Skip to content
Back to the question

Evidence record

What killed the large animals?

Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.

Last checked 24 September 2026.

  • A judgement, not a fact: 12
  • Partly checked: 7
  • Source checked: 35

If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.

What the question takes for granted

A question in palaeoecology and archaeology about a cause in the past. The record of what disappeared, and roughly when, is well established; which cause, or which mix of causes, did it is argued, and the page reports a global analysis favouring people alongside a North American one favouring climate.

  • The large animals disappeared in the late Quaternary, and not all at once

    Established

    The fossil record shows the losses and their staggered timing across continents; the dating of individual extinctions is less certain than the pattern.

  • There was one killer

    Contested

    The question asks what killed them, in the singular. The review the page describes rejects hunting as the sole cause everywhere, and later work frames the answers as people, climate, or both.

  • Where and when extinctions happened can show what caused them

    Contested

    Both sides argue from coincidence in space and time. Sandom reads a global correlation as pointing to people; Stewart reads a North American one as pointing to climate, and notes how thin the records are.

How the question is labelled

Claim: Everything big, gone

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s title, a compression. The page itself names the exception: Africa kept nearly all of its large animals (claims 9, 36 and 37).

Claim 1 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Megafauna

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The question

Claim: Mammoths, ground sloths, marsupial lions, moa.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

What this does not establish

The moa’s extinction after settlement is read in full in Allentoft and others 2014; Holdaway and Jacomb 2000, which also names them, was read as an abstract only.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "marsupial lion" and "moa extinction": nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Mammoths, giant sloths, marsupial lions, moa.” The sloth the cited work names is Shasta’s ground sloth; nothing cited calls the sloths giant.

Claim 3 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The losses track the spread of people more closely than they track the climate.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: We show that the severity of extinction is strongly tied to hominin palaeobiogeography, with at most a weak, Eurasia-specific link to climate change.

  • Qualifies

    Climate change, not human population growth, correlates with Late Quaternary megafauna declines in North Americaabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Our results suggest that there is currently no evidence for a persistent through-time relationship between human and megafauna population levels in North America. There is, however, evidence that decreases in global temperature correlated with megafauna population declines.

What this does not establish

A global result. In North America, one 2021 analysis finds the opposite for the through-time record (claim 57).

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "megafauna extinction climate humans": a 2016 Australian analysis (Saltré and others) agrees on humans; a 2021 North American analysis (Stewart and others) finds climate rather than human numbers; the page now reports both.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The losses track the arrival of people more closely than they track the climate.” In Australia and Madagascar the losses did not follow first arrival closely (Saltré 2016, Hixon 2021); the page now says so in claims 19 to 22.

Claim 4 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: About two thirds of the genera of large land animals disappeared during the late Quaternary, continent by continent, at different times.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The two thirds is a count of genera over 40 kg, cited by Saltré from earlier work; a count of species or a lower size threshold gives a different number.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "late Quaternary megafauna extinction": nothing that changes the figure.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Most large land animals disappeared during the late Quaternary, continent by continent, at different times.” "Most large land animals" read as a share of all animals; the figure the sources give is about 65 per cent of megafauna genera.

Claim 5 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A global analysis finds the pattern matches how long people had been present far better than it matches climate change,

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Globally, human palaeobiogeography alone accounts for 64% (GLM estimate) of the variation in extinction, while temperature anomaly, in combination with precipitation velocity in the best climate-only model, had much weaker explanatory power (20%)

What this does not establish

A correlation across regions, from fossil distributions; it does not show how the animals died.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "megafauna extinction climate humans": a 2016 Australian analysis (Saltré and others) agrees on humans; a 2021 North American analysis (Stewart and others) finds climate rather than human numbers; the page now reports both.

Claim 6 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and the argument is not over, because the two are correlated in places.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "megafauna extinction climate humans": a 2016 Australian analysis (Saltré and others) agrees on humans; a 2021 North American analysis (Stewart and others) finds climate rather than human numbers; the page now reports both.

