Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 4 / Biology B‑class
WikiProject iconMoa has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


  • Archived text from soon-to-be-deleted page "moas". (automated conversion) 25/2/2002
    • Moas (Dinornithiformes) are a group of large flightless birds numbering about a dozen. They lived on New Zealand and ranged in height from one meter to three and a half meters. They were already extinct when Europeans first landed in 1642.See also Extinct birds
  • Was converted into a redirect to moa by on 21/7/2002
  • Was deleted by Tannin 09:33, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC) because there is no such word. The plural of "moa" is "moa". "Moas" is not a word, and a link to "moas" should show up in red to alert writers to this all-too-often commited error.

Tannin 09:33, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have added this (as I had originally put it on the Extinct Birds page ages ago) under the new section "Trivia".Dysmorodrepanis 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I've restored that history from the January 2003 database dump; see this history, including an imported edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia which proves who wrote the original text. Also see this edit to the Moa page by, who redirected the duplicate "Moas" article. Graham87 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


uhhh the picture of the moa is the same one of the picture on the haast's eagle page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeet (talkcontribs) 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The picture is of a Haast's eagle attacking a moa, so it's used for both.Dinoguy2 03:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"region often visited by hunters and hikers"[edit]

"Moa experts say the likelihood of any moa remaining alive is extremely unlikely, since they would be giant birds in a region often visited by hunters and hikers." While it is extremely unlikely any survive, the confirmation that moose still exist in NZ would give the lie to the 2nd part of this sentence. A citation for the "moa experts" is needed. Nurg 10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're missing the point. The implication is not that moa would be instantly gunned down by the legions of hunters roaming the bush, but that there are enough people walking through that area to notice a two metre tall bird wandering about. I've amended the sentence to include "and unnoticed" to make that point more clear. 02:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

need to expand[edit]

This article needs to be expanded and somewhat beautified. I started with moving the stuff from Extinct Birds (which deals with post-1500 extinctions, so moa shouldn't be there anyway except a note on Megalapteryx possible survival to C19). Also, I updated the taxonomy to current standards and expanded the references. As it stands, it is passable, but I am not really satisfied - too many gaps and the formatting could be improved (rm redundancies created by "Extinct Birds" section merger etc). Since I work on the avian extionction lists most of the time, I will only visit here occasionally top dump some new reference when I feel like it (there are tons of moa papers). Stuff on feeding habits etc would be highly appreciated, for example, as they have been reconstructed in detail for some species at least.Dysmorodrepanis 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apperance and recent survival[edit]

I heard that Maori stories described large moas with colorful crests - is it true? Also, HBW in article of extinct birds mentions live sightings from 19. century by very respectable political figure and Maori chief. Were they refuted? Jurek

More importantly, were they corroborated? Moriori 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read that the Moa was 12-13 ft tall? but infact it was only 9-10?

Stories mentioning large colourful crests - dubious - in general Māori traditional oral stories are action-based: ie they don't go into what things look like so much as what things do. Kahuroa 04:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article states that the female giant moa (extinct) was "150% taller" and "280% heavier" than the male. If the female was 9-12 feet tall and 250lbs that would make the male only about 4 feet tall and a disproportionately heavy 66lbs (for a bird smaller than an emu). Perhaps, "150% as tall" and "280% as heavy" was meant, making a male about 7 feet tall and bit under 100lbs (though that looks light as a large emu can weigh ~130lbs). The citation listed isn't a link and I find anything anything to go on.

This letter to the scientific journal Nature states that: "The largest females in this example of extreme reversed sexual size dimorphism were about 280% the weight and 150% the height of the largest males". The wording "150% taller" rather than "150% the height" is a bit odd, but clearly it means that the male was about two thirds of the height of the female, not one third. Booshank (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomy Confusion[edit]

In Taxonomy, it talks about how the kiwi was once thought to be the moa's only living relative, then emus and cassowaries are mentioned as relatives... Which are related to who? Moas + emus & cassowaries, or kiwis + emus and cassowaries?--Mr Fink 03:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent changes to pictures[edit]

