|
Post by theropod on Oct 7, 2019 23:18:47 GMT 5
^ creature386: As I recall you were actually there when I asked Richard Forrest about this 3 years ago. There is likely a fair bit of wood and plaster in that mandible, and it is unclear how much exactly of it is fake, but he was the one who thought it might be about a metre too long. A precise analysis of this would certainly be interesting, but until then I would not rely on this specimen too much, as its reconstruction is highly doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 8, 2019 3:13:34 GMT 5
^ creature386: As I recall you were actually there when I asked Richard Forrest about this 3 years ago. At first, I thought you were referring to an incident on this forum. Then I remembered that you did talk to Forrest at the SVPCA. And yeah, I was there. I recall that it was noisy and I had difficulties following, but I didn't want to interrupt your conversation by asking questions when I had nothing else to say. That, or maybe my memory is just bad (there's a reason why I was taking notes during the presentations). But back on topic, we can conclude this discussion with an uncomfortably big question mark hovering over Pliosaurus macromerus' maximum size
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 8, 2019 3:27:25 GMT 5
^Yes, couldn’t have put it better.
Maybe people making matchups should do some research to see whether whatever size estimates they think justify the matchup actually hold water.
Of course, I think there is also an uncomfortably big question mark on the size of male megalodon (even more than on megalodon in general), although it seems probable it would have been bigger than P. macromerus.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 8, 2019 3:54:54 GMT 5
Ah, so you two have met each other in real life? That's cool!
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 8, 2019 4:03:40 GMT 5
Yes, once, at SVPCA 2016 in Liverpool. It’s actually weird we haven’t met more often, actually, but I’m sure we will sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 8, 2019 16:38:17 GMT 5
Maybe people making matchups should do some research to see whether whatever size estimates they think justify the matchup actually hold water. That is precisely why I used the advisory thread for my first matchup regarding P. macromerus. But I don't think this is a mismatch. Pliosaurus seems impressive enough to still have a 35 or so chance with that mass disadvantage
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 9, 2019 6:08:22 GMT 5
1: Do we have a reliable size estimate for this pliosaur? Any study in this regard? 2: Also, much bigger jaws sound unrealistic. 1: Well it seems to have a skull about 2.8-2.9 meters long, which scaling from Kronosaurus gives an animal of 12.5 meters and 20-22 tons. I was also informed of the 20 ton figure by creature386 in the matchup advisory thread. Maybe he knows something I do not. 2: Not really. Take a look at this size chart I made (the Pliosaurus would be around 20 tons while the Megalodon is around 23): The Pliosaurus has a MUCH bigger jaw and MUCH wider gape. I have very little doubt that would devastate any part of the shark it bit. prehistorican , err... Not quite. I got a mean of about 23 ton from 12.6 to 33.9 tons that is stated as male Megalodon size. Would you still back the shark at similar size? I suppose that additional responses in this thread were adequate to realize that estimates of this pliosaur should be regarded with extreme caution. I just want to point out that a conventional 2D comparison of the jaw structure of sharks, whales, mosasaurs and pliosaurs, in terms of size, is not a good idea. Take a look.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 9, 2019 6:16:56 GMT 5
1: Well it seems to have a skull about 2.8-2.9 meters long, which scaling from Kronosaurus gives an animal of 12.5 meters and 20-22 tons. I was also informed of the 20 ton figure by creature386 in the matchup advisory thread. Maybe he knows something I do not. 2: Not really. Take a look at this size chart I made (the Pliosaurus would be around 20 tons while the Megalodon is around 23): The Pliosaurus has a MUCH bigger jaw and MUCH wider gape. I have very little doubt that would devastate any part of the shark it bit. prehistorican , err... Not quite. I got a mean of about 23 ton from 12.6 to 33.9 tons that is stated as male Megalodon size. Would you still back the shark at similar size? I just want to point out that a conventional 2D comparison of the jaw structure of sharks, whales, mosasaurs and pliosaurs, in terms of size, is not a good idea. Take a look. Ah, yes. That does make a lot of sense; jaw size should be fairly close in all dimensions. I still think I would favor the Pliosaurus at parity due to superior mobility and less vulnerable spots, but only 60-65 percent of the time and not 70 like I originally thought. Overall I'd say the megalodon wins 7/10
|
|