Aepyornis maximus – the largest elephant bird and the mystery of when it went extinct

There wasn’t just one elephant bird

The elephant bird is probably one of the best-known of all extinct birds. Hardly any other animal so strongly embodies gigantism, enigmatic traditions, and the fascination of a world of animals that humans now know only in fragments.

But the name already misleads: there was no single elephant bird. Rather, it was an entire group of flightless giant birds that, over thousands of years, lived exclusively on the island of Madagascar—comparable to New Zealand’s moas.

The term elephant bird refers to a family of extinct ratites (Aepyornithidae). According to current research it includes at least two confirmed genera, Aepyornis and Mullerornis, with three generally accepted species: Aepyornis maximus, Aepyornis hildebrandti and Mullerornis modestus. Older literature described substantially more species; Walter Rothschild’s Extinct Birds (1907), for example, lists twelve species in three genera. This apparent diversity mainly reflects the fact that natural size differences—such as between males and females, or between animals of different ages—were misinterpreted as different species. Marked sexual dimorphism, also known from the moas, likely played a key role.

This taxonomic uncertainty persisted into recent research. Only in 2018 did James P. Hansford and Samuel T. Turvey, in a morphological study that evaluated hundreds of bones from almost all major museum collections worldwide, describe a third genus with a particularly large-bodied form: Vorombe titan. It was even supposed to surpass Aepyornis maximus, previously considered the largest representative.

Only a few years later, a molecular-genetic study (2023) by Alicia Grealy and her team challenged this classification. Genetic data from fossil eggshells suggest that Vorombe titan is not a separate taxon but is identical to Aepyornis maximus. The extreme size differences in the known skeletal material are therefore most plausibly explained by an unusually strong sexual dimorphism.

Within the elephant birds, Aepyornis maximus is often considered a candidate for particularly late survival. This is based mainly on its enormous size and on historical accounts from the 17th century that have been linked to it. Radiocarbon-dated bone and eggshell finds show, however, that other elephant-bird species also existed into the late 1st millennium AD. For no species—including A. maximus—is there yet solid evidence of survival after the year 1500; nevertheless, some researchers consider a very late disappearance not entirely impossible.

Elephant bird Aepyornis maximus – fact sheet

alternative names	Great elephantbird, Giant elephant bird, Vouron patra, Voronpatra, Vouroupatra, Vorompatra, Worompatra
scientific names	Aepyornis maximus, Vorombe titan, Aepyornis medius, Aepyornis cursor, Aepyornis intermedius, Aepyornis grandidieri, Aepyornis ingens
native range	Madagascar (Indian Ocean)
time of extinction	late 10th to early 11th century, or around 1650
causes of extinction	Habitat loss & landscape fragmentation, hunting & egg collecting, climatic changes

Distribution of Aepyornis maximus on Madagascar

Elephant birds were endemic to Madagascar—that is, they occurred only there. For a long time it was assumed that all species inhabited almost the entire island, from the far north to the south. The fossil record, however, paints a more nuanced picture: bone and egg finds are concentrated in three geographic regions. This does not necessarily mean that elephant birds lived only there, but it does suggest that conditions in these areas were particularly favourable for preserving their remains over centuries to millennia.

The most important find area lies along Madagascar’s southern and south-western coast. It extends roughly from Tolagnaro in the southeast to Toliara in the southwest and includes additional sites along the west coast farther north. A second find region is in the central highlands, especially west and southwest of the capital Antananarivo. This region shows that elephant birds were not confined to dry coastal areas, but also occurred in the island’s interior. The third find area is in the north of the island, particularly around Anjohibe and Irodo.

It is striking that eggs and bones of elephant birds are only rarely found together. Bones come mainly from peatlands—remnants of former lakes or wetlands—as well as from caves that over long periods acted as natural traps or accumulation sites. Eggshells, on the other hand, are found particularly often in coastal dunes and alluvial sands. There they are easily dispersed and redeposited, but are robust enough to persist for a long time as fragments. This separation makes it difficult to assign eggshells directly to particular species and probably reflects both ecological differences, such as separate nesting sites, and preservation conditions.

A major advance came in 2023 with the molecular-genetic analysis of fossil eggshells. Grealy et al. were able for the first time to extract DNA from these shells and thus resolve the distribution of elephant birds far more finely than was possible from bone finds alone. It showed that Aepyornis maximus was regionally limited. In the late Holocene, only a single, genetically largely uniform Aepyornis lineage existed in southern Madagascar, which is assigned to this species. The “classic” elephant bird was therefore probably the locally dominant large form here, rather than one element of a diverse assemblage of multiple species.

The situation in central and northern Madagascar is quite different. There the researchers identified several genetically distinguishable Aepyornis lineages. Notably, there is a northern lineage that differs clearly from the southern populations and so far is known only from genetically analysed eggshells; corresponding bone finds are still lacking. Grealy et al. refer to this in terms of a “hidden lineage”—a hidden evolutionary lineage that can easily be overlooked in the fossil record because the corresponding skeletons are missing or could never be unambiguously assigned in collections.

Overall, it becomes clear that Madagascar simultaneously hosted several geographically separated elephant-bird lineages that were genetically distinguishable but showed surprisingly low genetic diversity. Such a pattern is typical of isolated island ecosystems with fragmented habitats, limited gene flow, and high vulnerability to environmental change and human pressure.

Elephant birds outside Madagascar?

All elephant-bird bone and eggshell finds, as well as historical accounts, come from Madagascar. All the more surprising are two nearly complete giant eggs discovered in Holocene coastal dunes in southern Western Australia. The first was found in 1930 near the mouth of the Scott River in southwest Australia, the second in 1992 in dunes near Cervantes, about 300 kilometres farther north.

For a long time it was unclear which animal these eggs should be assigned to. Because Australia itself was inhabited by large flightless birds in the Pleistocene, an attribution to Genyornis newtoni initially seemed plausible, an extinct representative of the thunder birds (Dromornithidae). A detailed study by Long, Vickers-Rich and colleagues (1998) showed, however, that neither shell thickness nor pore structure nor layering matches Genyornis. Instead, the Australian eggs match, in all relevant features, the eggs of the Malagasy elephant bird—especially those of Aepyornis maximus.

Radiocarbon dating of the Cervantes egg yielded an age of around 2,000 years. This date lies well before European seafaring in the Indian Ocean and rules out transport by people in modern times. Nor is there any archaeological evidence of earlier direct contacts between Madagascar and Australia.

But how did the eggs travel thousands of kilometres to the Australian coast? The most plausible explanation is natural drift via ocean currents. Elephant-bird eggs were exceptionally large and had a very thick, robust shell. Comparable observations show that even fragile bird eggs can be transported over long distances in the sea. King penguin eggs, for example, have repeatedly been washed ashore on the coast of Western Australia and can be shown to originate from subantarctic breeding colonies. The oceanographic conditions of the Indian Ocean also make transport from Madagascar towards Australia possible in principle.

The two Australian Aepyornis eggs are therefore not evidence for elephant-bird populations outside Madagascar. Rather, they illustrate how young some of these animals’ remains really are—and that natural processes such as marine drift, coastal erosion and sediment reworking are sufficient to explain even seemingly improbable find situations.

The discovery of the elephant birds

The story of the elephant birds is, above all, a story of their eggs. Long before bones were excavated, skeletons reconstructed or species described, these gigantic shells drew attention—objects of a size that surpassed everything known and defied any immediate classification. A single egg held several litres and clearly exceeded even the largest ostrich eggs. The obvious question arose: what kind of animal could lay such a thing?

This question did not arise suddenly but developed over centuries. At first there were only reports and stories: tales of gigantic birds in the Indian Ocean, of shy animals in remote landscapes of Madagascar, of unusually large eggs used as vessels or passed along as curiosities. Such hints long remained vague and contradictory, yet never disappeared entirely from the awareness of European naturalists.

Only in the 19th century, when real eggs and bones from Madagascar first reached European collections, did these traditions meet a scientific environment that began to study extinct large birds systematically. The discovery of the moas in New Zealand from the 1830s onward had shown that giant, flightless birds did not have to be mythical creatures but could be real components of recent earth history. Against this background, the reports from Madagascar also gained new plausibility.

The discovery of the elephant birds was therefore not a single event but a gradual process. It was fed by stories, by spectacular individual objects and by cautious scientific interpretations. Giant eggs were described, compared and initially underestimated; bones appeared, were measured and slowly placed into a broader context. Only from this interplay did the picture emerge step by step of an extinct group of birds whose existence is now considered certain.

Marco Polo and the bird Roc

As early as the late 13th century, the Venetian traveller Marco Polo reported in his work Il Milione of a giant bird in the Indian Ocean, which he identified with the legendary Roc (also Roch, Rock, Ruch or Rukh). This figure comes from Arabic-Persian storytelling traditions and later also found its way into the collection One Thousand and One Nights. Polo describes the Roc as a flying, predatory creature of enormous strength that is said even to be able to seize elephants with its claws and kill them. In his account he writes:

“There lives the griffin bird. (…) Those who have seen it report that it resembles an eagle, only it is unimaginably large (…). The griffin is of tremendous strength and size. It seizes an elephant, carries it high into the air, lets it fall (…), hacks it apart with its beak and devours it.”

