|
Post by elosha11 on May 24, 2019 6:02:10 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on May 24, 2019 8:56:38 GMT 5
Huh. Interesting eye placement. I believed it would have looked more like this:
Edit: A bigger picture of the model
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 24, 2019 9:47:22 GMT 5
Already posted in the Meg thread. I expect for other pictures soon.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 5, 2019 4:30:56 GMT 5
Gigantic tooth fragment. One can wonder the original size. Compared with a 7 3/8 inches tooth from South Carolina.
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Jun 5, 2019 5:04:00 GMT 5
Looks like it could have exceeded 7 1/2 inches.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 5, 2019 5:20:05 GMT 5
You'll have to excuse me for asking (who has time to read 83 pages?) but what is the biggest tooth/jaw found as of yet?
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 6, 2019 11:17:47 GMT 5
You'll have to excuse me for asking (who has time to read 83 pages?) but what is the biggest tooth/jaw found as of yet? There are several candidates for teeth. One is around 7.25 inches in slant height (Hubbell tooth), another around 7.57 inches (Bertucci tooth), and there are quite a few 7+ inch teeth in private collections. There's also one that appears to be measured at very close to 8 inches, although that's not an official measurement. Current research indicates the shark's length estimate should be based on the width of the tooth rather than the height.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 7, 2019 3:45:58 GMT 5
Hans Sues saw one near 8 inches at a forum at Tucson.
I think the fragment above could come from a 8 incher.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 7, 2019 13:11:03 GMT 5
Here's the approx 8 inch one I was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 7, 2019 13:12:32 GMT 5
Hans Sues saw one near 8 inches at a forum at Tucson. I think the fragment above could come from a 8 incher. I assume he didn't get any pics or measurements, or the owner's name? Would be awesome to follow up on such a rare tooth.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 8, 2019 3:37:21 GMT 5
Gary Staab says the teeth in the 52 ft meg are 4.5 inches. Scale them at 7 inches, well 80 ft...
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 8, 2019 9:15:12 GMT 5
Gary Staab says the teeth in the 52 ft meg are 4.5 inches. Scale them at 7 inches, well 80 ft... Yes, I was going to comment and question about that. People used to roughly estimate that 1 inch of tooth equals 10 feet of Megalodon. Most experts seem find that as an overestimate today. But this estimation is even more extreme? How'd they come up with that?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 8, 2019 17:49:21 GMT 5
They simply saw that the dentition fits easily in the model. I wouldn t say 1 inch=10 ft is considered an overestimate, it is simply unprecise. Our own estimates are quite comparable in ratio. I should ask Staab the width of the first upper.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 9, 2019 8:56:49 GMT 5
^ Nice, yet another good point that might (informally) support Leder, Perez, and your coming publication. Actually, I think you might want to cite to the Smithsonian model as supporting evidence for your research, given its obviously scientific rendering and advisers. Could make a powerful secondary argument for your paper.
I also noticed the teeth did not really look out of place on a 52 foot shark. They certainly weren't tiny, but I would never have guessed they were "only" 4.5 inches. I thought they'd be 5.5 to 6 inches. More and more evidence suggesting Megalodon was significantly larger than 18 meter common max size given today.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 9, 2019 16:12:02 GMT 5
Yes I already informed the coworkers about that ratio in the model close to what indicates our dentitions.
|
|