|
|
Post by sam1 on May 26, 2018 13:59:06 GMT 5
Well, here I am. Took me a while to find this, as it isn't where I expected it to be(Livyatan vs Megalodon topic).
|
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on May 26, 2018 14:01:40 GMT 5
Where is he getting the idea that Livyatan's hunting method was "almost certainly more ramming-oriented that that of the P. macrocephalus"...? Sperm Whales don't ram squids. It would be pointless to even try. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on May 26, 2018 20:10:12 GMT 5
Thanks for posting Sam1! I concur that we should probably move the specific Livytan v. Meg stuff from this thread to the interspecific conflict thread, as that's a more logical place for it. Life/Creature 386, do either of you know how to do that? As for Ausar's question and your response, I concur that Livytan's presumed predatory lifestyle would lend it more to ramming style attacks than a sperm whale hunting squid. As you state, there's really no reason to ram a squid. The caveat being it is still possible that sperm whales, having a presumed larger head than Livyatan, may still have had a more potent ramming ability than Livyatan, which admittedly would still have probably been very formidable at ramming itself. Here's an more research oriented article discussing the potency of the sperm whale ram. www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/sperm-whale’s-head-built-ramming. The gist seems to be they develop this primarily for battles over mating rights. Perhaps Livytan bulls also engaged in similar contests. Interestingly enough, there have been several fossil whale centra that have been found with what appears to be fractures that may have been caused by ramming. Stephen Godfrey wrote a paper about one such incident and surmised that it may have been a failed Megalodon predatory attack (if I recall correctly, the bones showed signs of healing). But of course, there's no way to verify this, and it's also possible that this could evidence a Livyatan attack (or a similar type of predatory whale). I believe either the whale or shark could have caused such injuries, if only from their mere size colliding with a smaller prey target. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 27, 2018 0:01:34 GMT 5
Interestingly enough, there have been several fossil whale centra that have been found with what appears to be fractures that may have been caused by ramming. Stephen Godfrey wrote a paper about one such incident and surmised that it may have been a failed Megalodon predatory attack (if I recall correctly, the bones showed signs of healing). But of course, there's no way to verify this, and it's also possible that this could evidence a Livyatan attack (or a similar type of predatory whale). I believe either the whale or shark could have caused such injuries, if only from their mere size colliding with a smaller prey target. The whale bone described by Godfrey was from the Chesapeake Bay. It is reasonable to suspect Livyatan sp. were cosmpolitan bu given the sheer absence of gigantic raptorial sperm whales in this region, while there are numerous teeth of 8-10 m raptorial sperm whales (Gilbert 2018) ,I think the most likely culprit, if there is a culprit at all, is the giant shark. Glad to read you here sam1 |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on May 27, 2018 1:33:29 GMT 5
Where is he getting the idea that Livyatan's hunting method was "almost certainly more ramming-oriented that that of the P. macrocephalus"...? Sperm Whales don't ram squids. It would be pointless to even try. That...actually makes sense. Sorry about that, silly me. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 20, 2018 16:21:44 GMT 5
I'd wait for a paper by that guy or some reference. Or at least more detail. A few sentences in an interview are not much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 20, 2018 16:40:28 GMT 5
Oh, I actually deleted my post before I saw your post (decided it wasn’t worth my time). I don’t want to make you look crazy, so for those wondering, this was what I originally posted. www.livescience.com/63361-megalodon-facts.htmlI think the paleontologist was referring to Pimiento’s paper (which we’ve scrutinized earlier in this thread). |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 21, 2018 6:49:14 GMT 5
It is surprising to read the bulls@it some scientists can write sometimes.
Megalodon maximum size is nowhere indicated to be 10 m. Even 18 m is not actually an official maximum size estimate but the size of a "large" specimen from Gatun...which actually should result in 19.5 m.
The only maximum size proposed in the literature is the range of 16-20 m by Gottfried 1996 and this was based on a large tooth but not the largest.
Calculations using whole fossil dentitions and comparing with the largest teeth in records suggest the largest specimens could, theoretically, reach 20 m and more.
|
|
