|
Post by creature386 on Dec 14, 2019 23:27:23 GMT 5
denisI get that it is subjective when a contribution is "meaningful". However, when members take time and effort to explain something to you and you shrug it off with a simple "disagree", it can come off as deeply frustrating if not outright insulting to said member. Consider this to be a warning because this thread has already received the attention of internal staff discussions.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 14, 2019 23:38:17 GMT 5
I don't care about your doubts, this will be explained in the study and is already explained on this forum but I think we won't waste our time to explain you anything more from now, you have too much limitations. Can I see the source?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 15, 2019 0:14:22 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 15, 2019 0:35:20 GMT 5
Even shaped like a mako, it could exceed 50 tonnes at 20 m. You have no source for claiming 50 tonnes is the most accurate evidence. The data I present is from the scientific literature and sheer scaling from modern sharks. At 50 tonnes it is in sperm whale size league, and certainly Livyatan as well. Stop writing baseless claims. I think you should stop writing baseless claims buddy. No Megalodon can reach 20 meters. I suggest reading the truth about The Meg. You would get the information, I suggest listen to recent studies. I suggest you to realize that everyone here has read ALL the scientific studies about megalodon, unlike you. I have actually my name cited in the actual 2019 scientific paper because I am in discussion with the author Dr. Shimada. Not only his method ignores some problems, but also its maximum size estimate is not based on the very largest meg teeth (a very large one nonetheless). But meg tooth width and dentition width are actually more reliable than using crown height of a single tooth. It is time for you to realize you are dealing here with people that are way more educated and experienced in research about fossil big things than you think. That is not Kronos Rising level here.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 15, 2019 0:46:36 GMT 5
elosha11, could be wrong, but wasn't it discussed in the Livyatan thread that the holotype may well be an outlier? An outlier in what respect? Size? As in bigger than normal or smaller than normal? Given the scarcity of Livytan remains, I don't know anyone could suggest one way or the other? I think Grey and/or theropod may have cited some evidence of some kind that indicated the Livyatan may have been a relatively young adult because of (I think) relatively young looking teeth, but also certain isotopic evidence may suggest it wasn't feeding at as high of a tropic level as might be expected?? Grey or theropod, please correct above if not entirely accurate. You two were the most active in the Livyatan related threads.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 15, 2019 0:47:50 GMT 5
I think you should stop writing baseless claims buddy. No Megalodon can reach 20 meters. I suggest reading the truth about The Meg. You would get the information, I suggest listen to recent studies. I suggest you to realize that everyone here has read ALL the scientific studies about megalodon, unlike you. I have actually my name cited in the actual 2019 scientific paper because I am in discussion with the author Dr. Shimada. Not only his method ignores some problems, but also its maximum size estimate is not based on the very largest meg teeth (a very large one nonetheless). But meg tooth width and dentition width are actually more reliable than using crown height of a single tooth. It is time for you to realize you are dealing here with people that are way more educated and experienced in research about fossil big things than you think. That is not Kronos Rising level here. I suggest stop being very rude. First off , I do look at scientific papers, but your always saying it could reach 20 meters, they never said a study about that this year.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 15, 2019 0:50:25 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. To my knowledge, no one knows just how combative bulls are, but it does not appear their fights are so serious as to be deadly. It's been speculated that bulls might bite each other in mating fights based on scars, but the scars are certainly not life threatening. Not sure just how combative they are, or whether they use ram attacks on each other. But the biting attacks are unlikely to be able to inflict fatal injuries. Anyhow, Megalodon beats Shastasaurus, since this is the supposed point of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 15, 2019 0:52:03 GMT 5
I suggest you to realize that everyone here has read ALL the scientific studies about megalodon, unlike you. I have actually my name cited in the actual 2019 scientific paper because I am in discussion with the author Dr. Shimada. Not only his method ignores some problems, but also its maximum size estimate is not based on the very largest meg teeth (a very large one nonetheless). But meg tooth width and dentition width are actually more reliable than using crown height of a single tooth. It is time for you to realize you are dealing here with people that are way more educated and experienced in research about fossil big things than you think. That is not Kronos Rising level here. I suggest stop being very rude. First off , I do look at scientific papers, but your always saying it could reach 20 meters, they never said a study about that this year. All of this has been explained to you again and again already, you either ignore our responses, or you don't want to make some effort to question yourself. This is why we are being rude. You came here pretending to learn to people, using Max Hawthorne as first reference and ignoring our informations. Don't be surprised about rudeness. Try to learn a bit more and realize you're maybe misinformed in some fields.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 15, 2019 0:57:10 GMT 5
I suggest stop being very rude. First off , I do look at scientific papers, but your always saying it could reach 20 meters, they never said a study about that this year. All of this has been explained to you again and again already, you either ignore our responses, or you don't want to make some effort to question yourself. This is why we are being rude. You came here pretending to learn to people, using Max Hawthorne as first reference and ignoring our informations. Don't be surprised about rudeless. Try to learn a bit more and realize you're maybe misinformed in some fields. Alright, hold up. It’s important to note that there are still more studies coming. So I suggest not saying it’s like 20 meters, because we have no evidence yet.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 15, 2019 0:58:33 GMT 5