Polo explicitly stresses that this report is based on hearsay; he himself never saw the bird. The “there” he uses also does not refer to a clearly localisable place, but to a vaguely defined area in the Indian Ocean. No direct connection to Madagascar can be derived from his text. This attribution arose only centuries later, when giant bird eggs were discovered on the island in the 19th century and retrospectively linked to older legends.

In his travel account, Polo also mentions that Kublai Khan, the Mongol ruler of the 13th century and grandson of Genghis Khan, showed him an allegedly about 20-metre-long bird feather as well as two enormous bird eggs . Later authors, including the Russian zoologist Igor Akimuschkin (1981), suggested that the supposed feather may actually have been a leaf of the raffia palm (Raphia farinifera), which is also widespread on Madagascar and whose leaves can reach extraordinary lengths.

The idea that the Roc could seize elephants is also not evidence of real observations. There were never elephants on Madagascar; mentioning them serves the mythical exaggeration of the bird, not the description of an actual way of life or geographic distribution.

The often-cited connection between Marco Polo’s Roc and the elephant bird is therefore a retrospective interpretation of the 19th century. Particularly influential was the British scholar Henry Yule, who in 1871, in his annotated translation of Polo’s travel account, first presented a colour illustration of an elephant-bird egg as a possible “Roc egg”. Yule did not want to confirm the myth, but to explain it in terms of natural history—as an early attempt to rationalise legendary traditions through real objects.

As the palaeontologist Eric Buffetaut (2019) suggests, Yule was influenced here by the Italian naturalist Giuseppe Bianconi. In several works, Bianconi had tried to equate Marco Polo’s giant bird with Aepyornis, but mistakenly interpreted it as a kind of gigantic vulture. By contrast, in his first description in 1851, Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire had already recognised that the elephant bird was a flightless bird related to the ostrich—a view that Richard Owen also shared in the mid-19th century.

Later zoologists such as Akimuschkin also saw the elephant bird as “the archetype of the bird Roc”. Biologically, however, Polo’s description cannot be reconciled with Aepyornis maximus. The elephant bird was flightless and resembled a massive ratite, not a giant eagle. It has therefore occasionally been suggested that sightings of particularly large, flight-capable birds of Madagascar—such as the extinct Madagascar crowned eagle—could have contributed to the emergence of such stories, even if this interpretation remains speculative.

Étienne de Flacourt and the Vouron patra

One of the earliest written references to a gigantic bird on Madagascar dates from 1658. In his Histoire de la grande isle Madagascar, the French governor Étienne de Flacourt mentions a bird called Vouron patra, which he describes as follows:

“The Vouron patra is a large bird that inhabits the region of Ampatres and lays eggs like the ostrich; it is a kind of ostrich. The inhabitants of these regions cannot catch it; it seeks out the most remote and solitary places.”

Whether this Vouron patra was actually an elephant bird cannot be said with certainty today. The description, however, shows striking correspondences: a very large, flightless, ostrich-like bird that lays large eggs and inhabits remote regions. No other ostrich-like large birds that could have lived on Madagascar in Flacourt’s time are known. His report is therefore among the most plausible historical passages that are linked to the later-discovered elephant birds.

Flacourt’s work is neither a travelogue in the modern sense nor a scientific treatise. Rather, it is a colonial-administrative description of Madagascar in which his own observations, reports from local informants and transmitted stories are interwoven. Flacourt does not draw a clear line between what he saw himself and what he repeats. In the case of the Vouron patra too, it remains unclear whether he encountered the bird personally or merely recorded local reports.

It is notable, however, that in his work Flacourt describes several animal species that long were considered legendary but were later clearly identified as real. One example is the Mangarsahoc, a hippopotamus-like animal whose remains were discovered in the 19th century by Alfred Grandidier and which is today known as Lemerle’s hippopotamus—one of several endemic, now extinct hippopotamus species of Madagascar. Flacourt also mentions a large predator called Antamba, which was later linked to the giant fossa. The mysterious Tratratratra as well—a giant sloth lemur (Palaeopropithecus ingens)—appears in his reports and could have survived into historical times.

Against this backdrop, Flacourt’s mention of the Vouron patra is not regarded in research as mere fantasy, but as a possible early indication of a real, existing large bird whose scientific discovery, however, did not occur until centuries later. Only in the 19th century, after the appearance of huge bones and eggs in European collections, was Flacourt’s description retrospectively linked to the elephant bird—an interpretation shaped in particular by naturalists such as Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and by later historical contextualisation in authors such as Eric Buffetaut.

Giant eggs – early reports in the 19th century

Even before the scientific first description of the elephant bird, reports of unusually large eggs on Madagascar were circulating. These early hints arose at a time when the island was increasingly visited by European travellers, but systematic natural-history research was still scarcely taking place. Accordingly, these reports sit on the boundary between eyewitness observation, hearsay and later reconstruction.

In this context, the French naval officer and zoologist Victor Sganzin is often mentioned, who was active on Madagascar in the early 1830s. According to later accounts, Sganzin is said to have seen half of a gigantic eggshell that locals used as a vessel. Because they refused to sell the piece, he either made a drawing and passed it on to the French ornithologist Jules Verreaux—or, according to another version, acquired a complete egg and sold it to Verreaux, which was then lost on the journey to Europe in a shipwreck.

Regardless of which version is correct, it is striking that no verifiable evidence of this episode has survived. Neither a known drawing nor an early egg exists, nor have any letters or statements by Verreaux been preserved that would document a response to Sganzin’s report. The story of Sganzin and Verreaux therefore marks less a documented find than an early premonition that only decades later gained scientific substance through real egg and bone discoveries. It does show, however, that knowledge of unusually large eggs on Madagascar was already circulating before the middle of the 19th century.

A similar case is a report by the traveller Goudot, who is said to have found remains of large eggshells on Madagascar around the same time and to have shown them to the zoologist Paul Gervais at the Paris museum. Gervais initially assigned them to a large ostrich-like bird—an indication that the exceptional size was recognised, but that a distinct interpretation was still lacking.

One of the most detailed early descriptions dates from 1848. The British naval surgeon John Joliffe, who served aboard the H.M.S. Geyser, recorded in his diary the story of a passenger named Dumarele, a French merchant from La Réunion:

“Dumarele mentioned that some time earlier (…) on the coast, in the northwest of the island, he had seen the shell of an enormously large egg —the product of an unknown bird (…). This egg held the almost incredible amount of thirteen quart bottles filled with wine [about 12–15 litres]! (…) It had the colour and appearance of an ostrich egg, was as thick as a Spanish dollar and of great hardness. The locals had brought it on board to fill it with rum. At one end there was a fairly large hole through which the contents of the egg had been removed and which served as the mouth of the vessel. (…) They reported that (…) such eggs were very, very rare, and the bird that laid them was even rarer to see.”

The report is remarkably precise: it describes the size, thickness and texture of the shell as well as its use by the local population as a vessel—a detail that later could be confirmed by archaeological and ethnographic evidence. At the same time, this too is an indirect source, since Joliffe himself had not seen the egg but was repeating a second-hand account.

Taken together, these early reports show that knowledge of giant bird eggs on Madagascar existed long before the island was studied systematically by science. What was missing, however, was the decisive step from isolated observations and stories to a natural-scientific interpretation. That step would only occur with the actual recovery of eggs and bones and with the establishment of comparative anatomy in the 19th century.

Hugh Edwin Strickland and a scientific expectation

With Hugh Edwin Strickland begins the actual scientific prehistory of the elephant bird. In his monograph The Dodo and its Kindred, published in 1848, the British naturalist formulated a hypothesis ahead of its time: the islands of the western Indian Ocean—especially the Mascarenes and Madagascar—might once have harboured several related species of large, flightless birds. Strickland referred to them as “large brevipennate birds”—large-bodied, short-winged ratites.

His argument deliberately drew on a contemporary comparative case: the moas of New Zealand, which had recently become known. There, a whole previously unknown bird group had been reconstructed from a combination of historical reports, subfossil bone finds and comparative anatomy. Strickland therefore concluded that a similar pattern could also have existed in the western Indian Ocean. What had been possible in New Zealand, he believed, should in principle also apply to Madagascar and the Mascarenes.

Madagascar played a key role in this line of thought. Strickland noted that no contemporary traveller had reported ostrich-like or other large flightless birds on the island. At the same time, however, he pointed to Flacourt’s Histoire de la grande isle Madagascar of 1658. Its brief mention of the Vouron patra—a large, shy bird with ostrich-like eggs, living in remote regions—seemed to Strickland a possible indication that Madagascar might have been inhabited until very recent historical times by a large ratite.

