denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Jan 3, 2020 21:38:13 GMT 5
I suggest talking to Harry the Fox, he just told me that. I don’t know where he got it from. But I trust Harry the Fox more than Grey., I I have to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jan 3, 2020 21:51:36 GMT 5
Grey's given you accurate information about Megalodon. I guess you will have to just wait for the Leder study.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Jan 3, 2020 21:57:33 GMT 5
Grey's given you accurate information about Megalodon. I guess you will have to just wait for the Leder study. There have been no macro predator that weighed over 50 tons. How can an animal like that exists. |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Jan 3, 2020 21:58:28 GMT 5
Grey's given you accurate information about Megalodon. I guess you will have to just wait for the Leder study. There have been no macro predator that weighed over 50 tons. How can an animal like that exists, a 50 ton shark likely couldn’t exists, makes no sense in my eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jan 3, 2020 22:23:08 GMT 5
Grey's given you accurate information about Megalodon. I guess you will have to just wait for the Leder study. There have been no macro predator that weighed over 50 tons. How can an animal like that exists, a 50 ton shark likely couldn’t exists, makes no sense in my eyes. We've been over this ad nauseaum with you, and explained our reasoning. It's fine for you to have that opinion, but don't expect others to necessarily agree. This will be my last comment on this, as I don't want to continue hijacking this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 4, 2020 0:33:05 GMT 5
Then use the sources they link rather than the blog. EDIT: Whoooo boy. Looked at the blog. It's a goldmine of comedy.
70 foot T.rex(!)
13.6 meter sue(!)
Saurophagnax (if it even exists) is a Carcharodontosaur
22 meter megalodons
15.7 meter wingspan for Quetz (!)
15 meter Kronosaurus 10 meter Spinosaurus 24 meter patagotitan (!) A good amount of these are basically retreading sizes thought to be attained by these animals half a century ago using one (possibly flawed) technique for scaling. There is some accurate stuff but it's basically like having a pearl buried under 10 pounds of cow manure. Almost none of the bibilography is sourcing papers on specimen size (not actually supporting the size of the dinosaur given by the blog's author nor the technique used) and a good amount of the papers give their own (Peer-reviewed, mind you) estimates for specimen size. So excuse me if I take that 'source' with a massive grain of salt. Megalodon weight has been downsized and only weighed 30-40 tonnes according to both Harry the Fox and Overleg. But I suggest please read it carefully because he did the math and it will be confusing. Also yeah according to some studies Spinosaurus wasn’t even the longest Spinosaur. Don’t know how to say the name? According to them, the largest Spinosaurus specimen wasn’t even Spinosaurus. The specimen used to determine Spinosaurus' record-breaking size is too similar to either to be accurately determined to be one specific species. If MSM Is not Spinosaurus, that means Spinosaurus still got to 11-12 meters, not 9-10 meters like he suggested. Even then, he gets under 15 meters for MSM.
Harry_The_Fox and Olveg are not scientists, and we have been over this multiple times. Shimada's study is likely faulty and is not the be all end all for Megalodon size. I don't care if you think it's not likely or if it doesn't make sense to you, that is the truth. That is my last comment about it on this thread.
The math used by the blog's author is faulty and generalizes multiple species using different animals with different body proportions. Just because he 'did the math' does not mean he is correct, as evidenced by him getting a maximum size for T.rex nearly TWICE what is scientifically accepted (And despite being 70 foot long it weighs just 3 tons more than Scotty and Sue!).
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Jan 4, 2020 1:06:30 GMT 5
Megalodon weight has been downsized and only weighed 30-40 tonnes according to both Harry the Fox and Overleg. But I suggest please read it carefully because he did the math and it will be confusing. Also yeah according to some studies Spinosaurus wasn’t even the longest Spinosaur. Don’t know how to say the name? According to them, the largest Spinosaurus specimen wasn’t even Spinosaurus. The specimen used to determine Spinosaurus' record-breaking size is too similar to either to be accurately determined to be one specific species. If MSM Is not Spinosaurus, that means Spinosaurus still got to 11-12 meters, not 9-10 meters like he suggested. Even then, he gets under 15 meters for MSM.