Claim 7 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Australia and the Americas lost a large share of their large animals in the last sixty thousand years, and Eurasia lost many of its own.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults, final paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: universally low extinctions in sub-Saharan Africa (maximum 13%), where hominins and the megafauna have long coexisted, but widespread exceptionally high extinctions in Australia and the Americas, where modern humans were the first hominin present

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Eurasia falls between these extremes with a wide variety of extinction ratios, presenting a more complicated story.

  • Supports

    Climate change, not human population growth, correlates with Late Quaternary megafauna declines in North AmericaIntroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Near the end of the Pleistocene (~11,700 years before present [BP]) at least 37 genera of megafauna (~80%) had disappeared from North America

  • Supports

    Climate change not to blame for late Quaternary megafauna extinctions in AustraliaResults

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: The earliest estimated extinctions for Congruus, Megalibgwilia, Metasthenurus, Palorchestes and Sthenurus were between 61 and 51 kyr, followed by 10 genera (all remaining genera, excluding Thylacinus) estimated to have been driven extinct between 44 and 35 kyr.

What this does not establish

Shares differ by region and by how "large" is drawn: Sandom counts species of 10 kg and over, Stewart genera of 44 kg and over.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "megafauna extinction chronology Australia", "North America": later chronologies agree on the scale; nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Australia and the Americas lost most of their large animals in the last fifty thousand years, and Eurasia lost many of its own.” Saltré 2016 dates the earliest Australian losses to 61,000 to 51,000 years ago, before the fifty-thousand-year boundary, and no source read gives a majority share for Australia or South America as a whole.

Claim 8 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Sub-Saharan Africa, where people and large animals evolved together, kept nearly all of them.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults, final paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: universally low extinctions in sub-Saharan Africa (maximum 13%), where hominins and the megafauna have long coexisted, but widespread exceptionally high extinctions in Australia and the Americas, where modern humans were the first hominin present

    At most 13 per cent of large mammal species lost in any sub-Saharan region, so at least 87 per cent kept in each.

What this does not establish

Sandom counts mammal species of 10 kg and over lost from 132,000 to 1,000 years ago, region by region. The 13 per cent maximum is for sub-Saharan Africa; the paper gives no such figure for Africa north of it. It notes some African losses may have come earlier, in the Early to Mid-Pleistocene.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "Africa megafauna extinction Pleistocene": nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Africa, where people and large animals evolved together, kept nearly all of them.” The figure behind "nearly all" is Sandom's maximum of 13 per cent lost in any region of sub-Saharan Africa; the page applied it to the whole continent.

Claim 9 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That asymmetry is the single most suggestive fact in the case, and it is not proof.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement. It follows from the contrast in claims 8 and 9, which Sandom 2014 builds its analysis on.

Claim 10 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The pattern

Claim: The pattern

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The losses are staggered by continent

Claim: The losses are staggered by continent

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "megafauna extinction chronology": nothing that changes it.

Claim 12 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Most of Australia’s losses came before the last glacial maximum.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Most Australian extinctions occurred prior to the LGM, and so outside our LGM–present climate change predictor variable, just subsequent to the time humans are thought to have arrived (72–44 kyr BP)

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "Australia megafauna extinction chronology": Saltré 2016 puts the peak about 42,000 years ago, consistent; page now cites it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Australia lost its large animals before the last glacial maximum, soon after people arrived, at some point in a window running from seventy-two to forty-four thousand years ago.” Sandom says most Australian extinctions, not all, came before the maximum, and its 72,000 to 44,000 years is the window for human arrival, not for the extinctions.

Claim 13 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2016 analysis of dated fossils puts their peak about 42,000 years ago, some thirteen thousand years after its estimate for when people arrived.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Both dates are model estimates with wide intervals: 36,700 to 48,100 years for the extinction peak. The paper’s 55,600-year arrival reflects northern Australia; it notes that arrival by 48,000 years is what is generally accepted.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Sahul megafauna extinction human arrival": the date of human arrival remains argued; nothing that moves the extinction peak.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Australia lost its large animals before the last glacial maximum, soon after people arrived, at some point in a window running from seventy-two to forty-four thousand years ago.” "Soon after people arrived" is not what the newer chronology finds: Saltré 2016 estimates about 13,500 years of coexistence across the continent.