Strickland remained deliberately cautious. He emphasised that Flacourt’s description was vague and could just as well apply to a much smaller bird. Nevertheless, he considered it significant enough to be taken seriously. What mattered to him was not proof, but the scientific expectation that could be derived from it: if Madagascar had indeed once harboured large, flightless birds, then their remains—by analogy with New Zealand—should be found in young alluvial deposits, caves, or old settlement sites.

Strickland expressed this idea very concretely:

“We naturally look to the little-known island of Madagascar as the region most likely to contain birds allied to those of Bourbon. No recent travellers have alluded to the existence of any Struthious or brevipennate birds in Madagascar, though from the following passage in Flacourt’s Histoire de la grande Isle Madagascar (…) it appears that a bird of that family inhabited Madagascar less than two centuries ago. (…) This brief indication may perhaps guide the future explorers of Madagascar to a discovery of great zoological interest.”

Strickland did not describe an elephant bird; he knew neither eggs nor bones from Madagascar. And yet he anticipated—on the basis of comparative zoology and historical sources alone—the existence of precisely that animal group that would indeed be discovered only a few years later.

Strickland also clearly distinguished these considerations from mythical tales. He regarded the common linking of the bird Roc described by Polo with Madagascar as zoologically irrelevant. Given the immense wingspan described and the ability to carry elephants, it was clearly a flying fable creature, not a short-winged ratite.

The cryptozoologist Bernard Heuvelmans (1995) later argued that reports of giant birds such as the Roc or the Vouron patra mentioned by Flacourt were largely dismissed by contemporary natural history as fabulous. This assessment, however, is only partly accurate. While the Roc indeed received little zoological attention, Flacourt’s report was taken seriously by researchers such as Strickland—not as proof, but as a well-grounded reason to investigate Madagascar specifically for remains of large, flightless birds.

1851: The first description of Aepyornis maximus

Only a few years after Strickland’s theoretical considerations, his expectation was fulfilled in an unexpected way. The scientific discovery of the elephant bird was not the result of a targeted expedition, but emerged from a chain of chance finds, reports and forwarded objects—embedded in the colonial networks of the western Indian Ocean.

When the French zoologist Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire first presented the remains of a gigantic bird from Madagascar to the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1851, they had already been on a long journey. The objects had recently been sent to Paris by Malavois, a colonist on La Réunion. Malavois himself, however, was not the discoverer. The actual find dates back to 1850 and is attributed to the merchant ship captain Abadie.

During a stay on Madagascar’s coast, Abadie first came across a gigantic egg in the possession of a local inhabitant. The shell had a hole at one end and was apparently used as an everyday vessel—an indication that such finds were unusual for the local population but not unknown. Further enquiries led to the discovery of a second, nearly equally large egg, lying intact in the bed of a mountain stream among the debris of a recent landslide. Shortly afterwards, a third egg as well as several massive bone fragments turned up in young alluvial deposits.

Even then it was recognised that these were not ordinary fossils but subfossil material—remains of an animal that, geologically speaking, had lived only comparatively recently. The finds were quickly forwarded: from Madagascar to La Réunion and finally to Paris. Two eggs arrived intact; another broke during transport but could later be restored. Along with the eggs, several bone fragments reached the Academy, including a particularly informative section of the tarsometatarsus, the midfoot bone.

Only this bone material enabled Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire to make a zoological assessment. On this basis he described, in 1851, for the first time a new species, which he named Aepyornis maximus.

In doing so, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire drew a clear boundary between scientific evidence and popular tradition. He explicitly rejected reports of predatory giant birds that seized oxen or elephants. The elephant bird, he argued—like the New Zealand moa—was a flightless, herbivorous ratite, not a Roc from oriental fairy tales. His work confirmed, in retrospect, Strickland’s basic assumption that the western Indian Ocean had once harboured a distinct, now lost fauna of large birds.

In his first description, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire also explicitly engaged with older travel accounts. In particular, he discussed Flacourt’s mention of the Vouron patra from the 17th century:

“Should we also count Flacourt among those authors who knew of Madagascar’s giant bird at least by hearsay? Is it the Épyornis that this famous traveller described two centuries ago under the name Vouron-Patra?”

At the same time, he qualified this source. Flacourt’s description, he said, was too vague to equate it unequivocally with such a gigantic species; it could just as well refer to another bird. He considered reports from the early 19th century, by contrast, to be more informative, such as those of Dumarele, which Strickland had documented in 1848. The detailed description of a huge egg with an exceptionally thick shell seemed to him a serious indication that such eggs had been seen before their scientific discovery.

With the first description of Aepyornis maximus, the elephant bird was finally removed from the realm of legend, rumour and premonition and placed within zoology. From then on, the question was no longer whether such a bird had existed, but how, when and why it had disappeared.

A bird—or a reptile?

For Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, the analysis of the Malagasy giant eggs began with a fundamental uncertainty:

“Are the eggs that have just arrived from Madagascar those of a gigantic reptile or those of a gigantic bird?”

Given their enormous volume—around eight litres per egg—this question was far from trivial. A first clue came from the structure of the eggshells, which did not correspond to that of reptile eggs, but showed clear similarities to the shells of large, flightless birds, particularly those of the emu.

The decisive proof, however, came from the bone fragments found together with the eggs. Among them was the lower end of a tarsometatarsus, a foot bone characteristic of birds. Its shape and joint surfaces left no doubt: the piece belonged unmistakably to a bird. At the same time, its anatomy excluded several known species. It showed no features of the dodo and also differed clearly from the bones of the New Zealand moas. It was thus clear that this was a previously unknown, very large ratite.

A new bird—and how big was it?

After its affiliation with birds had been clarified, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire faced the next central question: how large was this animal, and how could it be placed among the ratites?

The size of the eggs provided an impressive but misleading starting point. Saint-Hilaire estimated their capacity at about eight litres—equivalent to around six ostrich eggs, twelve rhea eggs or 148 chicken eggs. However, he warned against inferring body height directly from egg size. A simple extrapolation would have suggested a bird four metres tall—an assumption he himself described as misleading.

Instead, he chose a comparative approach. He related the proportions of egg and body size in the emu and the ostrich to the dimensions of the Malagasy eggs. This yielded an estimated body height between about three and four metres. A second, independent comparison based on the tarsometatarsus led to a similar result: the corresponding bone in the Malagasy bird was more than twice as large as in the emu. From this too, a body height of around three and a half metres could be derived.

From the agreement of these different approaches, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire drew a cautious conclusion:

“In this way, through several approaches, we reach the result that the body height of the Épyornis must have lain between three and four metres.”

By the standards of the time, the new bird thus surpassed even the largest known moa. At the same time, its anatomy confirmed that it was a distinct form. The elephant bird was neither a dodo nor a moa, but a previously unknown representative of the flightless giant birds. Accordingly, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire introduced a new genus for it—Aepyornis, the “high bird”—and gave the species the epithet maximus because of its extraordinary size.

19th century: many eggs, little certainty

Only a few years after the first description of Aepyornis maximus, the elephant birds found their way into the ornithological overview literature of the 19th century. Summaries such as Gustav Hartlaub’s report on the “achievements in natural history in the year 1867” show that new egg and bone finds from Madagascar were regularly noted and discussed. At the same time, however, it became clear how fragmentary the available material was.

From the outset, a pronounced imbalance in the fossil record was striking. While giant eggs and eggshells were reported relatively frequently, well-preserved skeletal remains remained rare. Many finds came from alluvial sands, riverbeds or coastal dunes—deposits that contemporary authors intuitively interpreted as young. Particular emphasis was placed on eggs discovered inland or at greater depth. Such finds were taken as indications that, geologically speaking, elephant birds might have disappeared only relatively recently.

Bone finds, by contrast, were concentrated in peat deposits, former wetlands or caves. Preservation conditions were better there, but in the 19th century such sites were rarely investigated systematically. Accordingly, the anatomical picture of the elephant birds remained incomplete for a long time.

In parallel, early on there were already considerations of greater diversity within the elephant birds. Differences in egg size, shell thickness and surface structure led to speculation about multiple species—or at least clearly different forms—besides A. maximus. Because informative skeletons were lacking, these assumptions were based almost exclusively on egg morphology—a methodologically problematic approach that further reinforced taxonomic uncertainty.

This situation also shaped the work of the French ornithologist Alphonse Milne-Edwards, who in 1895 summarised the state of knowledge in Les animaux de Madagascar. He emphasised that the picture of the elephant birds rested almost entirely on fragmentary bones and eggshells and that neither soft tissues nor complete skeletons were available. Nevertheless, he recognised basic characteristics: elephant birds were ground-dwelling, flightless and probably herbivorous. Massive legs and strongly reduced wings left no doubt for him about their terrestrial way of life.

At the same time, Milne-Edwards assumed considerable diversity of forms. Alongside very large elephant birds that may have reached a height of more than three metres, he distinguished smaller and more slender forms, which had already been assigned to the genus described shortly before Mullerornis (Milne-Edwards & Grandidier, 1894). In retrospect, however, it becomes clear that part of this supposed diversity was due more to methodological uncertainties than to real biological differences.

