|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 23, 2013 14:16:11 GMT 5
The more important it gets to see the method published and documented properly. I second this. It's very hard to find good information on C. megalodon size estimates in the web, google scholar doesn't show a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 14:17:32 GMT 5
Oh, that was basing on the direct sizing of the cuban female. Well, it is a very oddly proportioned animal obviously, greatly differening from the normal ratio. The specimensa are stated as doubtful and therefore excluded from the regression equation. The average of 5,5m/5,92cm is undoubtedly more reliable. These are not actually. sharkmans-world.eu/research/Malta_adm.pdfOnly, the Malta specimen (not the Cuba, I've edited my post) was apparenty not 7,1 m (but this is not totally refutable according to the paper) but 6,47-6,6 m. Which would give 18,8 m TL. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 14:17:39 GMT 5
Most of the methods are not properly published, that's the problem with them. They are probably good, but remain inofficial, and remain to be documented in a form that makes them accessible and verifyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 23, 2013 14:18:10 GMT 5
Thanks for posting this, now I can read all and not just the stuff shown int he preview. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 14:19:08 GMT 5
Most of the methods are not properly published, that's the problem with them. They are probably good, but remain inofficial, and remain to be documented in a form that makes them accessible and verifyable. Randall, Gottfried and Shimada are published and Jeremiah is refered and used in scientific litterature (Renz 2002).. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 14:20:17 GMT 5
The paper actually sais 520-550 cm for a specimen from Malta originally estimated at 714cm
this would make the owner of the Bertucci tooth about 18m long.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 14:21:58 GMT 5
Most of the methods are not properly published, that's the problem with them. They are probably good, but remain inofficial, and remain to be documented in a form that makes them accessible and verifyable. Randall, Gottfried and Shimada are published and Jeremiah is refered and used in scientific litterature (Renz 2002).. Where is shimada published? Renz book does not explain it or justify it based on empirical data, just mention it and give some quotes. It didn't seem all that scientific either, tough it is probably a good source. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 14:23:56 GMT 5
The paper actually sais 520-550 cm for a specimen from Malta originally estimated at 714cm  |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 14:25:20 GMT 5
Randall, Gottfried and Shimada are published and Jeremiah is refered and used in scientific litterature (Renz 2002).. Where is shimada published? Renz book does not explain it or justify it based on empirical data, just mention it and give some quotes. It didn't seem all that scientific either, tough it is probably a good source. I have the paper by Shimada. sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200309/000020030903A0178835.phpJeremhia is used by scientists and referred in litterature (Kent 2013). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 14:28:52 GMT 5
It looks like there is absolutely no consensus about its size, so we shouldn't use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 14:29:43 GMT 5
Where is shimada published? Renz book does not explain it or justify it based on empirical data, just mention it and give some quotes. It didn't seem all that scientific either, tough it is probably a good source. Jeremhia is used by scientists and referred in litterature (Kent 2013). Which is unpublished, or not? If not, what's the name of the paper? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 23, 2013 14:30:26 GMT 5
I don't know if it is published, but Grey already owns a (complete?) version, therefore it probably already has a name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 14:32:16 GMT 5
It looks like there is absolutely no consensus about its size, so we shouldn't use it. There is consensus, only this paper was more or less "forgotten", pretty much like McHenry thesis...  |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 14:33:13 GMT 5
Jeremhia is used by scientists and referred in litterature (Kent 2013). Which is unpublished, or not? If not, what's the name of the paper? Not published but used and referred as Renz 2002. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 23, 2013 14:38:01 GMT 5
I don't know if it is published, but Grey already owns a (complete?) version, therefore it probably already has a name. Oops, I haven't seen that you guys talked about Renz 2002. |
|
