Great White Shark vs Liopleurodon ferox

[Vodmeister]

Great White Shark

The great white shark, The great white shark, scientific name Carcharodon carcharias, also known as the great white, white pointer, white shark, or white death, is a large lamniform shark found in coastal surface waters in all major oceans. It is known for its size, with the largest individuals known to have approached or exceeded 6 metres (20 ft) in length, and 2,268 kilograms (5,000 lb) in weight. This shark reaches maturity at around 15 years of age and can have a life span of over 30 years. The great white shark is arguably the world's largest known extant macropredatory fish and is one of the primary predators of marine mammals. It is also known to prey upon a variety of other marine animals including fish, pinnipeds, and seabirds. It is the only known surviving species of its genus, Carcharodon, and is ranked first in a list of number of recorded attacks on humans. The IUCN treats the great white shark as vulnerable, while it is included in Appendix II of CITES. Great white sharks live in almost all coastal and offshore waters which have water temperature between 12 and 24 °C (54 and 75 °F), with greater concentrations in the United States (Atlantic Northeast and California), South Africa, Japan, Australia (especially New South Wales and South Australia), New Zealand, Chile, and the Mediterranean. One of the densest known populations is found around Dyer Island, South Africa where much shark research is conducted. It is an epipelagic fish, observed mostly in the presence of rich game like fur seals, sea lions, cetaceans, other sharks, and large bony fish species. In the open ocean it has been recorded at depths as great as 1,220 m (4,000 ft). These findings challenge the traditional notion about the great white as being a coastal species. According to a recent study, California great whites have migrated to an area between Baja California and Hawaii known as White Shark Café to spend at least 100 days before migrating back to Baja. On the journey out, they swim slowly and dive down to around 900 m (3,000 ft). After they arrive, they change behavior and do short dives to about 300 m (1,000 ft) for up to 10 minutes. Another white shark tagged off the South African coast swam to the southern coast of Australia and back within the year. This refuted traditional theories that white sharks are coastal territorial predators and opens up the possibility of interaction between shark populations that were previously thought to be discrete. Why they migrate and what they do at their destination is still unknown. Possibilities include seasonal feeding or mating. The great white shark has a robust large conical snout. The upper and lower lobes on the tail fin are approximately the same size (like some mackerel sharks). Great whites display countershading, having a white underside and a grey dorsal area (sometimes in a brown or blue shade) that gives an overall mottled appearance. The coloration makes it difficult for prey to spot the shark because it breaks up the shark's outline when seen from the side. From above, the darker shade blends with the sea and from below it exposes a minimal silhouette against the sunlight. Great white sharks, like many other sharks, have rows of serrated teeth behind the main ones, ready to replace any that break off. When the shark bites it shakes its head side to side, helping the teeth saw off large chunks of flesh. It is widely accepted that the great white shark can reach 6.1 m (20 ft) in length and 1,900 kg (4,200 lb) in weight, with females being generally larger than males. The maximum size is subject to debate because some reports are rough estimations or speculations performed under questionable circumstances. Great white sharks are carnivorous and prey upon fish (e.g. tuna, rays, other sharks), cetaceans (i.e., dolphins, porpoises, whales), pinnipeds (e.g. seals, fur seals, and sea lions), sea turtles, sea otters, and seabirds. Great whites have also been known to eat objects that they are unable to digest. Although the great white is typically regarded as an apex predator in the wild, it is in rare cases preyed upon by the larger orca (also known as a killer whale).