Around 1900 already, Adolf Bernard Meyer and Karl Maria Heller pointed out in their treatise on Aepyornis eggs that measurements, weight and surface structure of eggs depend strongly on preservation conditions and therefore are only very limitedly suitable for secure species assignments. Some of the species diversity postulated in the 19th century later proved to be an artefact of early classification attempts.

Bones before eggs: scientific priorities

Indeed, in the 19th century several elephant-bird species were at least partly distinguished on the basis of egg size and shell characteristics. This practice, however, is explained less by confidence in the evidentiary value of the eggs than by the lack of alternative comparative material.

Because eggs were considered problematic evidence in contemporary zoology. As Buffetaut (2018) highlights in a historical analysis, naturalists assigned a much higher scientific value to bone finds because skeletons provided information on anatomy, locomotion and relationships—key criteria for systematic classification. Eggs were described and compared, but were mostly regarded as uncertain substitute characters. Accordingly, from the 1860s onward bones were increasingly measured, illustrated and systematically evaluated, whereas elephant-bird eggs were only rarely analysed in detail or depicted in the 19th century. They were seen more as curiosities than as a robust basis for zoological classifications.

At the same time, eggs still represented the most commonly available material—although by 1900, “despite the eager investigations over the last 50 years”, no more than about 30 complete elephant-bird eggs had reached Europe, as Meyer & Heller (1900) noted.

Their dominance in the fossil record is explained less by the animals’ biology than by preservation conditions. The extremely thick eggshells survive in sands, dunes and alluvial sediments far better than bones, often lie close to the surface, and were actively used by the local population, for example as vessels. Bones, by contrast, decompose quickly in Madagascar’s tropical soils and for a long time were neither sought out deliberately nor recognised as particularly important scientifically.

Consequences for science and the public

This methodological weighting had far-reaching consequences. Although eggs were known early, a few fragmentary bones shaped the scientific image of the elephant birds. Taxonomy remained correspondingly coarse, and important questions about diversity, ecology and extinction remained open. Until the 1890s, researchers had only insufficient skeletal remains at their disposal, so realistic reconstructions of the animals were hardly possible.

To nonetheless convey a sense of the elephant birds’ enormous size, illustrations of the huge eggs served above all as a visual aid for the public. Only with the systematic recovery of larger quantities of bones at several sites in Madagascar did this picture change: as knowledge of the skeleton grew, depictions of mounted skeletons and bodily reconstructions increasingly appeared in popular-science publications, while eggs continued to be mentioned but were not necessarily illustrated.

Scientific uncertainty, however, also reached beyond academia. In popular culture, the elephant bird became a projection screen for the idea of a “lost” or perhaps still existing megafauna. A prominent example is Herbert George Wells’ short story Æpyornis Island (1894), which takes up the idea that an elephant bird could have survived on a remote island. Wells’ story reflects precisely that phase in which giant eggs were widely known while reliable anatomical reconstructions were still lacking.

Only in retrospect does it become clear how strongly the image of the elephant birds in the 19th century was shaped by the methodological possibilities of the time. What was then considered insufficiently informative proved in the 21st century to be a key source. Modern analyses of fossil eggshells—especially genetic studies—now allow statements about regional differentiation, distribution and evolution of the elephant birds that for a long time would not have been possible from bone material alone. This is particularly evident in the study by Grealy et al. (2023), which for the first time was able to demonstrate several geographically separated elephant-bird lineages on Madagascar using eggshells. Thus the circle closes: from the early undervaluation of eggs as scientific material to their central role in modern research on the elephant birds.

Anatomy of the elephant bird

Like all elephant birds, Aepyornis maximus is known only from subfossil remains—above all bones and eggshells from the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. No preserved specimens exist. Statements about appearance, body plan and ecology can therefore only be inferred indirectly from the skeletal material and remain partly reconstructive.

Body size: tall, but not record-breaking

In 1866, the French naturalist Alfred Grandidier discovered several exceptionally large and well-preserved bones on Madagascar. At first he thought they were the remains of a giant mammal, but it soon became clear that they belonged to Aepyornis maximus. After further bones had been recovered, an almost complete skeleton of the elephant bird could be mounted for the first time at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris.

This skeleton reached a total height of about 2.7 metres, thus remaining well below the three to four metres that Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire had suspected in 1851 on the basis of egg size. A. maximus was undoubtedly an exceptionally large ratite, but not the tallest that ever existed. Today it is considered certain that female South Island giant moas reached heights of up to 3.6 metres and were therefore significantly larger.

More recent genetic analyses also suggest that elephant birds, too, showed pronounced sexual dimorphism. Females were therefore larger and more massive than males—a pattern that is also common in moas and other ratites.

The early overestimates of body height can largely be traced back to the enormous size of the eggs. Today it is clear that there is no fixed relationship between egg size and body size in birds. Modern kiwis provide an extreme example: relative to their body size, they lay extraordinarily large eggs, although the animals themselves are barely larger than chickens. In hindsight, it becomes clear that extrapolations based solely on egg size inevitably had to lead to substantial overestimates.

The heaviest bird in Earth’s history?

While skeletons allow at least rough statements about body height, weight estimates inevitably remain uncertain. A first systematic approach was provided in 1947 by the ornithologist Dean Amadon. Based on the robustness and load-bearing capacity of the leg and foot bones, he estimated the body mass of Aepyornis maximus at about 450 kilograms. Amadon emphasised that weight does not increase proportionally with height, but depends above all on massive bone structure and a stocky build. With this approach, Amadon deliberately distanced himself from earlier, often spectacular estimates that had attributed to the elephant bird a weight of up to 1,000 kilograms—mostly on the basis of egg size or highly simplified extrapolations.

Later work, however, assessed Amadon’s estimate more critically. Worthy & Holdaway (2002) argued that comparisons with a broader dataset of extinct ratites, especially the moas, point to considerably lower weights. For large elephant birds such as A. maximus, they consider values around 250 to 300 kilograms more realistic. More recent assessments mostly fall within this range as well.

Regardless of the exact number, Aepyornis maximus is still very likely considered the heaviest bird that ever lived —even if it was not the tallest. Within the elephant birds it occupied a special position: Aepyornis hildebrandti reached about the size of an ostrich, while representatives of the genus Mullerornis were overall considerably smaller. The elephant bird was thus less a towering giant than an exceptionally massive bird.

Body plan and locomotion

Aepyornis maximus was completely flightless. Its wings were strongly reduced, and the sternum had no keel for the attachment of powerful flight muscles. The massive hind legs carried a heavy body but were not built for high running speed. The fact that the shin bone (tibiotarsus) was longer than the midfoot (tarsometatarsus) suggests that elephant birds were slow-walking herbivores rather than fast runners.

The overall build was compact and stocky, with a long neck and a relatively small head. The strong, straight beak was probably well suited to grazing low-growing plants. Strikingly large nostrils suggest that the sense of smell played an important role—a feature also observed in kiwis and associated with a ground-focused foraging lifestyle.

In his osteological study of Aepyornis (1896), Charles William Andrews described depressions and pits on the frontal bone of the skull, which he interpreted as possible attachment sites for soft-tissue structures. Later authors linked these structures to a small crest, as occurs in some moa species that show comparable cranial features.

The elephant bird was neither a four-metre-tall giant nor a tonne-heavy monster. It was a massive, heavy ratite, adapted to a life as a herbivorous giant in Madagascar’s ecosystems. Its anatomy combines typical features of island gigantism: great body mass, robust bones, reduced mobility and high specialisation. This combination made Aepyornis maximus successful for a long time, but also particularly vulnerable to environmental change and human influence.

Ecological role of the elephant birds

Elephant birds were not only exceptionally large; for thousands of years they were central actors in Madagascar’s ecosystems. As flightless, predominantly herbivorous megafauna, they occupied ecological niches that on the island are now largely empty. Their importance lay less in individual spectacular traits than in their long-term influence on vegetation, seed dispersal and landscape structure.

Before human settlement, Madagascar had hardly any large terrestrial mammals. In this ecological vacancy, elephant birds took on functions that on other continents are fulfilled by ungulates or proboscideans: they consumed large amounts of plant biomass, influenced soils and vegetation patterns through trampling, and acted as long-distance seed dispersers. Only recently has it become clear that this role was not filled by a single ecologically uniform species, but by a differentiated group of large ratites.

Ecological differentiation within the elephant birds

For a long time, elephant birds were considered a largely homogeneous group of gigantic ratites. More recent morphological, ecological and palaeontological studies, however, paint a more nuanced picture. Madagascar’s elephant birds differed not only in body size but apparently also in habitat choice, sensory priorities and ecological specialisation.

Early anatomical work already provided first hints. Andrews (1896) described strikingly large nostrils and a pronounced olfactory region in the skull of Aepyornis, which he interpreted as evidence of a well-developed sense of smell. Later comparisons with modern ratites—especially the strongly scent-oriented, nocturnal kiwis—took up this observation again (Worthy & Holdaway 2002).