Claim 14 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: North America lost its own between about 13,800 and 11,400 years ago.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Synchronous extinction of North America's Pleistocene mammalsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: The last appearance dates of 16 of these genera securely fall between 12,000 and 10,000 radiocarbon years ago (≈13,800–11,400 calendar years B.P.)

  • Qualifies

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: The period of extinction in North America occurred approximately 11 500–10 000 years BP, well within our period of measured climate change, and broadly occurred when climate change was severe, but also consistent with the arrival of modern humans

    Sandom gives the same interval in radiocarbon years.

  • Supports

    Synchronous extinction of North America's Pleistocene mammalsDiscussion, first paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Our analyses demonstrate that the structure of the chronology of North American late Pleistocene extinctions is consistent with the synchronous extinction of all taxa between 12,000 and 10,000 radiocarbon years. B.P.

What this does not establish

The interval rests on 16 of 35 extinct genera with terminal Pleistocene dates, 11 of them highly reliable; the paper’s simulations find the absence of such dates for the other genera consistent with sampling error, which makes the synchronous loss the best reading of the record rather than something every genus’s dates show.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2009 on, "North America megafauna extinction chronology": Stewart 2021 places the loss of about 80 per cent of genera near 11,700 years ago, consistent.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “North America lost its own between about eleven and a half and ten thousand years ago,” The page gave the interval in radiocarbon years as if in calendar years. Faith and Surovell 2009 give 12,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years as about 13,800 to 11,400 calendar years.

Claim 15 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: South America’s losses are poorly dated and ran on into a relatively stable Holocene climate.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Extinctions in South America are poorly dated, but many have occurred after modern human arrival, approximately 15 000 years BP, and continued into the climatically relatively stable Holocene

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "South America megafauna extinction Holocene": nothing read that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “South America later still and into a stable Holocene climate.” Sandom does not say South America’s losses came later than North America’s; it says they are poorly dated and continued into a relatively stable Holocene.

Claim 16 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Madagascar and New Zealand lost theirs within the last two thousand years.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Late Holocene spread of pastoralism coincides with endemic megafaunal extinction on Madagascarabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Recently expanded estimates for when humans arrived on Madagascar (up to approximately 10 000 years ago) highlight questions about the causes of the island's relatively late megafaunal extinctions (approximately 2000–500 years ago).

  • Supports

    Extinct New Zealand megafauna were not in decline before human colonizationabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: The extinction of New Zealand's moa (Aves: Dinornithiformes) followed the arrival of humans in the late 13th century

  • Supports

    Extinct New Zealand megafauna were not in decline before human colonizationDiscussion, last paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: D. robustus disappeared along with eight other moa species within just one or two centuries following human arrival

    Arrival in the late 13th century, and extinction within one or two centuries of it, both fall inside the last two thousand years.

What this does not establish

Hixon’s range for Madagascar is approximately 2,000 to 500 years ago. For New Zealand, Allentoft and others give the moa’s end within one or two centuries of settlement, citing the archaeological record.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "moa extinction chronology" and "Madagascar megafauna extinction": nothing that changes it.

Claim 17 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: No single global climate event lines up with all of that.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the dates in claims 13 to 17, which run from about 61,000 years ago to the last millennium.

Claim 18 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The spread of people does, more loosely than the word arrival suggests.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s reading of Sandom 2014 alongside the Australian and Madagascan chronologies in claims 20 and 21.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The arrival of people in each place does, although in North America the two coincide.” Saltré 2016 finds thousands of years of overlap in Australia, and Hixon 2021 reports Madagascar’s crash about a thousand years ago with the date of human arrival still argued.

Claim 19 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In Australia people and the large animals overlapped for thousands of years;

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

A model estimate with a wide interval (7,300 to 19,000 years), and shorter in some regions.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Sahul human megafauna coexistence": nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added with the correction to claim 19.

Claim 20 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: in Madagascar most populations crashed about a thousand years ago,

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2021 on, "Madagascar megafauna extinction": nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added with the correction to claim 19.

