Were Moas Like Modern Ratites?

[Yutyrannus]

Okay, so what I would like to know is if anyone thinks moas were aggressive and dangerous like modern ostriches, emus, and cassowaries. I've always thought that they could be dangerous when cornered or startled, but were peaceful most of the time. What does everyone else think about this idea?

[Newt]

I suppose any animal that size could be dangerous.  However, it seems to me that moas' leg proportions would make them less agile- they probably couldn't kick as well as ostriches or cassowaries.  Also, they didn't have any big terrestrial predators to worry about (until humans showed up, of course), so may not have had as good a defensive repertoire- think of other big birds from isolated islands, like dodos and boobies.

[Yutyrannus]

True, though they probably developed some defense against humans. What about Aepyornis?

[Newt]

It couldn't have been much of a defense, considering how quickly they disappeared. 

I doubt they had a way of fighting against Aepyornis, and just darted for cover when they spotted one.  I've watched wild turkeys do that when they spot a hawk overhead.  Really, there's not much else you can do against a big bird of prey; you must either have passive defenses (armor, defensive chemicals), or be ready to run.

[Yutyrannus]

You're thinking of Hargpagornis, I meant did Aepyornis (the "elephant bird") have a way to defend against people?

[Newt]

Oops!     I should really pay more attention!

I believe Aepyornis would have been even less able to put up a fight.  Too heavy to kick; it would have to rely on pecking.  I think it probably relied on sheer size to defend it from predators, which would not have helped with humans.

[Yutyrannus]

Oops!     I should really pay more attention!

I believe Aepyornis would have been even less able to put up a fight.  Too heavy to kick; it would have to rely on pecking.  I think it probably relied on shear size to defend it from predators, which would not have helped with humans.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for the help, I just needed some information on the interactions between humans and these birds for this: http://trilogy-of-prehistory.wikia.com/wiki/Human_Impact

[Newt]

I'm happy to help!  I'm just extemporizing, though; hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in.

[stoneage]

Okay, so what I would like to know is if anyone thinks moas were aggressive and dangerous like modern ostriches, emus, and cassowaries. I've always thought that they could be dangerous when cornered or startled, but were peaceful most of the time. What does everyone else think about this idea?

Yes they can be dangerous, but the most dangerous the Southern Cassowary hasn't killed anyone since 1926.  If you corner them they can kill or maim you with a kick, but most of the time that does't happan.  Most of the time they run away.  Their not big time preditors, they just eat little lizards.  There is no reason for them to attack, unless you have fruit or food they want.

[Yutyrannus]

Okay, so what I would like to know is if anyone thinks moas were aggressive and dangerous like modern ostriches, emus, and cassowaries. I've always thought that they could be dangerous when cornered or startled, but were peaceful most of the time. What does everyone else think about this idea?

Yes they can be dangerous, but the most dangerous the Southern Cassowary hasn't killed anyone since 1926.  If you corner them they can kill or maim you with a kick, but most of the time that does't happan.  Most of the time they run away.  Their not big time preditors, they just eat little lizards.  There is no reason for them to attack, unless you have fruit or food they want.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Could moas do that?

[stoneage]

Okay, so what I would like to know is if anyone thinks moas were aggressive and dangerous like modern ostriches, emus, and cassowaries. I've always thought that they could be dangerous when cornered or startled, but were peaceful most of the time. What does everyone else think about this idea?

Yes they can be dangerous, but the most dangerous the Southern Cassowary hasn't killed anyone since 1926.  If you corner them they can kill or maim you with a kick, but most of the time that does't happan.  Most of the time they run away.  Their not big time preditors, they just eat little lizards.  There is no reason for them to attack, unless you have fruit or food they want.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Could moas do that?

Certainly!

[Yutyrannus]

Okay, so what I would like to know is if anyone thinks moas were aggressive and dangerous like modern ostriches, emus, and cassowaries. I've always thought that they could be dangerous when cornered or startled, but were peaceful most of the time. What does everyone else think about this idea?