Buffetaut (2018) offered a systematic ecological interpretation. He emphasises that the Aepyornithidae did not form an ecologically homogeneous group. His interpretation is based on skull proportions, beak shape, body build and find contexts. In particular, the comparison between the massive species of the genus Aepyornis and the much smaller, more slender animals of the genus Mullerornis suggests that these birds used different habitats. Large forms such as Aepyornis maximus are more often associated with forested or structurally rich habitats, while smaller species presumably more often inhabited more open landscapes or forest–savanna mosaics. In this way, several elephant-bird species could coexist without being in direct competition.

A new dimension to this discussion came from palaeoneurological studies published in 2018. Based on digitally reconstructed endocasts (casts of the inner cranial cavity), the researchers concluded that elephant birds had a strongly reduced visual system. The visual lobes were extremely small or almost absent, whereas the olfactory bulbs were exceptionally large. This brain organisation suggests that elephant birds could see only to a limited extent and instead relied primarily on smell and hearing.

The authors interpret this as a functional adaptation to an island environment with low predation pressure, in which visual escape responses were less important than orientation and foraging in dense vegetation or under low-light conditions. Within elephant birds, differences also emerged: A. maximus had particularly large olfactory bulbs, which fits well with a lifestyle in dense forests, whereas A. hildebrandti and Mullerornis showed relatively reduced olfactory structures—an indication of more open habitats and possibly greater activity in daylight.

These findings are complemented by historical and ethnographic indications. Bernard Heuvelmans (1995) reports that locals described A. maximus as a bird that preferentially sought out bush and forest landscapes. The frequent proximity of egg finds to water bodies also suggests that elephant birds laid their eggs near the ground in moist riverbank or swamp vegetation. Julian P. Hume (2017) also draws ecological parallels to the cassowaries of northern Australia and New Guinea—also large, forest-dwelling ratites with a pronounced sense of smell.

Overall, this yields the picture of an ecologically differentiated elephant-bird fauna adapted to Madagascar’s mosaic habitats. Large, heavy and presumably mostly nocturnal species used dense forests, while smaller forms inhabited more open landscapes. Reduced visual capacity and a pronounced sense of smell appear, against this background, not as primitive traits but as highly specialised adaptations.

What did elephant birds eat?

Already in the scientific first description, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire suspected that elephant birds must have been herbivores. Their massive build, the missing sternal keel and their flightless form did not fit a predatory lifestyle. For a long time, however, this assumption remained speculative. Only an isotope study in 2014 provided robust evidence for their actual diet.

Tsimihole Tovondrafale and colleagues examined stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in fossil eggshells and bones of elephant birds. Such analyses work like a chemical fingerprint: plants take up different forms of carbon, and these differences remain preserved in the tissues of the animals that eat them. To validate their results, the researchers compared the fossil values with experiments on modern chicken eggs.

The result was clear. Elephant birds did not feed predominantly on grasses, as is known from modern ostriches. Instead, their diet consisted mainly of shrubs, trees and herbaceous plants. Succulent and drought-adapted species were apparently particularly important, such as euphorbs or other water-storing plants that are widespread in Madagascar’s dry regions.

What is interesting is the temporal stability of this diet. From the Late Pleistocene into the Holocene—that is, across phases of pronounced climate fluctuations—the isotope values remained largely constant. Even as environmental conditions changed, elephant birds apparently stuck to their specialised diet. This limited flexibility likely made them vulnerable in the long term.

Elephant birds as seed dispersers

The specialised diet of elephant birds had consequences far beyond the animals themselves. As large, ground-dwelling herbivores, they influenced not only what grew but also where it grew—especially through their role as seed dispersers.

Many Malagasy plants produce large, hard seeds or conspicuous fruits whose dispersal today appears strongly limited. In other island ecosystems it is well documented that extinct large animals—such as moas in New Zealand or giant tortoises on oceanic islands—served as the main dispersers of such seeds. Against this background, it is plausible that elephant birds also swallowed seeds intact or transported them mechanically and dispersed them over long distances.

A particularly well-studied example is provided by the study by Midgley & Illing (2009) on the Malagasy plant genus Uncarina. Its fruits bear large, hook-shaped spines that were long interpreted as an adaptation for dispersal by lemurs. The authors show, however, that the form and structure of these spines are unsuitable for that. Instead, they interpret the fruits as so-called bur fruits that snag on the feet of large, ground-dwelling animals.

Because Madagascar had no large ungulates, the elephant birds are practically the only dispersers that come into question. It is also striking that the present distribution of Uncarina species matches the known habitats of the elephant birds well. Since their extinction, this dispersal system seems to have largely collapsed. Today, young plants occur almost exclusively in the immediate vicinity of old mother plants—a classic example of an ecological anachronism, i.e. an adaptation to an extinct animal.

Reproduction, breeding behaviour and growth

Little is known about the breeding behaviour of elephant birds. Neither historical reports nor archaeological finds allow statements about nest construction or parental care. The number of eggs laid is also unknown. On the basis of comparable ratites, Hume (2017) suggests that elephant birds laid one or two eggs per year—a probably correct, but not directly evidenced assumption.

Bone histology provides important clues. A study by de Ricqlès et al. (2016) showed that elephant birds grew slowly and over several years. Their bones show repeated interruptions of growth, which suggests late sexual maturity and a long lifespan. This pattern corresponds to that of the New Zealand moas and is considered typical of large, island-dwelling ratites with low predation pressure.

These findings argue for a K-selected life history. Elephant birds invested heavily in few offspring, developed slowly, reached sexual maturity late and probably lived long. Additional evidence is provided by a histological study by Chinsamy et al. (2020), which demonstrated medullary bone tissue—a temporary calcium store that in modern birds is formed only during the breeding period. This shows that elephant birds invested enormous physiological resources in their exceptionally large eggs.

A rare direct insight is also provided by the study by Balanoff & Rowe (2007), which used computed tomography to examine the skeleton of an Aepyornis embryo preserved inside the egg. The embryo had already reached about 80 to 90% of the incubation period and had an exceptionally robust skeleton. This suggests that elephant-bird chicks were already highly developed at hatching and largely independent—something referred to as (hyper-)precocial.

A lost functional element

With the disappearance of the elephant birds, not only a spectacular animal group was lost, but an entire complex of ecological functions. Their role as large-scale herbivores, seed dispersers and landscape shapers remained largely unreplaced in Madagascar. Many present-day peculiarities of the island—such as restricted plant dispersal or altered vegetation structures—can only be fully understood against the backdrop of this loss.

Elephant birds were thus not a marginal phenomenon of evolution, but formative organisms of Madagascar. Their extinction marks a profound rupture in the ecological history of the island, the effects of which continue to reverberate to this day.

Is one of the largest ratites related to the smallest?

It seems almost paradoxical: the largest—or at least the heaviest—bird in Earth’s history is said to be the closest living relative of one of the smallest ratites. Yet this is exactly the conclusion modern evolutionary research reached when it first became possible to analyse ancient DNA from elephant-bird remains.

In the 19th century, such a relationship was not recognisable. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and his contemporaries had to rely on anatomical characteristics. On that basis, the elephant bird seemed closer to the New Zealand moas than to any living bird. Other researchers suspected, based on external similarity and geographic proximity, a relationship to the African ostrich (Struthio camelus). This picture shaped the specialist literature for more than a century.

Only a study published in 2014 by Kieren J. Mitchell and her team fundamentally changed this understanding. The researchers succeeded in sequencing nearly complete mitochondrial genomes of the two elephant-bird genera from subfossil bones and comparing them with other ratites—including ostriches, emus, cassowaries, moas, kiwis and rheas. The phylogenetic analyses yielded an unequivocal result: elephant birds are the sister group of the kiwis (Apteryx).

This result proved robust. It remained stable regardless of the analytical method used and did not change even when additional morphological characters were included in the calculations. The elephant bird was thus neither a “Malagasy moa” nor an oversized ostrich, but the closest relative of a small, ground-dwelling bird from New Zealand.

The consequences of this insight extend far beyond systematics. Until then, the prevailing idea was that the large ratites of the southern hemisphere were relics of an already flightless Gondwanan fauna that had been separated from one another by continental drift. The close genetic connection between elephant bird and kiwi fundamentally contradicts this model: Madagascar and New Zealand were never directly connected.

The study therefore reaches a different conclusion. The common ancestor of elephant birds and kiwis was not a giant ratite but a smaller, still flight-capable palaeognath capable of covering great distances. Only after colonising isolated island environments did both lineages independently lose their flight ability. The molecular-genetic data also show that the lineages split around 50 to 60 million years ago—long after the breakup of Gondwana.

Flightlessness and island gigantism developed not once but multiple times and independently—each time following the colonisation of isolated island environments. While the elephant bird on Madagascar became a herbivorous giant, the kiwi lineage in New Zealand remained small, evolved nocturnality and occupied a completely different ecological niche.

A young phenomenon of island gigantism

The extreme size of the elephant birds can be well explained within the framework of the so-called island rule (Foster rule). It describes a recurring pattern: animal species that remain small on the mainland tend to increase in size on isolated islands (island gigantism), while originally large species often become smaller (island dwarfism).

