird chimera anyone?) and are the descendants of the same "they" (the media) that coined the term in the first place.  The researchers who study the taxa when using a "vernacular name" do not use "Irish elk" do to the wrong impressions given by both the terms "Irish" and "elk". Thus we are still left with the fact that the name Megaloceros giganteus (italicized, lower case species name, correctly spelled, not mistranslated) is the most unambiguous of the three major names applied to the species. --Kevmin (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Kevmin but denying that the BBC and National Geographic are somehow less of an authority because they get paid? That they are not trustworthy fact checkers? That the Greek language phrase being a reference to the antlers somehow changes the translation? That the name Irish Elk is not in use? The common practice here is not to use the Greek language indexing method only to note it. Nature magazine also names the creature "Giant deer or 'Irish elk'..." and then goes on to refer to it as the giant deer.  It is just simply the name of the thing. The giant deer known as the Irish Elk. Big deal. These references, Nature, BBC, National Geographic, they are all beyond reproach to my knowledge (what planet are we on here? what day is it?) and to my belief they have been leaders in this area since decades. The fact that they produce publications for sale is irrelevant. What authority doesn't? For that matter, who produces more original work free to access in those areas than those three? People will always prefer to use names rather than indexing no matter what scientists are doing. It makes a bit of sense. ~ R.T.G 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly move to ''Megaloceros giganteus''? 

message: Hello, can someone please include a link to this page: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaloceros
It's about the genus Megaloceros but there is no German page about the species Irish Elk so I think a link is appropriate. 188.23.240.49 (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, it's not appropriate.  The German article is already linked to the genus article, thus there is no need to link the German article, which is about the genus, to this page, which is about a specific species.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to German Wikipedia 

message: I reached this article by searching the Trivia section about "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" on imdb.com:
A pair of Megaloceras (Irish elk) antlers flanks the Elf king's throne. 
Would it be appropriate to add a "In popular media" section to include this information? It should also be mentioned that Thranduil is shown as riding an animal that looks a great deal like an Irish Elk in a scene which I believe was in the previous film.
John Saunders (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IMDB isn't the most reliable reference. Can you find another, more reliable one? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if there was a reputable source that specifically states that those antlers decorating the Elf king's throne were of Megaloceras giganteus, as opposed to fan identification.  Having said that, "In Popular Culture" sections should be a discussion of how the subject is perceived in popular culture, or a brief discussion of the subject being a major character or important theme in some work of art/literature/play/etc.  "In Popular Culture" should not be a trivial laundry list of "monster of the week" appearances, or easter eggs of questionable notability.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would a "Popular Media" Section be Appropriate? 

message: An image with a comparison with one of these beasts to an average man would be helpful. The current images, while good, don't give a good sense of scale. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: Under section 1.1 Evolution:  "The Irish Elk evolved throughout the last few million years during the Glacial Periods, specifically the Pleistocene Epoch. Many of these deer were found to be unable to survive many of these sub-arctic conditions. Once established, the elk spread..."
Which deer were unable to survive sub-arctic conditions?  Is this talking about other species of smaller deer?  Many, but not all?  Found by whom?  The "many" in "many of these sub-arctic conditions" seems unnecessary and awkward. I'm having trouble figuring out what that sentence is trying to convey. --Rationalist Unikitty (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "These Deer": Which Deer? 

