|
We welcome comments by Brook et al. (1), supporters of human-driven models, on our review of the role of climate in Pleistocene faunal extinctions in Sahul (Pleistocene Australia-New Guinea) (2). In response, we begin on a point of agreement: the fossil fauna record on which our respective arguments are based is sparse, although our understanding of Pleistocene environmental conditions is improving (3-5). However, we also flag a basic point of difference. Unlike Brook et al., who focus on the ~50 extinct Australian species (an artificial distinction because Australia was part of the larger landmass Sahul) and the 50 ka since human arrival, we consider the bigger picture, and the 88 large taxa that disappeared from Sahul from ~450 ka. |
|