Because the closest living relatives of elephant birds are the small kiwis, elephant birds originate from a lineage of relatively small birds. This starting point corresponds exactly to the scenario in which the island rule predicts an increase in body size.

On Madagascar, this lineage encountered special ecological conditions. Large herbivorous mammals were lacking, as were efficient predators of adult animals. Elephant birds could therefore assume ecological roles that on continents are usually occupied by ungulates or proboscideans. Under these circumstances, increasing body size was not a disadvantage, but offered advantages—such as protection from predation, more efficient use of nutrient-poor plant food, and better adaptation to seasonal environmental conditions.

Over millions of years, this development led to extreme island gigantism. Species such as Aepyornis maximus became among the largest and heaviest birds that ever existed. The enormous size difference becomes especially vivid in a comparison of reproductive biology: an adult kiwi is roughly the size of a single elephant-bird egg.

More recent genetic analyses by Grealy et al. (2023) also allow a temporal classification. The elephant-bird line arose already about 30 million years ago in the Oligocene. The diversity within the genus Aepyornis, however, is much younger. The genetic data suggest that the different lineages split from one another only in the early Pleistocene, about 1.2 to 1.5 million years ago.

It is interesting that Aepyornis maximus apparently developed its extreme body size only very late. Pronounced gigantism—and thus also the largest bird eggs known from Earth’s history—probably arose within a relatively short period of a few hundred thousand years. The elephant bird’s giant eggs are therefore not an ancient relic, but a relatively young evolutionary phenomenon.

The study links these processes closely to environmental changes on Madagascar. Increasing aridification, habitat fragmentation, and the spread of open, dry landscapes are interpreted as key drivers for speciation and body-size evolution. The gigantism of A. maximus thus appears not as a curiosity but as a highly specialised adaptation to a dynamic, changing island ecosystem.

Elephant birds: causes of extinction

The causes of the extinction of elephant birds have been among the most intensely debated questions in Malagasy natural history for more than a century. Earlier explanations ranged from direct overhunting and climatic upheavals to speculative fringe hypotheses. Only archaeological, paleoecological, isotope-geochemical and genetic studies of the last decades allow a nuanced assessment.

Today, the disappearance of Aepyornis and related forms is no longer seen as the result of a single event, but as the outcome of a long-term interplay of biological vulnerability, human use and changing environmental conditions. What matters is not a sudden collapse, but a gradual process of ecological erosion.

Meat and eggs: elephant birds as a food resource

Before the arrival of humans, elephant birds had hardly any natural enemies. Possible predators include at most the Madagascar crowned eagle—probably for juveniles—and the giant fossa, which could have taken eggs or very young birds (Hume 2017). For adult elephant birds, no effective adversaries existed. Accordingly, these animals were not evolutionarily prepared for intense predation pressure.

Older literature long questioned a direct human responsibility. Heuvelmans (1995) argued that elephant birds—unlike the New Zealand moas—apparently were not systematically hunted for their meat. He pointed out that local traditions do not mention targeted hunts and questioned whether the population groups at the time had suitable weapons. Fuller (2000) also expressed doubts about intensive use, though he did not rule out occasional hunting. Both authors emphasised that large, rare and difficult-to-kill animals would hardly have been suitable as everyday prey.

Clear evidence of human use was only provided by modern investigations. Hansford et al. (2018) documented clear anthropogenic modification traces on bones of Aepyornis and Mullerornis: fine cut marks, notches, as well as impact and pressure fractures, concentrated around joint areas as they occur during butchery of large animals. Several of these bones were directly radiocarbon dated. The oldest secured evidence of human use of an elephant bird reaches back around 10,500 years and at the same time represents the earliest direct evidence of human presence on Madagascar.

At the same time, these findings clearly argue against a scenario of intensive overhunting. The number of modified bones is small, spatially limited and temporally widely scattered. Hansford et al. explicitly interpret the use as opportunistic and episodic, not as systematic hunting of whole populations. This assessment is supported by a study by Burney et al. (1997): in Madagascar’s cave systems, the researchers found over long periods no indications pointing to regular slaughter or hunting. David Attenborough also stressed in 2014 that the proportion of modified bones was too low to assume intensive hunting as the sole cause of extinction:

Alongside meat, the eggs of elephant birds as a potentially more important resource come into focus. Archaeological finds show that eggshells were used over centuries as vessels and everyday objects; in some cases, entire eggs were emptied through deliberately made openings. Several authors (Day 1981; Hume 2017; Jørgensen 2025) assume that the contents were at least occasionally consumed. Eggs represented a highly energy-rich, easily accessible resource—in contrast to the rare, hard-to-hunt adult birds.

Direct archaeological evidence for systematic egg collecting is, however, difficult to produce. Fossil eggshells cannot be unambiguously identified as kitchen waste, and many deposits are older than the associated human layers (Parker Pearson 2010; Hansford 2017). The absence of direct evidence must not be equated with absence of the behaviour. Egg collecting is among the ecologically most effective, but archaeologically hardest to capture interventions. Given the extremely low reproductive rate of elephant birds—probably one to two eggs per clutch with long development times—even moderate, repeated harvesting would have had severe demographic consequences.

In summary, elephant birds were not everyday prey, but a rarely used, particularly productive resource. Neither systematic overhunting nor mass meat consumption can be demonstrated. Nevertheless, even small losses acting over the long term through hunting, egg collecting and disturbance of nesting sites could gradually destabilise populations.

How severe even moderate human exploitation pressure can be for large, slowly reproducing ratites is shown by a model study on moas from 2025. For six moa species it could be shown that even comparatively low hunting rates were enough to bring populations to a standstill: even a moderate removal of animals and eggs led—because of the low reproductive rate—to a complete collapse of populations within a short time. Even if these results cannot be transferred directly to elephant birds, they illustrate how sensitive K-selected large birds are to even limited but persistent human impacts.

Human-altered landscapes and habitat fragmentation

Besides direct use, the transformation of Madagascar’s landscape played a central role in the decline of the elephant birds. Earlier authors, such as Akimuschkin (1981) and Day (1981), often attributed the extinction to deforestation in the course of European colonisation from the 16th century onward. Both assumed that forest destruction, slash-and-burn clearing and the use of modern weapons pushed the already reduced elephant-bird populations into ever more remote regions. This view is now considered outdated, because it underestimates both the age of human presence and the time depth of anthropogenic landscape change.

Current work, especially the study by Hansford (2017), shows that landscape transformation already began in the Holocene. Central to this was the systematic use of fire. Paleoecological data demonstrate a marked increase in fire events, especially in southern and southwestern Madagascar. Fires were used to open landscapes, control vegetation and create grazing areas.

This practice led to a progressive fragmentation of structurally rich bush and forest landscapes. For elephant birds, which as heavy, ground-dwelling herbivores depended on contiguous, productive habitats with stable water and food availability, this had far-reaching consequences. Refuges became isolated or disappeared entirely. For long-lived species with low reproductive rates, this process meant a continuous reduction of viable populations—even without intensive hunting. In this context, Fuller’s (2000) suggestion can also be situated that elephant birds were pushed into ever more remote and hard-to-access regions with increasing human presence—not through sudden persecution, but through long-term habitat change.

Climatic changes as an amplifier

A central finding of modern studies is that the disappearance of elephant birds coincides in time with a phase of pronounced climatic change. Models by Hansford (2017) show that the extinction timeframes of elephant birds—roughly 1,100 to 1,000 years ago—fall into a phase of intensified aridification that particularly affected the south and southwest of Madagascar.

Paleoecological studies show that Madagascar has experienced a long-term trend towards aridity since the Late Pleistocene. Isotope analyses by Tovondrafale et al. (2014) confirm this development and show a gradual aridification over long periods. At the same time, vegetation shifted: productive, moister bush and forest landscapes declined, while dry, spiny plant communities increased.

What is crucial here is the interaction between climate and human land use. Fire, clearing and landscape conversion reduced the ecological resilience of vegetation, while increasing dryness further limited its ability to recover. Refuges that had allowed elephant birds to survive earlier climatic fluctuations shrank or disappeared entirely.

Elephant birds thus already lived in a gradually deteriorating environmental context before human settlement and survived this phase for many millennia. Climate change alone therefore did not cause their extinction, but in the late Holocene it acted as a decisive amplifier of existing pressures.

Genetic analyses also suggest that elephant birds may have been only limited in their ability to adapt. Grealy et al. (2023) show a very low intraspecific genetic diversity, especially in Aepyornis maximus. Such genetic impoverishment reduces the ability of populations to respond to environmental change and increases vulnerability to stressors such as drought, habitat loss, or additional exploitation pressure.

Diseases and other fringe hypotheses

Introduced diseases or natural gas emissions have occasionally been discussed as possible contributors to the extinction of elephant birds. For both hypotheses, however, there is still no direct evidence.

The idea that harmful ground-level gas emissions—such as carbon dioxide or sulphur gases of volcanic or post-volcanic origin—could have led to the death of elephant birds has neither geological nor palaeontological support and can explain neither the delayed nor the regionally staggered extinction.

