|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 14, 2019 0:03:23 GMT 5
Welp, looks like they can be linked after all! I'm on another device.
Nope. Still can't link 'em.
Here: Pimiento, C.; MacFadden, B. J.; Clements, C. F.; Varela, S.; Jaramillo, C.; Velez-Juarbe, J.; Silliman, B. R. (2016). "Geographical distribution patterns of Carcharocles megalodon over time reveal clues about extinction mechanisms". Journal of Biogeography. 43 (8): 1645–1655. doi:10.1111/jbi.12754. [25] Pimiento, C.; Balk, M. A. (2015). "Body-size trends of the extinct giant shark Carcharocles megalodon: a deep-time perspective on marine apex predators". Paleobiology. 41 (3): 479–490. doi:10.1017/pab.2015.16. PMC 4541548. PMID 26321775.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 14, 2019 0:28:55 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. Well it’s important to note, that know we know that it wasn’t related to the Great White Shark at all. I heard that it was more closely related to the Mako Shark than to a Great White Shark. But I don’t know.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 14, 2019 3:18:36 GMT 5
Not at all? From where did you hear it?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 14, 2019 4:22:34 GMT 5
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 Once again, I tell you that 20 m is likely for the larger megs, a scientific study is about to be made about it as we talk, do you freaking understand ? Based on the size of the whole associated dentitions, not the isolated teeth but all the teeth of a single found but spread, we know the larger megs were really gigantic. And even by going a bit optimistic and using the largest teeth, sizes above 18 m are not totally out of the question. Also, different weight estimates curves have been made for megalodon, both in the scientific literature and on this forum by theropod who's an actual paleontologist interested among many other things in big critters. A 18 m meg could weigh as well 44 tonnes or 70, depending the regression, depending the period of the year (sharks weight and liver size vary by up to around 40 %), depending the individual. There is nothing to say thay megalodon did not exceed 50 tonnes. We can say simply and cautiously the larger ones possibly could reach at least around 50 tonnes. Which is simply near unparalleled among raptorial animals.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 14, 2019 4:27:57 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. Whale sharks of 18 m or a bit more are almost a scientific certainty. This is even in itself an indication of megalodon growing to at least similar larger sizes. If a cold-blooded shark (but filter feeder) can grow to more than 18 m, a potentially truly warm-blooded raptorial shark can at least grow as large, and provided food source as available to whale sharks (remember small whales were very abundant), maybe this can suggest it could really exceed even maximum size of the whale shark.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 14, 2019 5:00:07 GMT 5
50 ton Megalodon is 18 meters. Also 20 meter Megalodon is no longer accepted. 18 meters is more acceptable Once again, I tell you that 20 m is likely for the larger megs, a scientific study is about to be made about it as we talk, do you freaking understand ? Based on the size of the whole associated dentitions, not the isolated teeth but all the teeth of a single found but spread, we know the larger megs were really gigantic. And even by going a bit optimistic and using the largest teeth, sizes above 18 m are not totally out of the question. Also, different weight estimates curves have been made for megalodon, both in the scientific literature and on this forum by theropod who's an actual paleontologist interested among many other things in big critters. A 18 m meg could weigh as well 44 tonnes or 70, depending the regression, depending the period of the year (sharks weight and liver size vary by up to around 40 %), depending the individual. There is nothing to say thay megalodon did not exceed 50 tonnes. We can say simply and cautiously the larger ones possibly could reach at least around 50 tonnes. Which is simply near unparalleled among raptorial animals. Megalodon likely resembled more like a Mako Shark in appearance. The closest living shark to Megalodon from what I heard is a Great White Shark. 50 tons seems to be the most accurate max. It wasn’t as big as a Sperm Whale, not even close smaller than the largest toothed whale. Heck, not even as big as Livyatan.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 14, 2019 5:00:45 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. Whale sharks of 18 m or a bit more are almost a scientific certainty. This is even in itself an indication of megalodon growing to at least similar larger sizes. If a cold-blooded shark (but filter feeder) can grow to more than 18 m, a potentially truly warm-blooded raptorial shark can at least grow as large, and provided food source as available to whale sharks (remember small whales were very abundant), maybe this can suggest it could really exceed even maximum size of the whale shark. Filter feeder and toothed sharks are too different things. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 14, 2019 5:12:03 GMT 5