Liopleurodon ferox

Liopleurodon (/?la?.??pl??r?d?n/; meaning 'smooth-sided teeth') is a genus of large, carnivorous marine reptile belonging to the Pliosauroidea, a clade of short-necked plesiosaurs. The two species of Liopleurodon lived during the Callovian stage of the Middle Jurassic Period (c. 160 to 155 mya). It was the apex predator of the Middle to Late Jurassic seas that covered Europe. The largest species, L. ferox, is estimated to have grown up to 6.4 metres (21.0 ft) in length and have weighed up to 2,500 kg (5,500 lbs).
Currently, there are two recognized species within Liopleurodon. From the Callovian of England and France L. ferox is well known; while also from the Callovian of England is the rarer L. pachydeirus, described by Seeley as a Pliosaurus (1869). Only L. ferox is known from more or less complete skeletons.
The genus name Liopleurodon was coined by Henri Émile Sauvage in 1873 on the basis of very poor remains consisting of three 70 millimeter teeth. One tooth, found near Boulogne-sur-Mer, France in layers dating from the Callovian, was named Liopleurodon ferox, another from Charly, France was named Liopleurodon grossouvrei, while a third discovered near Caen, France was originally described as Poikilopleuron bucklandi and ascribed by Sauvage to the species Liopleurodon bucklandi. Sauvage did not ascribe the genus to any particular group of reptiles in his descriptions.
Four strong paddle-like limbs suggest that Liopleurodon was a powerful swimmer. Its four-flipper mode of propulsion is characteristic of all plesiosaurs. A study involving a swimming robot has demonstrated that although this form of propulsion is not especially efficient, it provides very good acceleration - a desirable trait in an ambush predator. Studies of the skull have shown that it could probably scan the water with its nostrils to ascertain the source of certain smells.
In 1999, Liopleurodon was featured in an episode the BBC television series Walking with Dinosaurs, which depicted it as an enormous 25 m (82 ft) long animal. However, this is not considered to be accurate for any species of Liopleurodon.

[creature386]

At parity, this is a very close matchup (both have impressive weaponry), but Liopleurodon seems to be a little bit heavier, so I favor it.

[Grey]

Liopleurodon has a potentially substantial size advantage if we take into account some fragmentary individuals. The great white would represent a dangerous foe, but Liopleurodon is nearer of the orca league.

[Deleted]

Latter is slightly stronger.

[creature386]

In what way? Jaw strength, swimming strength or something else?

[dinosauria101]

I say Liopleurodon in shallower water, great white in deeper water

[elosha11]

Ok, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue for and vote for the shark. It's a really close contest based on what we know, so either animal could be favored. I'm kind of surprised this poll is 4 to 0 in favor of Liopleurodon (and I'm equally surprised I have never weighted in on this before). Everything I say here is largely dependent upon max size of the reptile being 6.1 meters and 2500 kgs, which nicely fits into almost exactly the GWS's size range. There have been at least 4 or 5 GWS weighed or credibly estimated (based on such things as water displacement, or detailed volumetric measurements) as 2500+ kgs. Now if evidence materializes that Liopleurodon could get much bigger, my opinion will change accordingly. As I stated in pertinent part in another recent thread, (from which I've added a bit more detail in below copy)

... I've always wondered about GWS v. Liopleruodon. If it's true that Liuplerudon COMMONLY reached 2.5 tons than, yes it would likely dominate GWS, as it would be - on average - quite a bit larger. But if that's a max size, not commonly reached, that puts it on par with modern GWS (who are, in turn, smaller today than those GWS recent prehistory), who can on occasion reach or even exceed 2.5 tons. Given that GWS, as all life, is negatively affect by humanity, it may in fact be suffering an "unnatural" disadvantage, in that in a pristine, prehuman ocean environment, GWS appeared to be quite a bit larger than those today. So in a "natural" unspoiled-by-human setting, (such as Lioplerudon enjoyed) the GWS may have actually been the larger animal.