Claim 21 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and how long people had been there by then is argued;

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added with the correction to claim 19.

Claim 22 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and in North America the losses fall in a time of severe climate change as well.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: The period of extinction in North America occurred approximately 11 500–10 000 years BP, well within our period of measured climate change, and broadly occurred when climate change was severe, but also consistent with the arrival of modern humans

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "North America megafauna extinction Younger Dryas": Stewart 2021 ties the declines to the Younger Dryas cooling; consistent.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “although in North America the two coincide.” Reworded with the correction to claim 19.

Claim 23 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2014 analysis modelled both factors together across 229 regions of the world.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Sandom’s units are TDWG level 3 regions, which it calls countries; Texas is one of them.

Later work looked for

Describes what a study did; not a finding later work revises.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A 2014 analysis modelled both factors together across 229 countries.” Sandom’s units are TDWG level 3 regions, many of them states within countries; islands were excluded.

Claim 24 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Which hominins had been present, and so for how long, accounted for 64 per cent of the variation in extinction;

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Globally, human palaeobiogeography alone accounts for 64% (GLM estimate) of the variation in extinction, while temperature anomaly, in combination with precipitation velocity in the best climate-only model, had much weaker explanatory power (20%)

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Human palaeobiogeography included as a categorical variable with three levels, Homo-origin, Archaic-combined and H. sapiens-only

What this does not establish

A GLM estimate across regions. The variable is three categories (the hominins’ origin region, archaic hominin regions, modern humans only), not a measured duration.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "megafauna extinction climate humans": a 2016 Australian analysis (Saltré and others) agrees on humans; a 2021 North American analysis (Stewart and others) finds climate rather than human numbers; the page now reports both.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “How long hominins had been present accounted for 64 per cent of the variation in extinction;” Sandom’s variable is categorical, by which hominins reached a region; duration follows from the category rather than being measured.

Claim 25 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: the best climate-only model accounted for 20 per cent, and its signal appeared in Eurasia and nowhere else.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Globally, human palaeobiogeography alone accounts for 64% (GLM estimate) of the variation in extinction, while temperature anomaly, in combination with precipitation velocity in the best climate-only model, had much weaker explanatory power (20%)

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: only showed a relation to the proportion of extinct large mammals in the Archaic-combined region in the combined model

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: We show that the severity of extinction is strongly tied to hominin palaeobiogeography, with at most a weak, Eurasia-specific link to climate change.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "megafauna extinction climate humans": a 2016 Australian analysis (Saltré and others) agrees on humans; a 2021 North American analysis (Stewart and others) finds climate rather than human numbers; the page now reports both.

Claim 26 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Continent by continent

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: 61,000 to 35,000 years ago

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Climate change not to blame for late Quaternary megafauna extinctions in AustraliaResults

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: The earliest estimated extinctions for Congruus, Megalibgwilia, Metasthenurus, Palorchestes and Sthenurus were between 61 and 51 kyr, followed by 10 genera (all remaining genera, excluding Thylacinus) estimated to have been driven extinct between 44 and 35 kyr.

What this does not establish

Model estimates for 15 dated genera; genera with too few reliable dates are not included.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Sahul megafauna extinction chronology": nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “72,000 to 44,000 years ago” 72,000 to 44,000 years is Sandom’s window for human arrival, not for the extinctions. Saltré 2016 estimates the extinctions between 61,000 and 35,000 years ago.

Claim 28 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Australia. Among others, the marsupial lion, the largest marsupial carnivore there has been, and Genyornis, a flightless bird.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

“The largest marsupial carnivore there has been” is Arman and Prideaux’s “largest-ever marsupial carnivore”, from their abstract; their discussion calls the thylacine the second-largest Australian mammalian carnivore.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Genyornis extinction": Demarchi 2022 upholds the eggshell attribution to Genyornis; nothing that changes this line.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Australia. Large marsupials, a flightless bird twice the size of an emu, and a lizard longer than a car.” No source read carries the bird’s size against an emu or the lizard’s length against a car; replaced with animals the sources name and describe.