Not impressed with the yellow blurry pic of a reconstructed moa. Can we revert? Kahuroa 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto. The Moa being attacked by the eagle was much better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that the article was supposed to be about the Moa and that the infobox image was supposed to show what the Moa actually looked like. However, noting the criticism, I have returned the earlier image to the infobox. Figaro 07:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have removed this: "the widespread physical evidence that they had actually existed was never closely examined by early European settlers", because the next line begins "In 1839, John W. Harris, a Poverty Bay flax trader who was a natural history enthusiast, was given a piece of unusual bone by a Māori who had found it in a river bank. He showed the 15 cm fragment of bone to his uncle, John Rule ..." and 1839 is pretty early in the settlement of NZ, which really began in earnest after 1840. So that is evidence being 'closely examined' bya very early settler and leading to the identification of Dinornis. Kahuroa 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch. It does seem pretty dumb. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers. Also would like to find a pre-1839 source for this 'Early European visitors to New Zealand recorded that the Māori had legends and proverbs which referred to huge birds called moa which had once roamed the flats and valleys.' Not that I am doubting that there were legends, but I would like to see what the legends actually said before the identification of Dinornis about what size the 'moa' were and where they 'roamed'. Legends are notoriously prone to contamination from printed sources Kahuroa 22:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some books on Maori folklore specifically relating to birds in my Uni. I'll take a glance next time I'm in the library. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed 'Early European visitors to New Zealand recorded... etc and replaced with material from published accounts by Polack (1838) and Dieffenbach (1843) relating to the first discovery of fossils, which are also early references to Māori traditions re extinction, size, name etc. Good to have these early accounts since later ones will probably be suspect Kahuroa 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i was looking at the Maori article which mentions the Moa and it seems to contradict what was said inthe article about the extinction of the Moa. In the section Development of Māori culture is says Current anthropological theories, however, take account of the fact that there is no evidence for a pre-Māori people while in the current version of this article it says The extinction of the moa species is generally attributed to hunting and forest clearance by the Polynesian ancestors of the Māori. Neither of them have references attached to them. cheers Philbentley 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no contradiction in those statements at all. The Polynesians who settled New Zealand became the Māori - they are the same people - and the phrase 'the Polynesian ancestors of the Māori' is a common one in NZ scientific literature. The point is that there was no one in New Zealand when the ancestors of the Māori arrived. I like the phrase 'Polynesian ancestors of the Māori', but maybe it is confusing to those who haven't heard it before. Kahuroa 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, makes more sence now, I had just read it as there were people before the Māori's but i can see now that it doesn't say that. It's probably just because i was tired yesterday. Doesn't take a lot to confuse me sometimes! CheersPhilbentley 06:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haast's Eagle / Moa picture accuracy?[edit]

The picture is currently under consideration as a featured picture, but there have been questions raised about how accurate it is. If you'd care to comment, you should visit the nomination page here. The specific concern is that the scale of the two birds is off, with the eagle being too large. Matt Deres 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The claims by Cryptozoologists section seems to me to be rather too long in relation to the rest of the article. We need to mention that such claims exist, but the section could be cut back a bit, and the photo of a blur is unnecessary. The comparison with the Takahē isn't necessary, and is unsourced. Shall I take a knife to the section, or would someone else like to?-gadfium 07:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, maybe you - if I had a knife I'd attack the yellow blurry pic of a 1980s museum moa too. And then I would probably offend its uploader, again. Kahuroa 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section on cryptozoology has been expanded to include other incidents since I wrote that above. The 1993 incident does not appear to warrant more than the other incidents such as the purported footprints, so I have reduced it to appear in the same paragraph.-gadfium 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Freaneymoa.jpg[edit]

Image:Freaneymoa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moa (3 votes) is collab for Feb/Mar 08[edit]

Nominated January 11, 2008;


1. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. User:totnesmartin Totnesmartin (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Interesting prehistoric family with a good fossil record and a great deal known about its biology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a recent hard-to-get paper from some NZ or Aussie journal (Alcheringa or the likes) that argues a few points that might be considered. If the moa article is kept at genus level or above and doesn't get too detailed about species, there shouldnn't be major problems though.
I think the Lost World book should be accessible at least in part (Amazon?) Old Notornis papers are good for specimen data. I have a carbon copy of Oliver' NZ Birds which is unreliable but highly highly detailed.
Pro: Secondary literature is highly available (SAPE has much from diverse sources, Roy Soc NZ Transactions/Proceedings, Notornis). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have Lost World, plus I also work some of the time in Te Papa and have access to their library. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just removed the "preserved foot" pic. The original is labelled "Reptilian Claw" - no mention of moa or nhm. Snori (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's simply mislabeled on Flickr, many pictures are. But it's a moa foot, see this: [1] Anything with slight knowledge about birds and reptiles will see that it isn't a reptile foot anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FunkMonk is right - Flickr photos are often mislabeled - a lot of the photos are taken by tourists who get a bit muddled about what was what. But the photos themselves are often very useful once someone with a bit more knowledge can sort out the description. Kahuroa (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that in the meantime, the Flickr image has been relabeled "Moa Claw, Natural History Museum, London"[2], perhaps after the author saw it used on Wikipedia? FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article isn't in Maori, so why do we write "moa" here when it's in plural? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because its in New Zealand English. Kahuroa (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is in new Zealand English? FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get it. Animal names are what they are, independent of dialect, aren't they? Would it ever be appropriate to write "one deer, two deers"? No, so why would "moas" ever be correct? Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, is "moa" in plural supposed to be lacking an s in correct dictionary English, or are we just writing it that way here because Maori words don't have s in plural? "Narwhal" is a Norse word, but Norse grammar doesn't appear to be taken into account here anyway. No s in plural here either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Loanwords can be inconsistent in their grammar after adoption, and cause a certain amount of confusion. The confusion can spread - I glanced at a bird magazine here in NZ to check the usage of a few loanwords and saw this sentence ..."serves as food for tui, silvereye, bellbirds and kereru." It should be silvereyes. People seem to be split in NZ - I never hear Tui or Kereru being pluralised with S's, but I do hear Keas, Kakas, Takahes and kakarikis, even if it may not be grammatically correct in a New Zeland context. Interestingly Kiwi never has a S added when refering to the birds but regularly is when referring to Kiwis - that is New Zealanders. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually there's nothing wrong with two deer or two sheep - the usage goes back to Old English (neuter plurals without -s) and is heard and written to this day. So English animal nouns aren't as straightforward as you suggest - in fact two sheeps or two deers are odd. And this from Deer: male deer are called stags... - distinct lack of -s plurals on that page! And what is important with moa is that in written New Zealand English the adding of -s plurals to Māori-derived words, with a few exceptions, like Kiwis the people, (but kiwi the birds), is not favoured. See for instance this example of s-less moa in a very reputable New Zealand online encyclopedia. This from the NZ national museum and the Christchurch city library. Kahuroa (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This being English, there are indeed no consistent rules – but there is something of an inconsistent one. A large proportion of quarry animals have a "deer" type plural, while domestic animals or those too small to eat tend to have an "s". So salmon, trout, cod and halibut have no "s", but minnows, sticklebacks and more generally "little fishes" get one; ibex don't, goats do, wild boar don't, pigs do. Plenty of exceptions of course (eg sheep, eels). Some seem to be changing: one might once have gone to hunt elephant, but now we might be more likely to say we saw lots of elephants. So I think it depends on how you think of moa – to me, the no-"s" plural sounds a bit better. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might there not be a way to find out what the accepted spelling is? Us deciding it would be close to original research. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right – it's not just what we think it ought to be, but what is commonly used – although there is not necessarily a single "proper" plural. What we need is a ref for common usage. What do the major dictionaries say it is? (Incidentally, dictionaries in English are descriptive, not prescriptive – they describe what usage is, they do not rule on what it ought to be.) Richard New Forest (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A suitable reference might be Worthy & Holdaway's 2002 definitive book 'The lost world of the moa'. Refer to page 47 where there is a paragraph entitled 'Moa versus Moas': "In this work we use the word 'moa' to mean both singular and plural, becaue in Maori there is no 's' at the end of the word to denote the plural. Sentence structure makes clear when we are referring to more than one species of moa or to individual moa. (Maori names for other birds are also affected by this grammar, so, for example, the word 'kiwi' is used for both singular and plural)." So, the bird 'kiwi' is the Maori use of the term and therefore can represent plural and singular, whereas the application of the term to New Zealanders is a non-Maori usage and therefore multiple New Zealanders are referred to as 'kiwis'. I have rarely heard the use of 's' on the end of Maori bird names such as kea, kaka, takahe, kakariki (see Sabine's comment above) and would suggest that such usage is conversational as opposed to written? Ancientnz (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image appears in the article with the caption "life restoration" and there is nothing to tell us what species this is supposed to be or who is the authority for the restoration and whether or not it has come from a reliable source. Apart from the 'which moa is it' issue, the bird appears to be rather vertically stretched - tall and thin - whereas most modern reconstructions seem to be a lot dumpier and robust. I will see if the uploader can clarify Kahuroa (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree, the idea that moa walked around with their necks stretched upwards is antiquated, as studies of their vertebrae show they naturally fit together in a s-shape with their head near the ground. If the figure is to be retained then perhaps the caption could be altered to include the reference and date of the publication it is from (appears to be 19th century). Ancientnz (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have posted a query on the (uploader's talk page on the French Wikipedia. He last edited there in early July. Unless we get some clarification on species and source/authority, I will probably flag the image for deletion on Commons. Kahuroa (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to downright delete it, but it should be removed from the article at least. Better yet, the author could try to correct it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its probably not too bad apart from the beak looking a little small, and the fact that the two birds appear to be different species! The elongated tarsometatarsi on the bird in front suggests Dinornis whereas you can see the legs of the bird in the background are more squat and heavily-built. The trouble with old pictures like this is that they almost never show the correct stance, and are often just 'generic' moa rather than being a detailed study of one species. The best (and probably only) anatomically correct drawings of moa species I know of are in Tennyson & Martinson (2006) Extinct birds of New Zealand: Te Papa Press. The paintings in this book have scientific basis (apart from some artistic license shown with the plumage of some species; but that is forgivable). Ancientnz (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Because of its lack of vegestial wings, wouldn't moas be the only chordates with only two appendages? QuackOfaThousandSuns (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. Most snakes have none, some snakes - like some boas - have vestigial hind limbs, so they also have two, as do most whales which have two flippers, but there are ancient whales with remnant hind limbs, and the occasional modern whale with hind limbs... Kahuroa (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true, but the boa doesn't use it legs (that's why they're vestigial) and whales' tails were originally two parts (bringing the total to four). —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuackOfaThousandSuns (talkcontribs) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really... the tails of modern whales were not originally two parts - they don't derive from the hind legs if that's what you mean. If if you want to count tails then moa were not entirely tailless, as the skeleton photo in the article shows. Kahuroa (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AD/CE and MoS[edit]

