Search

A critical comment on 'A review of the evidence for a human role in the extinction of Australian megafauna and an alternative explanation' by S. Wroe and J. Field is presented. The authors have highlighted a range of ideas under consideration, and provided a selective interpretation which does not come to terms with biology and ignores or misinterprets current evidence. They rely heavily on the ages reported by Roberts et al. (2001) to argue for a gradual attenuation of the megafauna. They propose a staggered series of extinctions throughout the Middle and Late Pleistocene, with many taxa lost during the Penultimate Glacial Maximum (PGM) 140 130 ka, and relatively few species persisting. They ignore measurement uncertainties associated with the ages, which, when properly considered, means that 20, rather than eight of the species they list have last appearance ages consistent with ́45 ka.

The problem of the worldwide extinction of a diverse assemblage of Late Pleistocene and Holocene large-bodied animals continues to cause debate (Brook and Bowman, 2002; Barnosky et al., 2004; Burney and Flannery, 2005; Koch and Barnosky, 2006). The most recent contribution on the Australian megafaunal extinction (Wroe and Field, 2006), argues for a staggered series of extinctions over multiple glacial cycles, with most megafaunal extinctions predating the arrival of humans and driven primarily by climate change eventually causing a ‘hydrological threshold’ to be breached. At this point, accessible water became too scarce for megafauna to forage successfully. Although Wroe and Field (2006) highlight a range of ideas under consideration, they provide a selective interpretation which does not come to terms with biology and ignores or misinterprets current evidence.