Claim 29 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: 13,800 to 11,400 years ago

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Synchronous extinction of North America's Pleistocene mammalsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: The last appearance dates of 16 of these genera securely fall between 12,000 and 10,000 radiocarbon years ago (≈13,800–11,400 calendar years B.P.)

  • Supports

    Synchronous extinction of North America's Pleistocene mammalsDiscussion, first paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Our analyses demonstrate that the structure of the chronology of North American late Pleistocene extinctions is consistent with the synchronous extinction of all taxa between 12,000 and 10,000 radiocarbon years. B.P.

What this does not establish

As claim 15: the best reading of the record, from 16 genera with dates in the interval.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2009 on, "North America megafauna extinction chronology": Stewart 2021, consistent.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “11,500 to 10,000 years ago” Radiocarbon years given as calendar years; see claim 15.

Claim 30 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: North America. Mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths and horses.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2021 on, "North American megafauna extinction": nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The Americas. Mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, horses and camels in their homeland.” The date belongs to North America, not the Americas (claim 32). The camels, their homeland and "giant" were not carried by any source read.

Claim 31 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: South America’s losses ran on later.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Extinctions in South America are poorly dated, but many have occurred after modern human arrival, approximately 15 000 years BP, and continued into the climatically relatively stable Holocene

Later work looked for

As claim 16.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added when the entry was narrowed to North America.

Claim 32 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: the last 2,000 years

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Late Holocene spread of pastoralism coincides with endemic megafaunal extinction on Madagascarabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: Recently expanded estimates for when humans arrived on Madagascar (up to approximately 10 000 years ago) highlight questions about the causes of the island's relatively late megafaunal extinctions (approximately 2000–500 years ago).

  • Supports

    Extinct New Zealand megafauna were not in decline before human colonizationabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: The extinction of New Zealand's moa (Aves: Dinornithiformes) followed the arrival of humans in the late 13th century

  • Supports

    Extinct New Zealand megafauna were not in decline before human colonizationDiscussion, last paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: D. robustus disappeared along with eight other moa species within just one or two centuries following human arrival

What this does not establish

As claim 17.

Later work looked for

As claim 17.

Claim 33 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Madagascar and New Zealand. Elephant birds and moa, both within the period of human settlement.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

What this does not establish

The moa’s extinction after settlement is read in full in Allentoft and others 2014; Holdaway and Jacomb 2000 was read as an abstract only. When people reached Madagascar is argued (claim 22).

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2000 on, "moa extinction": Allentoft 2014 dates settlement to the late 13th century and finds no decline before it; consistent.

Claim 34 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: throughout

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Africa keeps its large mammals, where humans and megafauna evolved alongside each other.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults, final paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: universally low extinctions in sub-Saharan Africa (maximum 13%), where hominins and the megafauna have long coexisted, but widespread exceptionally high extinctions in Australia and the Americas, where modern humans were the first hominin present

Other readings

Sandom lists other reasons Africa may have lost fewer: earlier extinctions, before the late Pleistocene, or human populations held down by disease.

Later work looked for

As claim 9.

Claim 36 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: No part of sub-Saharan Africa lost more than 13 per cent of them.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeResults, final paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: universally low extinctions in sub-Saharan Africa (maximum 13%), where hominins and the megafauna have long coexisted, but widespread exceptionally high extinctions in Australia and the Americas, where modern humans were the first hominin present

  • Context

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: all large mammal species (more than or equal to 10 kg) that have gone globally or continentally extinct between the beginning of the Last Interglacial at 132 000 years BP and the late Holocene 1000 years BP

What this does not establish

Per region, of mammal species of 10 kg or more, counting losses between 132,000 and 1,000 years ago.

Later work looked for

As claim 9.

Claim 37 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Where the argument stood before

Claim: Where the argument stood before

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: A 2004 review set out the state of the debate: a climate camp, a human camp, and the difficulty that in the northern hemisphere human impacts and a pronounced change of climate overlap.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continentsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Review of the field

    The source reads: One of the great debates about extinction is whether humans or climatic change caused the demise of the Pleistocene megafauna.

