|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 10, 2019 19:28:09 GMT 5
I think Megalodon Prehistoric Predators mentions it. Life may be able to enlighten you.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 10, 2019 20:46:53 GMT 5
Definitely sounds like scavenging. ...What? He's just pointing out meatier places on a whale's body to bite. He's not saying those were the places bitten.
I'm curious, can someone direct me to the shark biting the whale rostrum? I don't know where the source is on here. I don’t recall it having been published, but I might be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 10, 2019 20:53:49 GMT 5
Not to mention the muscle on the tail, belly and back... Definitely sounds like scavenging. Because a scavenging macropredator eating from a meaty carcass would go for one of the boniest parts of the prey. right.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 10, 2019 20:55:21 GMT 5
Not to mention the muscle on the tail, belly and back... Also I think your forgetting is that sharks don’t prey on things larger than themselves unless they are in a group. Sharks do this all time, scavenging from larger whales. I suggest reading the source I have to someone earlier. Well the 6-7M juvenile Meg attacked and killed a whale much larger than itself. GWS go after elephant seals, and elephant seals average much larger than the normal GWS. Your source does not disprove predation on prey items larger than themselves.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 10, 2019 20:59:32 GMT 5
Err what? The whale survived for at least several weeks following that attack…
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 10, 2019 21:01:38 GMT 5
Err what? The whale survived for at least several weeks following that attack… And then died from said attack. Just because a prey item gets away and dies from its wounds later on does not mean the predator did not kill it.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 10, 2019 21:14:35 GMT 5
Err what? The whale survived for at least several weeks following that attack… And then died from said attack. Just because a prey item gets away and dies from its wounds later on does not mean the predator did not kill it. I really doubt that. A whale can survive months even years from a shark bite.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 10, 2019 22:19:02 GMT 5
And then died from said attack. Just because a prey item gets away and dies from its wounds later on does not mean the predator did not kill it. I really doubt that. A whale can survive months even years from a shark bite. The whale died of infection from the bite at most 6 weeks after the attack, with the authors stating it was probably less. There's also the fact that this was a comparatively small shark (6-7M) attacking a comparatively massive prey item, and being able to penetrate thick skin, blubber, and flesh to deliver a seriou wound that showed on the bone.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 10, 2019 23:04:32 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 11, 2019 0:27:52 GMT 5
How do you know it died from said attack? That’s a weird injury if it takes several weeks to kill something, long enough for the bone to get remodeled. At best, it died from an infection of the wound, or maybe it died from entirely unrelated causes.
There’s a difference between an animal escaping and succumbing to blood loss half an hour later, and an animal clearly not sustaining a life-threatening injury. I draw that line between there being signs of wound healing and there being none. If the animal escapes and escapes long enough for the wound to heal, then the wound is unlikely to have been the thing that killed it.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 11, 2019 0:36:40 GMT 5
No, the "25 m whale" was supposed to be fin whale-sized in the TV program. But the Santa Barbara whale has been recently described and was actually 12 m.
Megalodon did not encounter any 25 m whale. However, it is not unreasonable that a large meg probably had a predatory apparatus allowing it to inflict potentially lethal wounds on even a fin whale or blue whale.
The bite radius added to the hemorragic power probably made meg bites the bloodiest ever.
No, the 6-7 m meg did not kill the much larger whale but it clearly inflicted a serious bite which indicates these sharks even when being young or medium-sized did not fear to engage a larger foe on occasion and that sharks bites, especially when able to bite through bones in the case of megalodon, are a nasty thing even for something maybe 5 times heavier.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 11, 2019 0:42:01 GMT 5
GreyCorrect me if I’m wrong but didn’t the program say the skull was indicative of a 25-30 meter animal? Maybe that was a scaling error on their part?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 11, 2019 0:45:05 GMT 5
GreyCorrect me if I’m wrong but didn’t the program say the skull was indicative of a 25-30 meter animal? Maybe that was a scaling error on their part? No, I precisely remember they saw it as a 68 tons balaenopterid. The actual animal was actually around 20. But there are not many superpredators that had 20 tons prey-items in the records.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 11, 2019 0:46:17 GMT 5
How do you know it died from said attack? That’s a weird injury if it takes several weeks to kill something, long enough for the bone to get remodeled. At best, it died from an infection of the wound, or maybe it died from entirely unrelated causes. There’s a difference between an animal escaping and succumbing to blood loss half an hour later, and an animal clearly not sustaining a life-threatening injury. I draw that line between there being signs of wound healing and there being none. If the animal escapes and escapes long enough for the wound to heal, then the wound is unlikely to have been the thing that killed it. Infection from a wound caused by attempted predation counts as the predator killing it; it would not have died if not for said predator.
That's besides the point anyways. The point of that post appears to be that Megalodon could and would chance it with prey much larger than itself.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 11, 2019 0:49:28 GMT 5
Grey Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the program say the skull was indicative of a 25-30 meter animal? Maybe that was a scaling error on their part? No, I precisely remember they saw it as a 68 tons balaenopterid. The actual animal was actually around 20. But there are not many superpredators that had 20 tons prey-items in the records. Wait, so by 'never encountering a 25M whale' do you mean they did not coexist with them, or that they did not hunt them? If it is the former, would that mean that macropredators like Megalodon and Livyatan were the largest creatures in the seas at that time?
On prey size, that is true (especially for a solo hunter) and certainly Shastasaurus did not.
|
|