Yes they can be dangerous, but the most dangerous the Southern Cassowary hasn't killed anyone since 1926.  If you corner them they can kill or maim you with a kick, but most of the time that does't happan.  Most of the time they run away.  Their not big time preditors, they just eat little lizards.  There is no reason for them to attack, unless you have fruit or food they want.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Could moas do that?

Certainly!

Okay, thanks for helping!

[Brontozaurus]

I'm doing my masters thesis on moa so I'll try to answer this as best I can.

Moa didn't have sharp claws like emu or cassowaries, but they could probably have given you a nasty kick if you annoyed them. The major difference between other ratites and the moa was that moa never had to contend with large terrestrial predators (before humans). Their only predator was an aerial one, the eagle Harpagornis, and that would have been difficult to defend against. Living in forests might have been the only real defence that the moa had, but the proportions of Harpagornis' wings suggest it was able to fly through trees so I'm not sure if it was an effective defence. Moa therefore probably didn't have defences against ground predators, which probably explains why they were wiped out within a century or two of humans arriving.

[brandem]

Ah well maybe you could shead some light, a moa's femur, tibia, and tarsometatarsus proportions were very different from ostriches and cassowarys, this would have had a major effect on their mobility, have you perhaps seen in their evolutionary history where this derived trait began and if it had a clear evolutionary advantage?

[Yutyrannus]

Ok, thanks for the help! I'll post the story here once I've written it.

[Brontozaurus]

Ah well maybe you could shead some light, a moa's femur, tibia, and tarsometatarsus proportions were very different from ostriches and cassowarys, this would have had a major effect on their mobility, have you perhaps seen in their evolutionary history where this derived trait began and if it had a clear evolutionary advantage?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I've been looking mostly at moa ecology, with barely anything on their anatomy aside from 'what bones do I need for my study'.

[brandem]

Ah well maybe you could shead some light, a moa's femur, tibia, and tarsometatarsus proportions were very different from ostriches and cassowarys, this would have had a major effect on their mobility, have you perhaps seen in their evolutionary history where this derived trait began and if it had a clear evolutionary advantage?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I've been looking mostly at moa ecology, with barely anything on their anatomy aside from 'what bones do I need for my study'.

ha no problem I know exactly that sentiment from anthro, what I was referring to is in the photo you can see the ostrich's  tibia and tarsometatarsus, are almost the same length, and the also make for fairly speedy runners, on the other hand the moa's  tarsometatarsus is only slightly more than half the length of its tibia, suggesting a more ungainly stiff legged stride or waddle, and some, like pachyornis below, had closer to a 1:4 ratio, idea is this *may* had sacrificed mobility but for what gain? greater ability to bear weight?

[Newt]

Just spitballing here:

As you mentioned, the proportions of the three parts of an ostrich's legs are designed to provide the best leverage for speed.  The leg proportions of a big, heavy bird that doesn't run much are less critical to locomotion- it's effectively graviportal (like an elephant), so it doesn't matter so much where the joints are since the whole leg is acting like a column.  When the leg proportions do matter for such a bird is when it's getting up or down; then it's important for the feet to be directly below the bird's center of gravity; otherwise it could be tippy, or place undue stress on its long tibia.

It looks from those photos that the ostrich's feet, when sitting, would end up maybe a little ahead of the knee, while the other two's feet would end up near mid-femur, closer to the center of gravity. 

Just a thought.

[Brontozaurus]

What Newt said, pretty much.

It should also be said that the skeletal mounts you posted are quite out of date. Given the position of the vertebrae where it attaches to the skull, it's thought that moa held their heads low, like a kiwi. This could have been advantageous for pushing through dense foliage.

[Newt]

That's good to know!  It makes perfect sense, but I'd never questioned all the upright reconstructions I've seen.