Harry_The_Fox and Olveg are not scientists, and we have been over this multiple times. Shimada's study is likely faulty and is not the be all end all for Megalodon size. I don't care if you think it's not likely or if it doesn't make sense to you, that is the truth. That is my last comment about it on this thread.
The math used by the blog's author is faulty and generalizes multiple species using different animals with different body proportions. Just because he 'did the math' does not mean he is correct, as evidenced by him getting a maximum size for T.rex nearly TWICE what is scientifically accepted (And despite being 70 foot long it weighs just 3 tons more than Scotty and Sue!).
We are done arguing but the size. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 4, 2020 1:09:14 GMT 5
The specimen used to determine Spinosaurus' record-breaking size is too similar to either to be accurately determined to be one specific species. If MSM Is not Spinosaurus, that means Spinosaurus still got to 11-12 meters, not 9-10 meters like he suggested. Even then, he gets under 15 meters for MSM.
Harry_The_Fox and Olveg are not scientists, and we have been over this multiple times. Shimada's study is likely faulty and is not the be all end all for Megalodon size. I don't care if you think it's not likely or if it doesn't make sense to you, that is the truth. That is my last comment about it on this thread.
The math used by the blog's author is faulty and generalizes multiple species using different animals with different body proportions. Just because he 'did the math' does not mean he is correct, as evidenced by him getting a maximum size for T.rex nearly TWICE what is scientifically accepted (And despite being 70 foot long it weighs just 3 tons more than Scotty and Sue!).
We are done arguing but the size. I'm not arguing about size. I'm arguing about the validity of the blog as a source (It has none). |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 4, 2020 2:03:12 GMT 5
denis, some good dino blogs I know of are svpow.com, paleokingblogspot.com, and bricksmashtv.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 4, 2020 13:39:06 GMT 5
I am Ovleg and I never claimed anywhere meg maximum body mass was 30-40 tonnes.
I told that 30-40 tonnes was now pretty safe/certain IMO at least, based on the size of large teeth and the largest preserved centra. Harry The Fox never claimed that neither.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 4, 2020 13:43:27 GMT 5
I suggest talking to Harry the Fox, he just told me that. I don’t know where he got it from. But I trust Harry the Fox more than Grey., I I have to be honest. The funny part is that Harry actually did his various homeworks based on his discussions with me. His arts about meg are based mostly on our 2016 poster and some private information, you just have to check his sources. Seems like a facepalm. More than that, you incorrectly quote Harry. He's well aware that Carcharocles very possibly exceeded the 18 m mark...because he actually read the posters we linked you numerous times here. And since you did not understand yet since you're on the forum, I'm gonna say it clearly for once; I am involved in a study with fossil sharks specialists Victor Perez from the University of Gainesville, Florida, and Ronny Maik Leder curator of paleontology at the Leipzig Museum, Germany, using fossil associated dentitions (instead of only isolated teeth) to get a better estimate of Carcharocles and fossil Carcharodon body length. I've spent time explaining it to you on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 4, 2020 13:45:45 GMT 5
Grey's given you accurate information about Megalodon. I guess you will have to just wait for the Leder study. There have been no macro predator that weighed over 50 tons. How can an animal like that exists. Again, I never said that, read properly the responses. I said that a 50 tonnes macropredator is an almost unique occurrence in the history of life. Two macropredators are reasonably suspected to have reached or exceeded 50 tonnes of body mass at some point, Carcharocles and Livyatan. ~200 tonnes marine filter feeders do exist. ~80-100 tonnes herbivorous sauropods did exist. ~10 tonnes (bipedal !) land predators did exist. So 50 tonnes for these gigantic Neogene marine macropredators is reasonable at least, it simply seems to be rare in history but it is pretty justifiable. Of course we don't have a definitive answer but we know that the only known Livyatan skull is as wide as the skull of male Physeter around the 40 tonnes at least. We also know that the larger Carcharocles toothrow could be 3.5-4 times larger than the toothrow of a 5 m Carcharodon. A 5 m white shark typically weighs around 1.2-1.5 tonnes. Making it 3.5 times larger would scale the body mass at 51-64 tonnes. That is not written in stone because there are still many unknown factors but this demonstrates that 50 tonnes is certainly not out of reach as of of now. Physeter classification as a macropredator is debatable but it shows that a derived toothed carnivore tetrapod can reach and exceed 50 tonnes and possibly approach the mass of the largest sauropods. Enough for this thread. Denis, use actual scientific sources, enough for the amateurish blogs written by teens and lunatics writers. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 4, 2020 14:13:33 GMT 5