Diseases, too, are at most considered a possible additional stress factor. In Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar (1997), MacPhee & Marx point out that introduced domestic chickens and guinea fowl could potentially have acted as vectors if elephant birds lacked an evolutionary defence against such pathogens. While new pathogens may indeed have reached the island with humans, both palaeopathological evidence and archaeological indications of epidemic events are lacking. In the current specialist literature, these approaches play no major role.

Elephant birds in the context of Madagascar’s megafauna die-off

The extinction of elephant birds was not an isolated event, but part of a broad ecological upheaval in the late Holocene. At the same time, numerous other large vertebrate species disappeared, including several Malagasy hippos, giant tortoises, large lemurs, the giant fossa and endemic crocodiles. This pattern points to an island-wide megafauna collapse that particularly affected large, slowly reproducing species.

Studies such as Clarke et al. (2006) show that elephant birds were closely tied to certain vegetation types and stable freshwater resources. Such specialisations increase a species’ success under stable conditions, but make it particularly vulnerable to rapid environmental change.

Elephant birds had survived earlier massive climatic fluctuations—such as the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene—without going extinct. Conversely, they lived coexisting with humans for many millennia without a rapid collapse of their populations. This double observation makes it clear that neither climatic change nor human use alone is sufficient to explain the extinction of elephant birds. This is where Hansford’s (2017) interpretation comes in: he explicitly rejects monocausal explanations and describes the disappearance of elephant birds as the result of synergistic drivers of extinction: progressive landscape change through fire, clearing and land use, sporadic but long-term human pressure (hunting, egg collecting), and increasing climatic stress through aridification did not act in isolation, but reinforced one another.

Particularly decisive was the elephant birds’ life strategy itself. Slow growth, late sexual maturity and low reproductive rates made them highly vulnerable. Their extinction therefore appears not as a sudden catastrophe, but as the endpoint of a long process of ecological erosion.

The elephant birds thus exemplify Madagascar’s megafauna die-off as a whole: it was not a single factor that determined their fate, but the temporal coincidence of multiple processes that together overwhelmed the resilience of these unique large birds.

Between tradition and palaeontology—when did the elephant birds go extinct?

Already at the scientific first description of Aepyornis maximus, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire posed in 1851 a question that has accompanied research to this day:

“Such a gigantic species, which undoubtedly lived in an epoch not very remote from us in time, and of which one cannot even say with certainty that it has completely disappeared from the surface of the Earth—could it have persisted into this recent time without anything
revealing its existence to European naturalists?”

This uncertainty shaped the debate about the extinction date of elephant birds for more than a century. Historical reports, oral traditions and early natural-history speculations long faced modern palaeontological datings—sometimes with contradictory conclusions.

Flacourt: tradition rather than an eyewitness account

Central to the historical debate is the report of the French governor Étienne de Flacourt, who in 1658, in his Histoire de la grande isle Madagascar, mentions a bird named Vouron patra. The crucial question is: does Flacourt describe a still-living elephant bird—or does he merely record local stories about an animal that had already disappeared?

It is striking that Flacourt neither illustrates the Vouron patra nor describes it in comparable detail to other animals of Madagascar. While lemurs, tenrecs or the fossa are characterised extensively and depicted, the description of the giant bird is unusually brief. This suggests that Flacourt did not draw on personal observation but relied on oral reports from local informants.

Buffetaut (2018) also points out that Flacourt gives no indication of the extreme size of elephant-bird eggs. His mere comparison with ostrich eggs hardly fits Aepyornis maximus. Had Flacourt himself seen an elephant-bird egg, the enormous size difference would hardly have escaped him. The Vouron patra thus appears less as a zoological eyewitness description than as an ethnographically mediated memory of an animal that may already have been rare or even extinct.

At the same time, Flacourt does not explicitly describe the bird as gone. Rather, his account suggests that the Vouron patra was considered to exist—extremely shy, living in inaccessible regions and hard to catch. These phrasings can be read as indications of a population already strongly declining, or of an extinction that, from a local perspective, was not long past.

Hansford (2017), however, notes that Flacourt’s report comes more than 500 years after the upper bounds of all modelled extinction dates. He interprets the Vouron patra very likely as not a contemporary observation but a cultural memory of an animal that had already disappeared. A short-term survival of isolated relict populations cannot be ruled out in theory, but is not demonstrable archaeologically or palaeontologically.

Historical interpretations of a late extinction

Building on Flacourt’s report, several authors developed the idea of a very late extinction of elephant birds. Akimuschkin (1981), for example, speculated that missionaries around 1860 may still have heard the animals’ trumpet-like call from swampy forests. Heuvelmans (1995) pointed to seemingly “fresh” eggs and bones, and to oral traditions according to which the birds had retreated into the densest forests.

Day (1981), Hume (2017), Ashby (2017) and Fuller (2000) also did not entirely rule out survival into the 17th or even 18th century. What these assessments have in common, however, is that they rely on indirect indications: subjective impressions of freshness, historical analogies and oral traditions. Archaeologically robust evidence for such late survival is lacking.

Milne-Edwards (1895) already assumed a relatively young extinction. He pointed to cut marks on bones and concluded that elephant birds had lived alongside humans. Thus, long before modern dating methods, he formulated the hypothesis of an anthropogenic extinction.

Radiocarbon data: an extinction in the early Middle Ages

A decisive basis for temporal classification is provided by the synthesis study of Burney et al. (2004), which evaluated 278 absolute age determinations from across Madagascar. The dates were based mainly on radiocarbon measurements of bones, teeth and eggshells of extinct large animals, including elephant birds, supplemented by dates from sediments, plant remains, speleothems and pottery. They show clearly: elephant birds were still alive at the time of the first human settlement of the island. The earliest secured human presence dates to around 350 BC, while remains of Aepyornis and Mullerornis are detectable until near the end of the first millennium AD.

Environmental archives support this picture. The decline of Sporormiella spores from the 3rd century AD onward suggests a gradual collapse of megafauna. The extinction of elephant birds was thus not an abrupt event, but a process stretched over centuries.

Hansford (2017) subjected the data basis to a critical re-evaluation. He showed that a frequently cited “late” extinction date in the 12th to 13th century is based on a single, methodologically problematic radiocarbon date and is not tenable. Instead, he analysed a large number of high-quality datasets using statistical extinction models.

The result: Aepyornis maximus survived somewhat longer and probably went extinct between about 900 and 1000 AD, i.e. in the early Middle Ages. Mullerornis modestus and Aepyornis hildebrandti probably disappeared already before or around the 9th century AD.

That the largest elephant-bird form survived the longest need not be a contradiction. Very large, long-lived species are often less susceptible to hunting and can persist longer in sparsely populated refuges, whereas smaller species may come under use pressure and habitat loss earlier.

Regional differences and the end of a long process

More recent studies also point to regional differences in the course of extinction. Isotope analyses from southern Madagascar (Tovondrafale et al. 2014) show particularly strong signals of drought and environmental stress, while other regions may have offered favourable conditions longer. This raises the possibility that elephant birds did not disappear everywhere at the same time, but that their retreat was staggered over different landscapes. Such regional differences could also explain why historical reports and oral traditions convey the impression that the animals survived longer in remote areas.

A large-scale context is provided by the study by Hansford, Lister, Weston & Turvey (2021). The authors show that the disappearance of elephant birds coincides in time with intense, human-driven landscape transformations in which forests were converted on a large scale into open pastureland and agricultural areas.

This pattern runs parallel to the extinction of other Malagasy mega-herbivores, including hippos and giant tortoises. The disappearance of elephant birds thus appears not as an abrupt event after the first human settlement, but as the endpoint of an ecological upheaval acting over centuries, in which biological vulnerability and anthropogenic impacts were inextricably intertwined.

No historical survival, but a late extinction

According to current research, elephant birds did not go extinct in prehistoric times, but only around 1,000 years ago, in the early Middle Ages. A secured survival into the 17th century or beyond, however, cannot be demonstrated with the archaeological and palaeontological data available.

At the same time, Flacourt’s report shows that elephant birds—or at least very concrete ideas of them—were still firmly anchored in the knowledge of the Malagasy population in the 17th century. The species is not described as a long-gone being, but as a shy bird that had retreated into remote regions. This suggests that the extinction—if it had already happened—was not long ago from a local perspective.

Archaeological finds cannot yet confirm such very late survival, but they also do not completely rule it out. Future discoveries—such as younger radiocarbon dates from regions so far little studied—could still change this picture.

Regardless of this, it is well documented that humans and elephant birds coexisted for many millennia—from the first demonstrable contacts more than 10,000 years ago to their final disappearance in the late Holocene. Their extinction was not a single event, but a long process with regional differences, in which ecological pressures, human impacts and low biological resilience interacted.

Elephant-bird remains in museums

“Elephant-bird eggs are often displayed in natural history museums. As the world’s largest eggs, they fit the motif of the ‘wonders of nature’ that has shaped natural-history collections since their beginnings as cabinets of curiosities.”

