|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 17:45:44 GMT 5
PDF links : www.petit-fichier.fr/2013/01/27/kent-b-w-powell-g-w-1999-parotodus-plioc/kent-b-w-powell-g-w-1999-parotodus-plioc.pdfwww.petit-fichier.fr/2013/01/27/kent-b-w-1999-taille-parotodus-benedenii/kent-b-w-1999-taille-parotodus-benedenii.pdfMaybe creature could make a profile ? Parotodus is relatively poorly known by the prehistoric enthusiasts, it was a rare, large lamniform from the Early Pliocene. It seems to have differed than the various Isurus, Carcharodon and Carcharocles : Functionally, the teeth and dentition of P. benedeni more closely resemble those of the extinct mosasaurs and the extant killer whales, than those of other sharks. With a piercing-lacerating dentition of large, robust teeth attached to equally robust jaws, P. benedeni could have produced gaping wounds and massive soft tissue trauma in their prey. A large predatory beast at an estimated 7,6 m TL, 4 800 kg, and perhaps up to 20 % more than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 28, 2013 7:04:11 GMT 5
If you have problems with the french, check "télécharger le fichier" (download the file).
You can remark that Kent considers more reliable the jaw perimeter (tooth width) as a proxy for estimate TL than the tooth height, at least in the case of Parotodus.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 7, 2013 17:08:13 GMT 5
I am writing a profile at the moment. Would it be OK only to take this as a source for the OP, as there exist other papers (which were cited there) dealing with that shark? We could post the other papers in extra posts under the profile. EDIT: Finished! theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/242/parotodus-benedeni |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 7, 2013 20:54:35 GMT 5
Yes, but I don't know other papers providing a specific additionnal information about it, only some references and indications of living ranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 1:42:59 GMT 5
Good job man. You've forgotten the size listing however.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 8, 2013 1:46:02 GMT 5
Was the size stated there? I must have overlooked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 8, 2013 1:47:57 GMT 5
In the second file, I've already posted the scale comparison with human diver.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 8, 2013 1:48:55 GMT 5
I will look at the second file tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 1, 2013 2:59:12 GMT 5
It looks like I have to revise the profile a bit, I should include the information shown in the second file.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 7, 2014 2:21:39 GMT 5
I am positing this in this thread and not in the Parotodus profile, because I don't want to post original research in the profiles. I'm estimating the length for Paratodus, based on the formula for the size estimation of various sharks I have posted in the great white shark profile (here the paper: astro.temple.edu/~tud02746/publications/Lowry%20et%20al.,%202009.pdf ) and the 1,530 mm upper jaw perimeter provided by Kent. There are only three lamnoids I can use, the other sharks in the paper are no lamiformes. Carcharodon carcharias: 10 3.185+0.8/1.007?9 m Isurus oxyrinchus: 10 3.185+0.778/1.009?8.5 m Isurus paucus: 10 3.185+0.607/0.954?9.4 m My problem is now that all these results seem to be way too high (Kent estimated a length of "only" 7.6 m), but I planned continuing the usage of the formula in the future (i.e. for Megalodon). Therefore, I would like to know about the mistakes I've done while using the formula. P.S. If anyone is interested, using the tiger shark "only" yields 5 m. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 7, 2014 2:27:10 GMT 5
The regression only uses toothrow lenght, not total jaw circumference, it should be log(1310)=3.1173, yielding 7.76m, thus reasonably close to KentÂ’s estimated 7.6m.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 7, 2014 2:30:26 GMT 5
We don't know the size of the upper toothrow of Parotodus, hence these higher estimates.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 7, 2014 3:08:29 GMT 5
Grey, I used the same size as Kent used and compared the estimates. theropod, Thanks a lot man! I now used your number and calculated three new numbers. GWS: ?7.8 m (I used your rounded number, so it's less exact than yours). Shortfin mako: ?7.3 m Longfin mako: ?8 m Average?7.7 m IMO, this supports the assumption of Kent's assumed free spaces being realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 7, 2014 3:10:45 GMT 5
I know, 131 cm does not correspond to toothrow only, but with the interdental spacing added (what we are discussing at length about meg).
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 7, 2014 3:14:16 GMT 5
I am aware of this (I have read the paper, and I described the spacing in the profile), theropod has already pointed out that I need to use the toothrow only.
Sorry, I thought you were talking of 153 cm.
|
|
