|
Post by kekistani on Dec 13, 2019 11:34:25 GMT 5
That's a bit of an overbroad and odd statement. Without any other evidence, would you consider the guy with the busted up face the victor in a fight? Or would you consider his injuries a sign that more than likely he got the worst of it? Please note that quite a number of the targeted animals I posted WERE killed, including enormous,up to 2700 kgs elephant seals. The sharks that attacked these various animals may or may not have been larger than the targeted prey item. We don't know for sure what happened in all these instances, but since we've found five or so shark bite marks on FKW's, for instance, and never had any occasion known of FKW's attacking a large shark, are we to presuppose that the shark is LESS likely to be the aggressor and/or victor in a one on one struggle (with no aid from other pod members). As a side note, those who say FKW's are larger than GWS are not accurate, the shark is a bit larger and bulkier at maximum sizes. Records of killing beluga whales, small to medium sized beaked whales, whale calves, all speak for themselves. And it's commonly known that GWS readily prey on any dolphin species, up to including large bottlenose, and at least circumstantial evidence of possible FKW and pilot whale predation. Only the vastly larger orcas appear to be entirely off limits. I also feel you are discounting the pod/pack behavior of both cetaceans and pinnipeds. It may be that even if a shark is driven off, (and there's no documented evidence this even occurs) it is more in fear of being attacked by multiple opponents. For instance if a shark injures a FKW but then is attacked by 2 other FKW's and leaves the scene, would you say the injured FKW "won" the conflict? I’m just telling you is that yes 30-50 tons is the most accepted weight for Megalodon. This is a very, very odd reply to what Elosha posted. NOWHERE does he mention Megalodon mass.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 13, 2019 19:01:57 GMT 5
He edited the thread again.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 13, 2019 19:39:17 GMT 5
denis - there are plenty of researchers who believe that Meg's max size was 50-60 tons or greater. Silversson, Ehret, Kent, probably Pimiento, Leder, Gotfried, Godfrey, and others. One researcher's - Shimata's latest paper - one that may be very problematic in its methodology - does NOT a consensus make. If you're stating average weight is 30 to 50 tons, that might be right with 50 tons approaching a very large individual. A 30 ton weight for a male Megalodon might be average but probably not maximum weight. For instance male great white sharks can approach 2000 kgs such as Apache. The only reason I edited the post, and edited again just now with a strike out of your latest edition, is because you are stating matters regarding a consensus that are not correct. If you want to state you believe the average to max range of Megalodon was 30-50 tons, that's fine, but don't state it like that is what most experts believe is the max range. That's not true.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 13, 2019 20:15:12 GMT 5
A 30 ton weight for a male Megalodon might be average but probably not maximum weight. For instance male great white sharks can approach 2000 kgs such as Apache. Isn't the average for the male Megalodon ~23 tonnes? This is from a range of 12.6 to 33.9 tonnes I've often seen
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 13, 2019 20:54:42 GMT 5
^Not to my knowledge. What's your source for that? 12.6 tons would be a subadult for both males and females. Males are not THAT much smaller than females in today's shark species.
Average weights is always hard to determine, since there are so many ways to measure it.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 13, 2019 21:08:08 GMT 5
denis - there are plenty of researchers who believe that Meg's max size was 50-60 tons or greater. Silversson, Ehret, Kent, probably Pimiento, Leder, Gotfried, Godfrey, and others. One researcher's - Shimata's latest paper - one that may be very problematic in its methodology - does NOT a consensus make. If you're stating average weight is 30 to 50 tons, that might be right with 50 tons approaching a very large individual. A 30 ton weight for a male Megalodon might be average but probably not maximum weight. For instance male great white sharks can approach 2000 kgs such as Apache. The only reason I edited the post, and edited again just now with a strike out of your latest edition, is because you are stating matters regarding a consensus that are not correct. If you want to state you believe the average to max range of Megalodon was 30-50 tons, that's fine, but don't state it like that is what most experts believe is the max range. That's not true. 50 tons was probably the max of Megalodon.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 13, 2019 21:13:37 GMT 5