  • Supports

    Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continentsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Review of the field

    The source reads: Instead, evidence suggests that the intersection of human impacts with pronounced climatic change drove the precise timing and geography of extinction in the Northern Hemisphere.

What this does not establish

Read as an abstract only.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A 2004 review set out the state of the debate: a climate camp, a human camp, and a persistent difficulty that the two coincide in North America, where humans arrive at the end of the last glaciation.” The abstract read speaks of the northern hemisphere, not North America alone; Sandom reports that the review itself named humans the main driver in North America.

Claim 39 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It concluded that human hunting was not solely responsible everywhere, and that firmer chronologies, better ecological models and regional palaeoecology were still needed before the details of the worldwide pattern could be understood.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continentsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Review of the field

    The source reads: humans contributed to extinction on some continents, but human hunting was not solely responsible for the pattern of extinction everywhere.

  • Supports

    Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continentsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Review of the field

    The source reads: Firmer chronologies, more realistic ecological models, and regional paleoecological insights still are needed to understand details of the worldwide extinction pattern

What this does not establish

Read as an abstract only.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “were still needed before the worldwide pattern could be read.” The review asks for this to understand details of the pattern, not before the pattern could be read at all.

Claim 40 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The 2014 analysis is not simply a continuation of it.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claim 42: Sandom argues against the review’s northern-hemisphere reading.

Claim 41 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Barnosky read the northern hemisphere as climate and people acting together, and that is the reading Sandom argues against, on the grounds that the climate signal is absent in exactly the places modern humans reached first.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continentsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Review of the field

    The source reads: Instead, evidence suggests that the intersection of human impacts with pronounced climatic change drove the precise timing and geography of extinction in the Northern Hemisphere.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: However, the absence of a climate–extinction association from the H. sapiens-only region is inconsistent with extinctions resulting from synergism between climatic stress and hunting pressure because the association should rather have been strongest here.

What this does not establish

Barnosky was read as an abstract only.

Claim 42 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The mechanism

Claim: The mechanism

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Africa is the continent where the animals had time to learn what we were.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

A figure of speech for the coevolution explanation of Africa’s low losses.

  • Context

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeIntroduction (b)

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Argument

    The source reads: extinctions have been posited to have been less severe in Africa because of long-term, gradual hominin–megafauna coevolution ... alternatively, pre-Late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions in regions occupied by pre-sapiens hominins may also have contributed to fewer late Quaternary extinctions ... or human populations may have been more suppressed by disease here

Other readings

Sandom names two others: extinctions in Africa that came earlier, and human populations held down by disease.

Claim 44 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

How a small population kills a continent’s animals

Claim: How a small population kills a continent’s animals

Kind
Hypothesis. A proposed explanation, not an established one.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Climate change not to blame for late Quaternary megafauna extinctions in AustraliaDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · A simulation · Model

    The source reads: quantitative models have demonstrated that even small groups of hunter–gatherers living across a vast continent and using stone-based technologies could feasibly exterminate species with low population growth rates, such as large-bodied mammals

  • Context

    A Multispecies Overkill Simulation of the End-Pleistocene Megafaunal Mass Extinctionabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · A simulation · Model

    The source reads: A computer simulation of North American end-Pleistocene human and large herbivore population dynamics correctly predicts the extinction or survival of 32 out of 41 prey species. Slow human population growth rates, random hunting, and low maximum hunting effort are assumed

What this does not establish

Models show that it could have happened. Direct evidence of hunting is scarce, in Australia especially (Saltré).

Other readings

Climate, alone or with people: see claims 52, 53 and 57.

Claim 45 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: One objection to the human explanation is scale: small groups of foragers with stone weapons, spread across a continent of large animals.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The objection to the human explanation has always been numbers: small bands of foragers with stone weapons against millions of large animals across a continent.” "Always" and "the objection" overstated it: Stewart gives two main objections, and Sandom calls kill-site scarcity the primary one. No source gives "millions".

Claim 46 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The answer offered is demographic rather than dramatic.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Describes the kind of answer claim 48 gives: slow growth and low hunting effort rather than a sudden slaughter.

