
Elephant birds: Who killed the largest birds that ever lived? - tegeek
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45495400
======
qwerty456127
As far as I can see from the article the "birds" were of the ostrich kind, not
the flying kind we imagine when hearing the word "bird". As far as I know the
modern science also says that many dinosaurs that didn't fly also had
feathers. So why aren't the other dinosaurs considered "elephant birds" while
this creature is?

~~~
quadrangle
Because even though it's all a continuum, this animal was much closer to
modern birds than to dinosaurs based on the various ways these things are
classified. For one, it didn't have a dinosaur style jaw and teeth but a bird
beak. Where to draw the line isn't easy, it's fuzzy, but I don't think this
case is fuzzy. These were birds by every way we discuss what that means today
(which never requires flight).

------
lelf
More info [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/new-find-clears-
madag...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/new-find-clears-madagascar-s-
first-settlers-wiping-out-world-s-largest-bird)

Paper
[http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/9/eaat6925...](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/9/eaat6925.full.pdf)

------
nonbel
Were these birds bigger than dinosaurs?

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-
bi...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-birds-are-
not-dinosaurs-movement/)

~~~
nine_k
According to the modern taxonomy, birds _are_ dinosaurs, with a pretty
straight lineage.

~~~
nonbel
Thats what I meant to imply. Dinosaurs are a type of bird that were bigger
than "elephant birds", so the headline is (most likely) wrong.

~~~
wavefunction
You have the direction of the time vector descriptor backwards.

~~~
nonbel
I've never heard of a "time vector descriptor", so what do you mean?

~~~
close04
Birds are _a type_ of dinosaur called recently _avian dinosaur_. The other
dinosaurs ( _non-avian dinosaurs_ ) are definitely not a type of bird.

So no, the title is not really wrong unless there is a yet undiscovered bird
that's even larger. The elephant bird was the biggest bird (or avian-dinosaur)
that ever existed. It was smaller than other non-avian dinosaurs but these
were not birds so no point comparing.

The confusion you are making is sometimes described as politician's syllogism.
[0]

1) All birds are dinosaurs

2) All land dinosaurs are dinosaurs

3) Therefore, land dinosaurs are birds

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism)

~~~
patient_zero
As long as we're on the topic, not all of what we (the laymen) think of as
dinosaurs were dinosaurs! Maybe you knew that already but I only recently
discovered that fact and now I'm sharing it. From the wikipedia page:

"Other prehistoric animals, including mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, pterosaurs,
plesiosaurs, and Dimetrodon, while often popularly conceived of as dinosaurs,
are not taxonomically classified as dinosaurs. Pterosaurs are distantly
related to dinosaurs, being members of the clade Ornithodira. The other groups
mentioned are, like dinosaurs, members of Sauropsida (the reptile and bird
clade), with the exception of Dimetrodon (which is a synapsid)."

~~~
close04
Unless someone enjoys this subject there's no reason they'd know about the
different classifications. I read a lot about this stuff but still need to
freshen up my knowledge every time I have a conversation about this for two
reasons: the topic is too complex for an amateur and it also tends to be
relatively fluid, changing based on new discoveries or theories. Always keep
Wikipedia handy :).

If you ever look at different "artist's depiction" drawings about "dinosaurs"
you might notice plenty of misconceptions: anatomically incorrect (and
impossible) positions, strange mixes of species living in vastly different
time periods, animals that aren't actually dinosaurs, etc.

------
ddingus
Any DNA?

Might these be recent enough to bring back?

~~~
yareally
We haven't brought back the passenger pigeon or the Carolina Parakeet yet and
both went extinct at the Cincinnati Zoo in the early 20th Century.

~~~
craftyguy
Sure, but is that because we cannot do it or because we don't really want to
do it? I'd argue that bringing back a the elephant bird would be more exciting
(from a 'cool' perspective and scientifically) then bringing back a pigeon or
parakeet. There are already dozens (or more?) of species of both of those
alive today, with some very close relatives included.

~~~
WiseWeasel
I'd think it would be more exciting in a 'oh the horror, what have we done'
kind of perspective. Those things seem scary as hell.

~~~
ddingus
Same, yet I would gladly see it done.

The idea of bringing something old world into current is compelling,
definitely morbid in some sense, and primal.

Yeah, not a good mix, but what can I say? This is a want to see happen. I am
likely to regret it, but maybe, just maybe it could be a good thing. Somehow.

------
fauigerzigerk
The illustration doesn't seem plausible. Their wings would have to look far
more bulky to be wide enough to lift their weight.

~~~
craftyguy
Why do you think they flew? The top largest birds (by height and mass) alive
today do not fly, and could never fly under their own power.

~~~
lostlogin
Moa were a massive bird in New Zealand, with some thought to be 4m tall - they
didn’t fly. Whilst looking them up I stumbled on the Haast’s Eagle, which
hunted Moa. It was huge relative to today’s eagles and hunted Moa. There are
accounts from early settlers that may reflect encounters with them.

~~~
craftyguy
Thanks for sharing that, I've never heard of the Haast's Eagle.

The ~9ft wing span would be terrifying to see.

> Haast's eagles preyed on large, flightless bird species, including the moa,
> which was up to fifteen times the weight of the eagle.[9] It is estimated to
> have attacked at speeds up to 80 km/h (50 mph)

I wonder if these things attacked the early humans that inhabited New Zealand,
before they went extinct.

~~~
grzm
> _" The ~9ft wing span would be terrifying to see."_

Wow! Looks like large bald eagles can have wing spans of 8ft, so you might get
a chance to be nearly (89%?) as terrified :)

> _" The largest eagles are from Alaska, where large females may weigh up to
> 7.5 kg (17 lb) and span 2.44 m (8.0 ft) across the wings."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle#Description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle#Description)

~~~
lostlogin
The Haasts Eagle had a small wingspan relative to it’s size, supposedly as an
adaption for forest flight/Moa hunting. So depending on what measure you
choose, eg weight, a bald eagle could be less than half the terror.