Still, it's quite clear the sizes of the animals largely overlap. So what else to look at. The closest analogy would appear to the Ginsu shark and similar sized mosasaurs. While the common theory is that mosasaurs outcompeted, outproduced, and maybe drove the sharks to extinction (and I'm a bit skeptical of that, although mosasaurs could have been a contributing factor), the fossil records actually contains far more evidence of Ginsu shark feeding on and predation (based on healed bite marks) on mosasaurs. And not just small ones, the ocean of kansas website has several quite large mosasaurs of 6 to 8 meters bitten in half or otherwise heavily damaged by Ginsu sharks (which left both bite marks and their identifying teeth in the fossil mosasaur vertebrae, flippers, jaws and other parts). So the evidence may suggest that Ginsu sharks were actually a major threat to mosasaurs in the shark's own size range. Where mosasaurs may have had the advantage was in faster reproduction and ultimately in growing to larger sizes (40-50 feet) than even the biggest Ginsu sharks (25 + feet) could handle.

This isn't a perfect analogy. Ginsu sharks are larger than GWS, and likely more aggressive (given the hostile/predator-rich environment it lived in, how could it not be?) and mosasaurs are not the same as Liopleurodons, although I cannot guess which one of the reptiles would have been more formidable at parity sizes. But it does suggest that large predatory sharks may have an advantage. For one thing, I still think lamnid sharks are likely heavier at the same length than mosasaurs or pliosaurs (may be less of a difference for the latter). That extra size may have been an advantage when the animals were the same lengths.

Now, I also see Grey's comment above that some fragmentary evidence suggests Lioplerudon ferox was much larger than the shark and closer in size to the orca. Grey could you provide more detail on that? It would be helpful and if that source(s) is accurate, my vote will obviously change. But for now, I'm going with the 2500 kgs estimate for the reptile.

Now I'm going to respond to dinosauria101's post on this topic in the "Could a predator game" thread, quoted below.

Anyhow.......the shark would likely be driven to extinction and the whales into tight competition (I say that because female killer whale vs 1-1.7 ton Liopleurodon on Carnivora was about 50/50) if a 2.5 ton Liopleurodon existed there.

I'll have to review the carnivora thread, but that's truly what they've said, it's ridiculous. A large 2000 kg GWS would likely have a decided advantage over a 1-1.7 Lioplerudon. A 3 to 5 ton female orca would likely dominate and kill the far smaller reptile readily. Not to say its jaws are not formidable or that it wasn't a good swimmer but it would be THREE TO FIVE times smaller than the orca. I respect a number of posters on carnivora, but their knowledge of oceanic predators in general is far less than their knowledge of land-based predators.

[Infinity Blade]

I wonder if dinosauria101 was referring to the polls being 50/50 or if posters in the past have actually said that. It's something I might expect of the posters less knowledgable or less specialized on pliosaurs and other marine macropredators back in 2011 or 2012. No disrespect to them, necessarily.

[dinosauria101]

Jul 2, 2019 21:00:57 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

I wonder if dinosauria101 was referring to the polls being 50/50 or if posters in the past have actually said that. 

I meant the second one. So......

elosha11 you can't access that. It's on the old site from which you've (and I've) been banned. Probably should've been a bit clearer with that

EDIT: I meant the comments

[dinosauria101]

Jul 2, 2019 20:02:55 GMT 5 elosha11 said:

Ok, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and argue for and vote for the shark. It's a really close contest based on what we know, so either animal could be favored. I'm kind of surprised this poll is 4 to 0 in favor of Liopleurodon (and I'm equally surprised I have never weighted in on this before). Everything I say here is largely dependent upon max size of the reptile being 6.1 meters and 2500 kgs, which nicely fits into almost exactly the GWS's size range. There have been at least 4 or 5 GWS weighed or credibly estimated (based on such things as water displacement, or detailed volumetric measurements) as 2500+ kgs. Now if evidence materializes that Liopleurodon could get much bigger, my opinion will change accordingly. As I stated in pertinent part in another recent thread, (from which I've added a bit more detail in below copy)

... I've always wondered about GWS v. Liopleruodon. If it's true that Liuplerudon COMMONLY reached 2.5 tons than, yes it would likely dominate GWS, as it would be - on average - quite a bit larger. But if that's a max size, not commonly reached, that puts it on par with modern GWS (who are, in turn, smaller today than those GWS recent prehistory), who can on occasion reach or even exceed 2.5 tons. Given that GWS, as all life, is negatively affect by humanity, it may in fact be suffering an "unnatural" disadvantage, in that in a pristine, prehuman ocean environment, GWS appeared to be quite a bit larger than those today. So in a "natural" unspoiled-by-human setting, (such as Lioplerudon enjoyed) the GWS may have actually been the larger animal.