message: The phrasing of the section regarding the closest living relatives of Megaloceros giganteus needs quite a bit of editing - 
Early phylogenetic analyses supported the idea of a sister-group relationship between fallow deer (Dama dama) and the Irish Elk.[5][6] However, newer morphological studies prove that the Irish elk is more closely related to its modern regional counterparts of the Red Deer (Cervus elaphus).[7] For this reason, the name "Giant Deer" is used in some publications.[8][9][10][11][12]
Oddly though, the paper claiming that Megaloceros giganteus is more closely related to the Red Deer than to the Fallow Deer is from 2005, and actually predates the other 2 references that show a close relationship between Fallow Deer and Megaloceros giganteus; Kuehn et al. (2005) was published in September 2005, versus Lister et al. (December 2005) and van der Made & Tong (March 2008). Saying that Kuehn et al. (2005) is a "newer" study is inaccurate. Also, Kuehn et al. (2005) looked at mitochondrial DNA, not morphology, whereas van der Made & Tong (2008) didn't say anything about establishing a sister-group relationship between Megaloceros and Dama. Maybe Hughes et al. (2006) can be used as another reference for evidence of Fallow Deer being the sister group to Megaloceros. Finally, the other common name of Giant Deer doesn't have anything to do with suggestions of a close relationship between the Red Deer and Megaloceros, does it? I thought it was just being more widely adopted as an alternative to Irish Elk. Hai ren (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closest living relatives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Irish elk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029200355/http://www.m3motorway.ie/RelatedContent/file,14080,en.pdf to http://www.m3motorway.ie/RelatedContent/file,14080,en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Irish elk. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.m3motorway.ie/RelatedContent/file,14080,en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Irish elk. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.m3motorway.ie/RelatedContent/file%2C14080%2Cen.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051111051611/http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/artio/irishelk.html to http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/artio/irishelk.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Irish elk. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.courses.rochester.edu/biology/documents/20Feb-PleistocenetoHolocene.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001031248/http://serv-umr5023.univ-lyon1.fr/~cdouady/publications/Hughes.2006.MPE.pdf to http://serv-umr5023.univ-lyon1.fr/~cdouady/publications/Hughes.2006.MPE.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217212625/http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/beasts/photo/slide_05.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/beasts/photo/slide_05.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If anyone can take a photo of an Irish elk skeleton without background clutter, it would be much appreciated! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe  could make one with a white background? FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I'll give it a shot. Mariomassone (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Irish_Elk_Side_(white_background).jpg Mariomassone (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Image request

message: This has been brought up before, but it is purely an argument from history/tradition for this article to be "elk" rather than "deer". This animal is not an elk, and the use of this term as the article title does nothing expect perpetuate this misconception. The fact that it is referred to incorrectly as an elk throughout the body of the article just compounds this error. Is it not time this article reflected modern understanding of the species? Giant deer is a scientifically accurate description. Smirkybec (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We should stick to WP:COMMONNAME, whatever that is. Note that, according to Wikipedia, elk are deer, if of a different genus. You may be thinking of moose, not that they aren't deer too. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Common name according to whom? Gould, cited in the article, (amongst others) directly address the fact that it was incorrectly identified as closer to living elk when first discovered, and that it is correct to now call it a deer. Given that the Natural History Museum, Dublin, the Natural History Museum London, and the BBC refer to it as a deer, how is it was decided that elk is the more common of the common names? Surely we should favour the name that is patently more accurately descriptive and backed up by research? Smirkybec (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then you should launch a WP:RM on that basis, but get ghits figures etc lined up. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: NB, there is a long discussion above from 2010 bearing on this issue. Also, your last, Irish Times link, still uses "elk" throughout, while explaining it is a misnomer. So that goes against renaming, as WP does not aim to set usage, but follow it. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elk versus deer 

message: These parts seem confusing and like they kind of contradict each other:
   "The size of Irish elk antlers is distinctive. Scientists have proposed multiple theories regarding the evolution of these antlers. One theory is that their antlers, under constant and strong sexual selection, increased in size because males were using them in combat for access to females. Thus, they are thought to have eventually become so unwieldy that the Irish elk could not carry on the normal business of life, so became extinct. This theory was not tested rigorously until Stephen Jay Gould's important 1974 essay on Megaloceros.
Gould demonstrated that for deer in general, species with a larger body size have antlers that are more than proportionately larger, a consequence of allometry, or differential growth rate of body size and antler size during development. Irish elk had antlers of the appropriate size in correlation to their massive bodies."
And then:
   
   "However, in the 1930s, orthogenesis was disputed by Darwinians led by Julian Huxley, who noted that antler size was relative to body size. Because the Irish elk was a large organism compared to its smaller relatives such as deer, there was an allometric relationship between the antlers and body size. This theory, too, was countered by Stephen Jay Gould, as he deemed the allometry theory to be very similar to the orthogenesis theory."
First, "this theory" at first seems be talking about Huxley's theory, where it is actually saying that Gould was ALSO controverting the theory. It also makes it sound like this was taking place simulteously, not three decades later, as the first paragraph says. But mostly the first quote seems to be saying that Gould demonstrated that it WASN'T sexual selection, but "alleometry" that explained the antlers. And it suggests that Gould was the originator of this ideas. The next quote seems to be saying that Gould thought Huxley's hypothesis about allemetry was wrong, too close to orthogenesis, and that there was some other reason for the antlers, such as sexual selection. 
Idumea47b (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems contradictory