Once again, I tell you that 20 m is likely for the larger megs, a scientific study is about to be made about it as we talk, do you freaking understand ? Based on the size of the whole associated dentitions, not the isolated teeth but all the teeth of a single found but spread, we know the larger megs were really gigantic. And even by going a bit optimistic and using the largest teeth, sizes above 18 m are not totally out of the question. Also, different weight estimates curves have been made for megalodon, both in the scientific literature and on this forum by theropod who's an actual paleontologist interested among many other things in big critters. A 18 m meg could weigh as well 44 tonnes or 70, depending the regression, depending the period of the year (sharks weight and liver size vary by up to around 40 %), depending the individual. There is nothing to say thay megalodon did not exceed 50 tonnes. We can say simply and cautiously the larger ones possibly could reach at least around 50 tonnes. Which is simply near unparalleled among raptorial animals. Megalodon likely resembled more like a Mako Shark in appearance. The closest living shark to Megalodon from what I heard is a Great White Shark. 50 tons seems to be the most accurate max. It wasn’t as big as a Sperm Whale, not even close smaller than the largest toothed whale. Heck, not even as big as Livyatan. Source for all this "likely" conjecture, please.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 14, 2019 5:12:31 GMT 5
Whale sharks of 18 m or a bit more are almost a scientific certainty. This is even in itself an indication of megalodon growing to at least similar larger sizes. If a cold-blooded shark (but filter feeder) can grow to more than 18 m, a potentially truly warm-blooded raptorial shark can at least grow as large, and provided food source as available to whale sharks (remember small whales were very abundant), maybe this can suggest it could really exceed even maximum size of the whale shark. Filter feeder and toothed sharks are too different things. Sorry. He's aware, that was kind of the point of the post
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 14, 2019 5:27:20 GMT 5
Megalodon likely resembled more like a Mako Shark in appearance. The closest living shark to Megalodon from what I heard is a Great White Shark. 50 tons seems to be the most accurate max. It wasn’t as big as a Sperm Whale, not even close smaller than the largest toothed whale. Heck, not even as big as Livyatan. Source for all this "likely" conjecture, please. I misread it. It says Great White Shark is more closet related to the Mako Shark. Sperm Whale:
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 14, 2019 11:29:40 GMT 5
Once again, I tell you that 20 m is likely for the larger megs, a scientific study is about to be made about it as we talk, do you freaking understand ? Based on the size of the whole associated dentitions, not the isolated teeth but all the teeth of a single found but spread, we know the larger megs were really gigantic. And even by going a bit optimistic and using the largest teeth, sizes above 18 m are not totally out of the question. Also, different weight estimates curves have been made for megalodon, both in the scientific literature and on this forum by theropod who's an actual paleontologist interested among many other things in big critters. A 18 m meg could weigh as well 44 tonnes or 70, depending the regression, depending the period of the year (sharks weight and liver size vary by up to around 40 %), depending the individual. There is nothing to say thay megalodon did not exceed 50 tonnes. We can say simply and cautiously the larger ones possibly could reach at least around 50 tonnes. Which is simply near unparalleled among raptorial animals. Megalodon likely resembled more like a Mako Shark in appearance. The closest living shark to Megalodon from what I heard is a Great White Shark. 50 tons seems to be the most accurate max. It wasn’t as big as a Sperm Whale, not even close smaller than the largest toothed whale. Heck, not even as big as Livyatan. Megalodon was a heavily built behemoth with very thick and durable skeletal remains in comparison to other sharks. Largest individuals would be very heavy but this is not much of an issue for marine lifeforms.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 14, 2019 13:09:41 GMT 5
Source for all this "likely" conjecture, please. I misread it. It says Great White Shark is more closet related to the Mako Shark. Sperm Whale: I have no doubt the Sperm Whale got larger than either shastasaurus or Megalodon. I doubt Livyatan was much larger than Megalodon if it was at all, though.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 14, 2019 16:18:25 GMT 5
kekistani, I would suggest currently the evidence - including the Leder et al soon to be published work (an abstract of which is already publically available) - would suggest more evidence indicating Megalodon could achieve larger sizes than Livyatan. That is certainly not conclusive, but multiple researchers cite 18 meters as possible maximum length, and the Livyatan holotype is estimate at 13 to 17.5 meters. It is likely in between those two extremes, so perhaps 15-16 meters. Still enormous. Again, Shimada's study, useful though it is, is not the definitive answer, and a new study with a much more solid methodology based on associated dentition and jaw perimeter, will likely suggest that large Megs could reach or even exceed around 20 meters. It is possible modern Sperm whales (which Livyatan most certainly is not) could exceed Megalodon in size. But other their ramming, admittedly a formidable asset, their jaws are certainly less deadly than Megalodon, nor do they seem particularly inclined to predatory activities or combat. Certainly at parity - if not also at maximum size - I would back a Megalodon or Livytan against a modern day bull sperm whale.
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Dec 14, 2019 17:00:23 GMT 5
But other their ramming, admittedly a formidable asset, their jaws are certainly less deadly than Megalodon, nor do they seem particularly inclined to predatory activities or combat. Sperm whale bulls are very combative amongst each other, though.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 14, 2019 18:10:51 GMT 5
elosha11, could be wrong, but wasn't it discussed in the Livyatan thread that the holotype may well be an outlier?
|
|