Still, it's quite clear the sizes of the animals largely overlap. So what else to look at. The closest analogy would appear to the Ginsu shark and similar sized mosasaurs. While the common theory is that mosasaurs outcompeted, outproduced, and maybe drove the sharks to extinction (and I'm a bit skeptical of that, although mosasaurs could have been a contributing factor), the fossil records actually contains far more evidence of Ginsu shark feeding on and predation (based on healed bite marks) on mosasaurs. And not just small ones, the ocean of kansas website has several quite large mosasaurs of 6 to 8 meters bitten in half or otherwise heavily damaged by Ginsu sharks (which left both bite marks and their identifying teeth in the fossil mosasaur vertebrae, flippers, jaws and other parts). So the evidence may suggest that Ginsu sharks were actually a major threat to mosasaurs in the shark's own size range. Where mosasaurs may have had the advantage was in faster reproduction and ultimately in growing to larger sizes (40-50 feet) than even the biggest Ginsu sharks (25 + feet) could handle.

This isn't a perfect analogy. Ginsu sharks are larger than GWS, and likely more aggressive (given the hostile/predator-rich environment it lived in, how could it not be?) and mosasaurs are not the same as Liopleurodons, although I cannot guess which one of the reptiles would have been more formidable at parity sizes. But it does suggest that large predatory sharks may have an advantage. For one thing, I still think lamnid sharks are likely heavier at the same length than mosasaurs or pliosaurs (may be less of a difference for the latter). That extra size may have been an advantage when the animals were the same lengths.

Now, I also see Grey's comment above that some fragmentary evidence suggests Lioplerudon ferox was much larger than the shark and closer in size to the orca. Grey could you provide more detail on that? It would be helpful and if that source(s) is accurate, my vote will obviously change. But for now, I'm going with the 2500 kgs estimate for the reptile.

Now I'm going to respond to dinosauria101's post on this topic in the "Could a predator game" thread, quoted below.

Anyhow.......the shark would likely be driven to extinction and the whales into tight competition (I say that because female killer whale vs 1-1.7 ton Liopleurodon on Carnivora was about 50/50) if a 2.5 ton Liopleurodon existed there.

1: I'll have to review the carnivora thread, but that's truly what they've said, it's ridiculous. A large 2000 kg GWS would likely have a decided advantage over a 1-1.7 Lioplerudon. A 3 to 5 ton female orca would likely dominate and kill the far smaller reptile readily. Not to say its jaws are not formidable or that it wasn't a good swimmer but it would be THREE TO FIVE times smaller than the orca. 2: I respect a number of posters on carnivora, but their knowledge of oceanic predators in general is far less than their knowledge of land-based predators.

Well, couple of things:

1: I think the posters there were under the assumption of an up to 2.5 ton Liopleurodon compared with a 1,400 – 2,700 kg female killer whale (Wikipedia's weights, which Carnivora often uses, so it was just about parity

2: I agree. There were a few posters on the current Carnivora's Livyatan vs Megalodon thread who said great white vs killer whale is an easy shark win. Go check it out and you'll see EXACTLY what I mean

3: I could tag Grey to answer your question

Grey
Have you any more detail for the fragmentary 8-9 meter Liopleurodon fossils?

[Grey]

The largest specimen known by good remains is estimated at 6.4 m, and it is acknowledges, depending of the exactness of this data, that the whole species reaches 7 m.

There are some isolated teeth and vertebra that are variously described as Liopleurodon that suggests perhaps or perhaps not larger individuals.

But it is generally considered that Liopleurodon is great white class, not orca class.