|
Post by Grey on Mar 5, 2014 23:22:56 GMT 5
The Dunk is quite powerful build and that bite looks nasty. It's also a bit bigger than the GWS on average. Dunk wins 8/10 IMO. Guys, can you read the discussions ? It seems like it is not that big.
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 6, 2014 3:21:05 GMT 5
The Dunk is quite powerful build and that bite looks nasty. It's also a bit bigger than the GWS on average. Dunk wins 8/10 IMO. Guys, can you read the discussions ? It seems like it is not that big. Out of curiosity, what is the average size of a female GWS? 4,5 meters and 1 tonne is my guess.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 6, 2014 3:40:49 GMT 5
From the IUCN :
Lengths at maturity for both sexes remain somewhat undetermined and based on (currently limited) age-growth data it may be possible that different populations mature at varying lengths. The majority of females mature at between 450-500 cm total length (TL) (Francis 1996), but have been reported as immature at sizes as much as 472-490 cm long (Springer 1939, Compagno 2001). Males mature at about 350-410 cm (Pratt 1996, Compagno 2001).
The average size of adults females is thus a bit higher than this.
On the hand, Dunk is apparently published at up to 6 m, the weights estimates blaze reported are a bit lower than the white shark by comparison.
I'm still wondering where does come from the 9-10 m, 4 tonnes estimates though.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 6, 2014 19:04:12 GMT 5
10 m is based on outdated reconstructions which assume a very small head.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 1, 2015 9:58:00 GMT 5
I'm gonna hate myself for reviving this thread, but the topic seemed too interesting to the point where I couldn't help it. Firstly, I've seen two studies with different bite force estimates for Dunkleosteus. On one hand, "A biomechanical model of feeding kinematics for Dunkleosteus terrelli (Arthrodira, Placodermi)" (Anderson & Westneat, 2009) ended up with ~6kN at the tips of the anterior plates and ~7.4kN at the posterior blades. On the other hand, "Feeding mechanics and bite force modelling of the skull of Dunkleosteus terrelli, an ancient apex predator" (Anderson & Westneat, 2007) (so apparently a previous study by these two authors) ended up with ~4.4kN at the anterior plates and ~5.3kN at the posterior blades. Which estimate would be closer to Dunkleosteus' actual bite force? Furthermore, considering how a great white not only supposedly bites harder than Dunkleosteus but like it also had dentition (or in the case of the placoderm, bony plates fulfilling a similar function to teeth) that would excel at causing massive soft tissue damage, would it be safe to say Carcharodon could/would actually outbite Dunkleosteus?
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 1, 2015 15:10:15 GMT 5
I can't tell it for sure because I didn't study the skull, but I would take the newer version since it can be seen as a revision.
And yes, you can say that.
P.S. I know that this post is not really helpful, but I guess it is still nice to hear that someone else agrees with your ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 4, 2015 8:55:50 GMT 5
Is the bite force taken in the dry conditions or in aquatic conditions? Because in aquatic conditions bite force tends to be significantly lower, as water slows down the velocity at which the jaws press shut.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 4, 2015 15:40:49 GMT 5
Is the bite force taken in the dry conditions or in aquatic conditions? Because in aquatic conditions bite force tends to be significantly lower, as water slows down the velocity at which the jaws press shut. I don't know, but this only matters for bite force peaks created by an impact, not adductor force powered by a sustained muscle action.
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 9, 2015 11:31:49 GMT 5
That is true. The initial peak force produced when the jaws shut close is effected and lower in water. However, once the jaws are clamped on, then it matters little whether it is in the water or on land (no difference in force).
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Apr 10, 2015 21:49:34 GMT 5
Doesn't Dunkleosteus have a relatively small gape and overall mouth, comparative to its size? Plus, I think it was more adapted to cracking hardshelled crustaceans rather than actively feeding on large prey. It was not an extraordinarily fast fish either, although its frontal armor suggests it had some exposure/need for combat.
If Dunkleosteus has a small gape, I think it would be difficult to inflict a large enough injury on the shark to kill it. On the other hand, great whites are well known for attacking hind regions and tails of large pinniped and cetacean prey, so I think the fish's tail region would be very vulnerable to the great white.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 7, 2015 6:04:44 GMT 5
I came across Tylosaurus vs. Dunkleosteus on Carnivora again and in one of the comments blaze says the latter only had a gape of ~30cm.
Is there a reference I can see for this? If it's true, I guess the placoderm's at yet another noteworthy disadvantage.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Nov 8, 2015 0:32:54 GMT 5
No reference per se, I just measured the distance (scaled to the largest specimen) between each jaw blade tip in the figures showing the jaws at maximum gape from, I think, Anderson & Westneat (2009).
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 8, 2015 1:26:37 GMT 5
Oh, alright then.
I'm confident that Carcharodon would outbite Dunkleosteus here. Although the placoderm's head region is obviously better protected than the shark's, everywhere else is unarmored.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 5:00:21 GMT 5
I think Dunk wins this pretty easily
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 21:59:24 GMT 5
Easy win for Dunkleosteus. It's 4 times larger
|
|