Dolly Jørgensen (2025)

Elephant-bird eggs still count among the most striking and most observed objects of natural history museums worldwide. Their extreme size makes them ideal exhibit pieces that evoke amazement and capture attention. Already in the late 19th century they entered museum collections and private collections, where they were presented not only as scientific evidence but also as spectacular testimonies of a supposedly “lost nature”. Given their dimensions, it is hardly surprising that it was the eggs that early attracted public and scientific interest—far more than individual bone fragments or isolated skeletal elements.

Hardly any other elephant-bird remain shows so clearly how scientific questions, colonial collecting practices and museum staging influenced each other. The eggs functioned as research objects, collecting trophies and emotional anchor points in exhibition practice.

In addition to the eggs, museums also preserve subfossil bone fragments and in some cases nearly complete elephant-bird skeletons. Because no preserved specimens exist, some institutions also resort to life-size reconstructions to vividly convey the body plan and scale of these extinct birds. Such reconstructions necessarily replace missing soft tissues and feathers and remain approximations, but they reflect the current state of scientific interpretation.

Among the most important collections are several European and international natural history museums. The Natural History Museum in London has extensive skeletal remains and several eggs; the Natural History Museum at Tring holds, among other things, a skeleton of Aepyornis hildebrandti as well as bones of Aepyornis maximus. Other important holdings are, among others, in Oxford and Cambridge.

A central role is played by the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, which houses numerous skeletons, bone remains and eggs of elephant birds. The natural history museums in Nantes and Marseille also hold corresponding collections.

Particularly significant is the Natural History Museum of Madagascar in Antananarivo. It preserves many locally recovered finds, including nearly complete skeletons and extensive bone series. These collections provide the most direct link between museum objects and their landscape of origin and today form an important basis for research and education on site.

In addition, elephant-bird remains are found in many other museums worldwide, including in Port Louis (Mauritius), Vienna, Leiden, Oslo, Stockholm, Breslau, Glasgow, Denver and Cambridge (Massachusetts). The wide distribution of these finds reflects not only international scientific interest but also the historical dynamics of collecting and distribution that continue to shape the museum presence of elephant birds today.

---

Sources

• Akimuschkin, I. (1981). Vom Aussterben bedroht? Tiertragödien vom Menschen ausgelöst. VEB F. A. Brockhaus Verlag (Leipzig); Progress Publishers (Moscow).
• Amadon, D. (1947). An estimated weight of the largest known bird. Condor, 49, 159–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/1364110
• Andrews, C. W. (1896). On the skull, sternum, and shoulder-girdle of Æpyornis. Ibis, 38, 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1896.tb07069.x
• Ashby, J. (2017). Animal Kingdom. A Natural History in 100 Objects. The History Press.
• Balanoff, A. M., & Rowe, T. (2007). Osteological Description of an Embryonic Skeleton of the Extinct Elephant Bird, Aepyornis (Palaeognathae: Ratitae). Memoir (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology), 9, 1–53.
  https://doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[1:ODOAES]2.0.CO;2
• Buffetaut, E. (2018). Elephant Birds Under the Sun King? Etienne de Flacourt and the Vouron patra. Boletim do Centro Português de Geo-História e Pré-História, 1(1), 13–19.
• Buffetaut, E. (2019). Early illustrations of Aepyornis eggs (1851-1887): from popular science to Marco Polo’s roc bird. Anthropozoologica 2019(12), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.5252/anthropozoologica2019v54a12
• Burney, D. A., James, H. F., Grady, F. V., et al. (1997). Environmental change, extinction and human activity: Evidence from caves in northwestern Madagascar. Journal of Biogeography, 24(6), 755–767. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.1997.00146.x
• Burney, D. A., Burney, L. P., Godfrey, L. R., et al. (2004). A chronology for late prehistoric Madagascar. Journal of Human Evolution, 47(1–2), 25–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.05.005
• Chinsamy, A., Angst, D., Canoville, A., & Göhlich, U. B. (2020). Bone histology yields insights into the biology of the extinct elephant birds (Aepyornithidae) from Madagascar. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 130(2), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blaa013
• Clarke, S. J., Miller, G. H., Fogel, M. L., et al. (2006). The amino acid and stable isotope biogeochemistry of elephant bird (Aepyornis) eggshells from southern Madagascar. Quaternary Science Reviews, 25(17–18), 2343–2356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.03.018
• Day, D. (1981). The Doomsday Book of Animals: A Natural History of Vanished Species. London: Ebury Press.
• de Ricqlès, A., Bourdon, E., Legendre, L. J., & Cubo, J. (2016). Preliminary assessment of bone histology in the extinct elephant bird Aepyornis (Aves, Palaeognathae) from Madagascar. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 15(1–2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.02.001
• Flacourt, Étienne de. (1658). Histoire de la Grande Isle Madagascar. Paris: Gervais Clouzier.
• Fuller, E. (2000). Extinct birds. Oxford University Press.
• Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I. (1851). Note sur des ossements et des œufs trouvés à Madagascar, dans des alluvions modernes, et provenant d’un oiseau gigantesque. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, 32(4), 101–107.
• Goodman, S. M., & Patterson, B. D. (Eds.). (1997). Natural change and human impact in Madagascar. Smithsonian Institution Press.
• Grealy, A., Miller, G. H., Phillips, M. J., et al. (2023). Molecular exploration of fossil eggshell uncovers hidden lineage of giant extinct bird. Nature Communications, 14, 914. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36405-3
• Hansford, J. P. (2017). Diversity and extinction in Aepyornithidae (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton). University of Southampton.
• Hansford, J. P., & Turvey, S. T. (2018). Unexpected diversity within the extinct elephant birds (Aves: Aepyornithidae) and a new identity for the world’s largest bird. Royal Society Open Science, 5(9), 181295. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181295
• Hansford, J., Wright, P. C., Rasoamiaramanana, A., et al. (2018). Early Holocene human presence in Madagascar evidenced by exploitation of avian megafauna. Science Advances, 4(9), eaat6925. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat6925
• Hansford, J., Lister, A. M., Weston, E. M., & Turvey, S. T. (2021). Simultaneous extinction of Madagascar’s megaherbivores correlates with late Holocene human-caused landscape transformation. Quaternary Science Reviews, 263, 106996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.106996
• Hartlaub, G. (1868). Report on achievements in the natural history of birds during the year 1867. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 34(2), 159–206.
• Heuvelmans, B. (1995). On the tracks of unknown animals. Kegan Paul International.
• Hume, J. P. (2017). Extinct birds. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Jørgensen, D. (2025). Ghosts behind the Glass. Encountering Extinction in Museums. The University of Chicago Press.
• Long, J. A., Vickers-Rich, P., Hirsch, K., et al. (1998). The Cervantes egg: an early Malagasy tourist to Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum, 19(1), 39–46.
• MacPhee, R. D. E., & Marx, R. A. (1997). The 40,000 year plague: humans, hyperdisease, and first contact extinctions, in: S. M. Goodman and B. D. Patterson (eds.), Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar, 169–217. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
• Meyer, A. B., & Heller, K. M. (1900). Aepyornis-Eier. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Königlichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Ethnographischen Museums zu Dresden, 9, pp. 1–8.
• Midgley, J. J., & Illing, N. (2009). Were Malagasy Uncarina fruits dispersed by the extinct elephant bird? South African Journal of Science, 105(11–12), 467–469.
• Milne-Edwards, A. (1895). Les animaux de Madagascar. Conférence faite au Muséum. Revue générale des Sciences pures et appliquées, 6(15), 693–707.
• Milne-Edwards, A., & Grandidier, A. (1894). Observations sur les Aepyornis de Madagascar. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 118, 122–127.
• Mitchell, K. J., Llamas, B., Soubrier, J., et al. (2014). Ancient DNA reveals elephant birds and kiwi are sister taxa and clarifies ratite bird evolution. Science, 344(6186), 898–900. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251981
• Parker Pearson, M. (Ed.). (2010). Pastoralists, warriors and colonists: The archaeology of southern Madagascar. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress.
• Rothschild, W. (1907). Extinct birds. Hutchinson & Co.
• Strickland, H. E., & Melville, A. G. (1848). The dodo and its kindred; or, The history, affinities, and osteology of the dodo, solitaire, and other extinct birds of the islands Mauritius, Rodriguez and Bourbon. Reeve, Benham, and Reeve.
• Torres, C. R., & Clarke, J. A. (2018). Nocturnal giants: Evolution of the sensory ecology in elephant birds and other palaeognaths inferred from digital brain reconstructions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1890), 20181540. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1540
• Tovondrafale, T., Razakamanana, T., Hiroko, K., & Rasoamiaramanana, A. (2014). Paleoecological analysis of elephant bird (Aepyornithidae) remains from the Late Pleistocene and Holocene formations of southern Madagascar. Malagasy Nature, 8, 1–13.
• Worthy, T. H., & Holdaway, R. N. (2002). The lost world of the moa: Prehistoric life of New Zealand. Indiana University Press.