There have been no macro predator that weighed over 50 tons. How can an animal like that exists. Again, I never said that, read properly the responses. I said that a 50 tonnes macropredator is an almost unique occurrence in the history of life. Two macropredators are reasonably suspected to have reached or exceeded 50 tonnes of body mass at some point, Carcharocles and Livyatan. ~200 tonnes marine filter feeders do exist. ~80-100 tonnes herbivorous sauropods did exist. ~10 tonnes (bipedal !) land predators did exist. So 50 tonnes for these gigantic Neogene marine macropredators is reasonable at least, it simply seems to be rare in history but it is pretty justifiable. Of course we don't have a definitive answer but we know that the only known Livyatan skull is as wide as the skull of male Physeter around the 40 tonnes at least. We also know that the larger Carcharocles toothrow could be 3.5-4 times larger than the toothrow of a 5 m Carcharodon. A 5 m white shark typically weighs around 1.2-1.5 tonnes. Making it 3.5 times larger would scale the body mass at 51-64 tonnes. That is not written in stone because there are still many unknown factors but this demonstrates that 50 tonnes is certainly not out of reach as of of now. Physeter classification as a macropredator is debatable but it shows that a derived toothed carnivore tetrapod can reach and exceed 50 tonnes and possibly approach the mass of the largest sauropods. Enough for this thread. Denis, use actual scientific sources, enough for the amateurish blogs written by teens and lunatics writers. But it's likely that it was just 20 tons/sarcasm
Before I drop the subject entirely to stop derailing the thread? why isn't Physeter considered a Macropredator? It's the largest predator in the world (possibly in history) and hunts large active prey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 4, 2020 14:28:06 GMT 5
Again, I never said that, read properly the responses. I said that a 50 tonnes macropredator is an almost unique occurrence in the history of life. Two macropredators are reasonably suspected to have reached or exceeded 50 tonnes of body mass at some point, Carcharocles and Livyatan. ~200 tonnes marine filter feeders do exist. ~80-100 tonnes herbivorous sauropods did exist. ~10 tonnes (bipedal !) land predators did exist. So 50 tonnes for these gigantic Neogene marine macropredators is reasonable at least, it simply seems to be rare in history but it is pretty justifiable. Of course we don't have a definitive answer but we know that the only known Livyatan skull is as wide as the skull of male Physeter around the 40 tonnes at least. We also know that the larger Carcharocles toothrow could be 3.5-4 times larger than the toothrow of a 5 m Carcharodon. A 5 m white shark typically weighs around 1.2-1.5 tonnes. Making it 3.5 times larger would scale the body mass at 51-64 tonnes. That is not written in stone because there are still many unknown factors but this demonstrates that 50 tonnes is certainly not out of reach as of of now. Physeter classification as a macropredator is debatable but it shows that a derived toothed carnivore tetrapod can reach and exceed 50 tonnes and possibly approach the mass of the largest sauropods. Enough for this thread. Denis, use actual scientific sources, enough for the amateurish blogs written by teens and lunatics writers. But it's likely that it was just 20 tons/sarcasm Before I drop the subject entirely to stop derailing the thread? why isn't Physeter considered a Macropredator? It's the largest predator in the world (possibly in history) and hunts large active prey.
As Dr. Mike Siversson once told me, Physeter is in grey zone as a macropredator. Physeter largest prey items are 1 % its body mass at most. We do know Carcharocles could consume prey items at least 10 times heavier than that. Strictly technically, the blue whale is the largest predator and carnivore, Physeter is the largest toothed carnivore and animal but doesn't matter... |
|