Claim 47 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A simulation published in 2001 reproduced the North American losses, calling 32 of 41 prey species right, from slow human population growth, hunting at random and a low ceiling on hunting effort, without invoking climate change at all.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

What this does not establish

A simulation, read as an abstract. Reproducing the pattern shows that hunting could have produced it, not that it did.

Claim 48 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is a model rather than an observation.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

States the kind of evidence claim 48 is.

Claim 49 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Whether the archaeological record has too few kill sites to carry it is itself argued: the scarcity is the standard objection, and others have found kill sites no rarer than expected.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 50 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Where climate still matters

Claim: Where climate still matters

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Heads the claims where a climate signal is found: Eurasia in Sandom 2014, North America in Stewart 2021.

Claim 51 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Eurasia is the one region where the 2014 analysis finds a climate signal, and northwest Eurasia is where it sits.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Sandom also ties the signal to low losses in southern Asia, and notes widespread mismatches.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2014 on, "megafauna extinction climate humans": a 2016 Australian analysis (Saltré and others) agrees on humans; a 2021 North American analysis (Stewart and others) finds climate rather than human numbers; the page now reports both.

Claim 52 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The 2004 review read the northern hemisphere the same way, as human pressure meeting a severe climate change.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

  • Supports

    Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continentsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Review of the field

    The source reads: Instead, evidence suggests that the intersection of human impacts with pronounced climatic change drove the precise timing and geography of extinction in the Northern Hemisphere.

What this does not establish

Read as an abstract only.

Claim 53 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Even there the reading is contested.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Observational study: associations, not causes

    The source reads: However, the absence of a climate–extinction association from the H. sapiens-only region is inconsistent with extinctions resulting from synergism between climatic stress and hunting pressure because the association should rather have been strongest here.

Claim 54 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Sandom takes the Eurasian signal as partly about people too: on its reading, cold held archaic humans out of the far north, which left those regions as refuges until modern humans arrived.

Kind
Hypothesis. A proposed explanation, not an established one.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeDiscussion

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in animals · Argument

    The source reads: this effect appears consistent with human-driven extinctions with climatic constraints on archaic human distributions in northern parts of Eurasia ... causing these regions to function as at least partial megafaunal refugia until modern human arrival

What this does not establish

Sandom offers it as consistent with the pattern, not as tested.

Other readings

Barnosky 2004 reads the northern hemisphere as climate and people together (claim 53).

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Sandom takes the Eurasian signal as partly about people too: archaic humans were held out of the far north by cold, which left those regions as refuges until modern humans arrived.” Sandom says this "appears consistent with" the pattern; the page stated it as fact.

Claim 55 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: North America is where a rival reading is strongest.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claims 23 and 57: the losses there coincide with severe climate change, and a 2021 analysis ties the declines to it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added to report newer work that contradicts the page’s thesis for North America.

Claim 56 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2021 analysis of megafauna and human radiocarbon dates found megafauna declines tracking falling temperatures, and no persistent relationship with human numbers.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

A correlation over time, with radiocarbon dates standing in for population size; the authors note sparse records and biases they could not fully correct.

Other readings

The authors allow that people may have mattered in ways other than overhunting, such as removing keystone species.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2021 on, "North America megafauna climate radiocarbon": nothing read that overturns it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added: the page reported only work favouring people and did not name the rival result for North America.

24 September 2026. Previously: “A 2021 analysis of radiocarbon-dated megafauna and human remains found megafauna declines tracking falling temperatures, and no persistent relationship with human numbers.” The study’s human dates are radiocarbon samples from archaeological sites, not dated human remains; the wording now uses the study’s own description of its database.

Claim 57 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Its authors expect the question to stay contentious.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added with claim 57.

Claim 58 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: So the honest version is not that climate played no part.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the climate signals in claims 52 and 57.

Claim 59 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is that the pattern across the whole planet points to people, and climate alone does not reproduce it.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s reading of Sandom’s global result.

Other readings

Stewart and others (claim 57) find climate, not human numbers, tracking the North American declines.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “It is that the pattern across the whole planet requires people, and climate alone cannot produce it.” "Requires" and "cannot" went beyond a correlational result that a 2021 North American analysis contests.

Claim 60 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What was read