denis - there are plenty of researchers who believe that Meg's max size was 50-60 tons or greater. Silversson, Ehret, Kent, probably Pimiento, Leder, Gotfried, Godfrey, and others. One researcher's - Shimata's latest paper - one that may be very problematic in its methodology - does NOT a consensus make. If you're stating average weight is 30 to 50 tons, that might be right with 50 tons approaching a very large individual. A 30 ton weight for a male Megalodon might be average but probably not maximum weight. For instance male great white sharks can approach 2000 kgs such as Apache. The only reason I edited the post, and edited again just now with a strike out of your latest edition, is because you are stating matters regarding a consensus that are not correct. If you want to state you believe the average to max range of Megalodon was 30-50 tons, that's fine, but don't state it like that is what most experts believe is the max range. That's not true. 50 tons was probably the max of Megalodon. According to what consensus apart from Shimadas? You say a lot of things are "probable" or "likely" yet cite very few of them.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 13, 2019 21:17:49 GMT 5
denis - there are plenty of researchers who believe that Meg's max size was 50-60 tons or greater. Silversson, Ehret, Kent, probably Pimiento, Leder, Gotfried, Godfrey, and others. One researcher's - Shimata's latest paper - one that may be very problematic in its methodology - does NOT a consensus make. If you're stating average weight is 30 to 50 tons, that might be right with 50 tons approaching a very large individual. A 30 ton weight for a male Megalodon might be average but probably not maximum weight. For instance male great white sharks can approach 2000 kgs such as Apache. The only reason I edited the post, and edited again just now with a strike out of your latest edition, is because you are stating matters regarding a consensus that are not correct. If you want to state you believe the average to max range of Megalodon was 30-50 tons, that's fine, but don't state it like that is what most experts believe is the max range. That's not true. 50 tons was probably the max of Megalodon. There are strong reasons to think some megalodons at least approached 20 m. At that length, it would almost certainly exceed 50 tonnes. There is no evidence to say it did not exceed 50 tonnes. 50 tonnes is simply a good body mass reference for a good-sized individual based on the larger fossil teeth, not a max.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 13, 2019 21:26:34 GMT 5
elosha11, I don't know how I can post them here as the format is a bit confusing, but check Wikipedia's citations after these sentences: "Mature male megalodon may have had a body mass of 12.6 to 33.9 metric tons (13.9 to 37.4 short tons), and mature females may have been 27.4 to 59.4 metric tons (30.2 to 65.5 short tons), given that males could range in length from 10.5 to 14.3 meters (34 to 47 ft) and females 13.3 to 17 meters (44 to 56 ft)" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon#Size
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 13, 2019 22:38:40 GMT 5
50 tons was probably the max of Megalodon. There are strong reasons to think some megalodons at least approached 20 m. At that length, it would almost certainly exceed 50 tonnes. There is no evidence to say it did not exceed 50 tonnes. 50 tonnes is simply a good body mass reference for a good-sized individual based on the larger fossil teeth, not a max. 50 ton Megalodon is 18 meters. Also 20 meter Megalodon is no longer accepted. 18 meters is more acceptable
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 13, 2019 22:39:15 GMT 5
elosha11 , I don't know how I can post them here as the format is a bit confusing, but check Wikipedia's citations after these sentences: "Mature male megalodon may have had a body mass of 12.6 to 33.9 metric tons (13.9 to 37.4 short tons), and mature females may have been 27.4 to 59.4 metric tons (30.2 to 65.5 short tons), given that males could range in length from 10.5 to 14.3 meters (34 to 47 ft) and females 13.3 to 17 meters (44 to 56 ft)" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon#Size That’s an old estimate though.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 13, 2019 22:46:02 GMT 5
denis , scaling an 18 meter Megalodon from Deep Blue the GWS gives ~67.8 tonnes, while scaling from the average GWS gives 64 tonnes. And what are the newer estimates?
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 13, 2019 23:30:39 GMT 5
Why don't we move such discussion into the Megalodon Size thread, as we seem to be getting far afield of the actual conflict here. Denis, 18 meters is the well cited maximum, and Shimada's estimates, are debatable.
dinosauria101, Wikipedia's estimates and supposed citations should be taken with a large grain of salt. Many times those with agendas are driving the Megalodon discussion there. They even have a graph currently posted there implying that the whale shark at 18.8 meters (a length almost unheard of other than in fishermen's tales) is larger than a max size Megalodon at 14 meters.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 13, 2019 23:47:55 GMT 5
These citations were apparently upscaling from GWS. I don't know how to link them as it often turns to a mess, but they're probably not THAT iffy.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 13, 2019 23:57:31 GMT 5
If you can't link them, why not just give us the title, if they refer to a publication?
|
|