I suggest you to realize that everyone here has read ALL the scientific studies about megalodon, unlike you. I have actually my name cited in the actual 2019 scientific paper because I am in discussion with the author Dr. Shimada. Not only his method ignores some problems, but also its maximum size estimate is not based on the very largest meg teeth (a very large one nonetheless). But meg tooth width and dentition width are actually more reliable than using crown height of a single tooth. It is time for you to realize you are dealing here with people that are way more educated and experienced in research about fossil big things than you think. That is not Kronos Rising level here. I suggest stop being very rude. First off , I do look at scientific papers, but your always saying it could reach 20 meters, they never said a study about that this year. Denis, the Leder at al study isn't likely coming out THIS year. Grey already sent you the abstract. It will likely come out in 2020, hopefully early in the year.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 15, 2019 0:58:55 GMT 5
Grey Scaling Megalodon from a mako gets over 80 tonnes below the 20 meter threshold
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 15, 2019 1:00:53 GMT 5
denisYou can learn a great deal from this forum. Here you will come across numerous perspectives not covered by Max Hawthorne. elosha11, could be wrong, but wasn't it discussed in the Livyatan thread that the holotype may well be an outlier? An outlier in what respect? Size? As in bigger than normal or smaller than normal? Given the scarcity of Livytan remains, I don't know anyone could suggest one way or the other? I think Grey and/or theropod may have cited some evidence of some kind that indicated the Livyatan may have been a relatively young adult because of (I think) relatively young looking teeth, but also certain isotopic evidence may suggest it wasn't feeding at as high of a tropic level as might be expected?? Grey or theropod, please correct above if not entirely accurate. You two were the most active in the Livyatan related threads. Refer to this post: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/48736
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 15, 2019 1:01:58 GMT 5
All of this has been explained to you again and again already, you either ignore our responses, or you don't want to make some effort to question yourself. This is why we are being rude. You came here pretending to learn to people, using Max Hawthorne as first reference and ignoring our informations. Don't be surprised about rudeless. Try to learn a bit more and realize you're maybe misinformed in some fields. Alright, hold up. It’s important to note that there are still more studies coming. So I suggest not saying it’s like 20 meters, because we have no evidence yet. In that case, there is equally no evidence that 15 m or even 18 m was a maximum size. Either you accept all the actual data, or none.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 15, 2019 1:05:58 GMT 5
Grey Scaling Megalodon from a mako gets over 80 tonnes below the 20 meter threshold Yes but I tend to not take these titanic size too tightly. 50 tonnes is a good benchmark to start with and be conservative. I am confident that if Carcharocles megalodon did really reach 20 m, which appears probable based on dentition size, weights of 50-60 tonnes are reasonable and potentially unparalleled among macropredators. Livyatan may or may not reach these weights (the lack of specimen precludes to say anything more) and Physeter is no raptorial predator...
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 15, 2019 1:15:33 GMT 5
elosha11, could be wrong, but wasn't it discussed in the Livyatan thread that the holotype may well be an outlier? An outlier in what respect? Size? As in bigger than normal or smaller than normal? Given the scarcity of Livytan remains, I don't know anyone could suggest one way or the other? I think Grey and/or theropod may have cited some evidence of some kind that indicated the Livyatan may have been a relatively young adult because of (I think) relatively young looking teeth, but also certain isotopic evidence may suggest it wasn't feeding at as high of a tropic level as might be expected?? Grey or theropod, please correct above if not entirely accurate. You two were the most active in the Livyatan related threads. The holotype of Livyatan has open pulp cavities, which get filled in in old physeteroids, indicating the individual was relatively young when it died, though how young exactly is not clear (see Lambert et al. 2016). There is also a number of isolated teeth referred to the genus (see my post on the profile thread and the other post linked therein) that are all within the size range of the holotype’s teeth. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is an "outlier" in any way, in fact as limited as the present evidence is it suggests otherwise as strongly as we could even hope for. I wasn’t at SVP so I don’t know the details, and tbh such abstracts are often written before research has been concluded, but the abstract by Loch et al. suggested that the individual was not exclusively macrophagous based on comparison with mysticetes from the same formation (presumably referring to feeding on those mysticetes in question), but that it could have fed on mysticetes from higher latitudes (which they also suggested it fed in anyway, based on d13C-values). I don’t know whether they used the d13C value for estimating the trophic level of prey (which then would be highly unreliable as that isotope has a very low degree of trophic enrichment, and is primarily a good indicator of the original source of primary producers, i.e. phytoplankton) or used a different isotope (in which case the question is how it is incorporated into the teeth, and what period of teeth the isotope record applies to. In any case with the direct evidence of feeding at high latitudes, it there’s nothing surprising about it not "exclusively" feeding on , but this has little to do with the ontogenetic stage, as regardless of its maturity a 14m+ animal with that jaw morphology would definitely be expected to have a very high trophic level regardless of age.
|
|