Just a quick note (because I like to explain why I revert things, so nobody mistakes it for vandalism or fundamentalism.
As it so happens, the Manual of Style doesn't actually allow switching AD to CE, or vice versa, unless there's a specific substantive reason. (things like preferring one over the other, or thinking that one is more 'academic' than the other doesn't count)
Anyways, since it started out with neither, with the AD being the first added (in March of this year), that means that AD is the official convention used here. (it's basically the same as trying to change between aluminum and aluminium. People can make valid arguments for either, but the only thing that matters is which convention was used first) (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone added a statement to an already well-established article with AD, By your logic, I could add a simple statement to every article without existing AD or CE references saying "As of 2008 AD, the previous statement still applied", and thereby force every such article to use the AD notation in future. This is ridiculous.- (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, this is an article about an extinct bird. Is this even remotely important? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In and of itself? Not even in the slightest. :)
However, every now and then, these things tend to blow up pretty nasty (same thing tends to happen with American vs. British spellings. That almost never matters, but it doesn't keep people from arguing over it). I prefer to stick to MoS whenever possible, just to prevent possible conflicts. (after all, people had already tried reverting it a couple times here)
In reference to the previous editor's question: This article actually kinda needed to be a bit more specific. When you're talking about something that died off at least a few hundred years ago (or when you're talking about long-extinct animals in general), it never hurts to be unambiguous with the timeline. Granted, it'd be of more importance if it was, say, 500AD vs 500BC, but it still helps. So, no, you wouldn't be able to add that to every article, as it wouldn't usually be necessary. But, in cases where it was beneficial to the article, yes, you could arbitrarily choose whichever convention you preferred. (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If we're going to mention the rediscovery of the Takahē, it might be worth mentioning the vastly different size, which of course means not noticing or mistaking the Moa for something else is quite a lot more difficult. I don't of course have a source for this claim but it's IMHO more important the the tracks issue Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vague Kiwi Connection[edit]

From an anon's edit to the article-

The kiwi were formerly regarded as the closest relatives of the moa, but comparisons of their DNA suggest they* are more closely related to the Australian emu and cassowary.[1]

This use of "they" is ambiguous. Which "they" are they speaking of? Are the moa (as the antecedent would imply) more closely related to the emu and cassowary, or are the kiwi more closely related to the emu and cassowary? There's no reason for such unclearness to persist. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Turvey et al 2005

