|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2013 1:34:09 GMT 5
Age sometimes isn't so important to consider if two species have roughly comparable growth patterns, but even if not it often suffices to prove the point (eg if in taxon A only full-growns are counted, while in taxon B many non-full growns are, and taxon B is still bigger).
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Oct 28, 2013 17:32:17 GMT 5
An 8 meter bull orca would be well above average, as would 8 tons. Probably bull orcas, in most subspecies average 6.5 to 7 meters and 5-6 tons. Still an incredibly bulky and powerful animal for its size. Are you sure? Because my source ( www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-304-01-0001.pdf ) said 8,2 m is the average for a bull orca. Coherentsheaf's source hasn't specified gender/age. It has a clear bimodal distribution from where we can read the size of the bulls. An probably much more data than your source. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 28, 2013 22:26:15 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Oct 29, 2013 5:51:44 GMT 5
Bergmanns rule would predi that these animals are even larger than average (the soviet whaling data whales). |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 29, 2013 22:37:13 GMT 5
Does the Bergmann rule apply to marine animals too? Good point though.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 29, 2013 23:05:40 GMT 5
It does, tough its only a tendency with many exceptions.
However it appears the biggest whales are usually concentrated in polar waters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 30, 2013 1:13:32 GMT 5
Do you have evidence of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 30, 2013 2:34:42 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 30, 2013 3:25:50 GMT 5
Do you have evidence of this? It's a well known fact that most large whales live and feed in polar waters, only leaving them for reproduction, eg. Blue whales, Fin whales, Right whales... By comparison, a tropical cetacean, the bryde's whale, is much smaller. We can't say this is exclusively due to Bergmann's rule tough, the main reason is probably the abundance of food sources (ie. krill). The relevance for this case is the same tough, its the most likely that orcas in cold waters are comparatively large. |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 30, 2013 4:35:44 GMT 5
Blue whales and fin whales are not solely arctic animals...
Unless you are talking about migration; during the summer months whales could become bulkier due to the abundance of krill when they migrate to the polar areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 30, 2013 15:58:17 GMT 5
Not solely, mostly. The largest whales are usually found in arctic/antarctic waters, and the largest whale species typically live in these waters, while by comparisons whales that do not are smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Nov 8, 2013 0:02:15 GMT 5
It has a clear bimodal distribution from where we can read the size of the bulls. An probably much more data than your source. Creature386, I definitely don't believe 8.2 meter/8 ton is an average sized orca. That would represent a very large individual, probably analogous to an 17-18 foot great white shark. Coherentsheaf's source is quite credible in this regard, and anecodotal evidence also supports it. Anything 8 meters or more is a very large bull orca. That being said, they might reach 10 meters or maybe slightly more in some occasions. Given the widespread success and relatively large population sizes of orcas in today's orca, a 10 meter orca would be rare but not unheard of. One of the orcas in the new GWS/orca documentary I just posted about states that the documentary talks about a 10 meter (or 10 ton) bull orca that was seen dragging an enormous colossal squid. So they can reach that length, especially the Antarctic subspecies (which I believe was the type seen in the documentary). Orcas are an amazingly powerful, athletic and bulky animal. I would not underestimate a big bull's chance, even against a Kronosaurus. It would probably lose, but the Kronosaurus would not likely go unscathed. And if an orca pod attacked the reptile, forget it. Kronosaurus would not be large enough to take on more than perhaps two large adult orcas. However, I will say that I think the orca's body shape is ideal for its size, but no larger. If you took the orca's same robust body frame and turned it into a 15-20 meter animal, I'm not sure it would be nearly as effective or athletic. A twenty meter orca probably would weigh well over one hundred tons, given its girth. I think it would probably need to be quite a bit slimmer, like presumably Livyatan, at that length. It would still be bulky and powerful like Megalodon or Livyatan, but not so rotund and thick like at it's current size. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 8, 2013 0:09:29 GMT 5
I don't do so either anymore, I just wanted to point out a few problems I had.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 8, 2013 0:16:02 GMT 5
Is a 17-18ft gws really "very large"? That appears to be a large, but not unusual size.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 8, 2013 0:30:18 GMT 5
Judging from the data collection on GWS size (you can click at the underlined part), it looks like you need a very large sample to find such a shark (there was no such shark in the table, although the 5,5 m one was close). |
|
