|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 11, 2019 22:21:35 GMT 5
Infinity BladeI think the mako's teeth being able to slice well comes from sharpness and attack speed, not serrations. Not to mention very high bite force.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 11, 2019 22:30:03 GMT 5
The OP states about 230 kg, so they should be about the same size Well, according to the thread opening, the hammerhead would actually be significantly larger, "over 230 kg" vs "from 60–135 kg". That’s why I’m asking. Of course you were the one who wrote that yourself, so I don’t think I need to tell you that. Of course average adult size is tricky to find for any shark species, but for I. oxyrinchus, at least we have the mean mass of 63 kg and mean fork length of 172 cm (corresponding to an estimated TL of 187 cm) for individuals of all ages (Kohler et al.). Since those base on a sample of over 2000 individuals, that’s probably pretty representative of the species, and could be compared to similar data for Hammerheads. However I haven’t been able to find a study that gave a mean length and/or mass for a sample of Great Hammerheads. No doubt Makos are far more formidable macropredators than Hammerheads for their size, but I’m not sure that would make up for a size difference as vast as what you suggested, even though those figures look a bit fishy to me. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 11, 2019 23:51:21 GMT 5
theropodThat's odd. I thoght they were about the same; must have misread the OP If the hammerhead has a good size advantage, I may have to change my vote on this one
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 12, 2019 0:00:30 GMT 5
theropodThat's odd. I thoght they were about the same; must have misread the OP If the hammerhead has a good size advantage, I may have to change my vote on this one Using maximum sizes for both and knowing that a mako can intimidate a GWS twice larger, I would not change my mind so quickly. It is fair to discuss both average and maximum size IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 12, 2019 0:22:37 GMT 5
dinosauria101: How can you misread your own post? Anyway, if you don’t know where that piece of information comes from, it’s worthless. I was just noting that you suggested the Hammerhead to have a serious size advantage (which obviously would be needed to make this fair, but everybody seemed to be discussing this as if they were the same size). So I’m not saying anything on whether that size difference is legit or not, I’m just making the observation that their respective sizes don’t seem to have been considered here. Grey: Clearly a 5.85 m Mako would be too much for any Hammerhead on record (and probably more massive than any Hammerhead too), but that specimen seems like too much of a freak to be of much utility comparing it to other species. What’s the next-biggest Mako shark that you know of, ignoring this outlier? Most sources I’ve seen don’t acknowledge any maximum sizes above 4 m. While 6+ m Hammerheads are no doubt extreme cases too, I know at least one other report in the literature of a specimen that was 5.5 m, and several more above 4 m.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Sept 12, 2019 1:01:37 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 12, 2019 1:07:56 GMT 5
Anyone able to corroborate this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 12, 2019 1:08:22 GMT 5
Theropod, even discounting the freak female, I favor a 4 m mako. Or at least, it could outgun and intimidate a 6 m hammerhead.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 12, 2019 1:51:49 GMT 5
elosha11: OK, so 4.45 m then, based on Kabasakal & Maddalena 2011. A mako that length would probably have a fork length of 412 cm and mass 852 kg. A 6.1 m Hammerhead would be around 473 cm in fork length and 1241 kg based on Kohler et al.’s formula for S. lewisi. There is also a length/mass equation for S. mokarran here→. The equation as printed gives totally implausible results, but if we assume it’s supposed to be 1.71*10^-5*PCL^2.9435 instead of 1.71*10^-5*PCL^2.9435 the results seem to be pretty consistent with the graph shown in the plot. They suggest total length should be precaudal length plus 80 to 85% of UCL=0.350*PCL+17.10, so a 610 cm TL shark would have an estimated PCL of (610-0.825*17.10)/(1+0.825*0.35) = 462 cm, which would give a mass estimate of 1195 kg. So probably a ~1.2 t Hammerhead vs a 0.9t Mako at maximum. Grey: I think I agree with you at the above maximum sizes, Hammerheads don’t seem to take very big prey, and a 300 kg size difference around these large sizes is not enough to offset this. I wouldn’t be so sure with a 4 m Mako, as it would probably literally be half the size of the Hammerhead. Intimidating is one thing, actually killing is another (and no shark, not even a mako, as of my knowledge, has been recorded killing something twice its size). As for average sizes, I am undecided without better data. The study I posted above suggests the modal size for hammerheads (of all sizes/ages) is 200-240 cm PCL. Since the length seems roughly normally distributed, it could be a reasonable guess to suspect the mean somewhere within this range as well. Which using their formula would correspond to masses of 100-170 kg, a serious size advantage if we compare it to the mean fork length of mako sharks (which would correspond to just 55 kg body mass), or even the mean body mass (of 63 kg). Of course having an actual mean figure rather than guessing where the mean is based on the mode would be a lot better… Infinity Blade: I was wondering the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 12, 2019 2:30:49 GMT 5
Anyone able to corroborate this? That seems to be what happened in these videos elosha11 posted hereCould be wrong but that's what looks like the driving forces behind the results |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 12, 2019 2:32:13 GMT 5
I had a couple of shark related tabs (couple different types) open at the time because I was comparing sharks and ankylosaurs, and some stuff from the other tabs may have gotten into my post. Oops. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 12, 2019 2:39:22 GMT 5
Anyone able to corroborate this? That seems to be what happened in these videos elosha11 posted hereCould be wrong but that's what looks like the driving forces behind the results The speed is obvious, but I believe (could be wrong) he was mostly referring to the part about bite force. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 12, 2019 3:05:10 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 12, 2019 6:05:41 GMT 5
theropod That's odd. I thoght they were about the same; must have misread the OP If the hammerhead has a good size advantage, I may have to change my vote on this one Using maximum sizes for both and knowing that a mako can intimidate a GWS twice larger, I would not change my mind so quickly. It is fair to discuss both average and maximum size IMO. Seems I forgot to respond to this. That's actually pretty impressive! I think I'd keep my vote the same for now |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 12, 2019 6:55:32 GMT 5
I couldn't find where the paper claims that. I also was wondering about the sharpness part. For that matter, sharpness of the edges or the point of the tooth? All macropredatory sharks have teeth with sharp edges and sharp points (Captain Obvious strikes again), and some have serrated teeth to help with that, which makos seem to lack. |
|