When was the posture revised?[edit]

I came here looking for this bit of information but it isn't here... I think it would be helpful to mention when they figured out that the moa held its neck low instead of towering in the air. Was this something that people actually thought was true until recently, or has it been known for a while but museums still have them mounted wrong? The article doesn't make it very clear what the circumstances were. (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

biggest bird[edit]

the moa could be the biggest bird ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closest relatives: the tinamous of South America[edit]

Interesting developments to be incorporated into the article. First the NZ Herald version, then the paper it derives from:

Kahuroa (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Have any DNA-preserving moa remains been found? Since moas went extinct so recently, it seems like it might be possible to clone them to bring them back from extinction? I for one would like to see that ;-) Stonemason89 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting question, here's some reading:
Snori (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


in the bit about the fuana of north and south island it would we be eisier to understand if you used the proper names for the moa and not the sceintific why do you even use the scientific name instead of the other name e.g north island giant moa the people that read the article dont dont know all the sceintific names and they have to look up at the taxonomy part to see what it is every time they see a name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tevamoorphe (talkcontribs) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that some species occurred on both islands, so it might be misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomic hell[edit]

I'm completely baffled by the taxonomy, "The Lost World of the Moa" states D. robustus is a junior synonym of D. novaezealandiae, but newer articles seem to use both D. robustus and D. novaezealandiae? Whatever happened to D. giganteus? And a new dna study, if correct, has completely obliterated former postulated relationships, lead to new binomial combinations, as well as resurrected synonymised species. Anyone have a better overview than me? FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From how I read this paper[3], there are two separate moa species whith the species name geranoides (one is a junior synonym)? FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, just uploaded some nice studio snaps of the Yorkshire Museum Moa. There's a persistent rumour among staff here that this specimen is the same one as in this photo with Richard Owen but according to the current species labels this isn't the case. Can anyone find a source for this? Also, I'm currently hoping that one of the staff or volunteers might photograph the soft tissue samples in the next month or so. There are some existing snaps but they're very low quality. I hope that these or other photos should be useful and please let me know if there's other stuff I can help with. PatHadley (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds nice, most would probably be on the articles for the various species, so be sure to note which species each photo depicts. I'm pretty sure the photo with Owen is from the British Museum with their specimen[4], I don 't think he went to NZ at such an old age. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the photos are of the Tiger Hill specimen of D. robustus most recently described in Rawlence et al. 2012 (p.2). I've replaced some imagery on the South Island giant moa pages. Maybe the close ups will be useful for more detailed descriptions? Thanks for clearing up where Owen's buddy has ended up! I wonder where that rumour has come from? I see that you do a fair amount of editing on palaeontology - if there's anything from Yorkshire I can help with let me know. The online collection is all open licensed. Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be a lot of extinct NZ birds, anything related to them would be nice... FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Literature: Verne[edit]

Verne writed of living moas in his 1867's Les Enfants du capitaine Grant. The story is set in the same span.-- (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article says they were once considered ratites, but have now been found to be closest to the tinamous, once considered the sister group of ratites. The tinamous page says tinamous were once considered the sister group of ratites, but are now considered to be well within the ratites. This means moas themselves are also ratites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sound made[edit]

The word "moa" is also used in other Polynesian languages for birds, such as moa-nalo, so I'd think the word itself has some meaning ("fowl" it seems?). FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moa. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quantitative attributes missing from Description section[edit]

The Description section should include quantitative attributes including at least height and weight. —Adallace (T|C) 20:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Much of the literature on moas with that sort of information is in books that are not easily accessible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The biggest challenge with getting this article upgraded to GA is that page numbers for the book references are absent. If anybody were to read any of the cited books, it would be good if you could add the page numbers to the various references. Schwede66 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, many of the citations don't even contain the name of a book or paper, but instead just cite by author and year. AscendingPig (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Standard author-date citation does not require page numbers, so per WP:CITEVAR, don't change it. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, by all means, do add page numbers if possible. CITEVAR is not an instruction to leave out available and useful information. We serve the reader. - The fundamental problem with the current references is that short and long notation formats are mixed up, with "Footnotes" containing much that should be in the "References" section. That creates the impression that "Footnotes" contains all references, and leads to reader confusion like that of AscendingPig above (the short cites refer to the full bibliographical item in "References"). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]