|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 15:13:10 GMT 5
^No, I was talking about Kent, 2013, which should be published in order to be considered published. Grey: From the paper you posted, it seems like there is absolutely no consensus, as can be seen in estimates from different sources ranging from 5,2 to 7,2m. I only know record-holding great whites are often overhyped, as with those 8-12m sightings. It ought to be saver to rely on the average of specimens we know the sizes of. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 15:22:30 GMT 5
^No, I was talking about Kent, 2013, which should be published in order to be considered published. Grey: From the paper you posted, it seems like there is absolutely no consensus, as can be seen in estimates from different sources ranging from 5,2 to 7,2m. I only know record-holding great whites are often overhyped, as with those 8-12m sightings. It ought to be saver to rely on the average of specimens we know the sizes of. Theropod read the paper please, they conclude that 7,10 m is not irrefutable and 5,2-5,5 m has to be rejected. The came to the most probable estimate of 6,47-6,6 m, you showed it in the table.  |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 15:23:57 GMT 5
^No, I was talking about Kent, 2013, which should be published in order to be considered published. Grey: From the paper you posted, it seems like there is absolutely no consensus, as can be seen in estimates from different sources ranging from 5,2 to 7,2m. I only know record-holding great whites are often overhyped, as with those 8-12m sightings. It ought to be saver to rely on the average of specimens we know the sizes of. This will be part of a chapter in the new book of Kent. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 15:33:14 GMT 5
In short, if we you want use the direct sizing based on large great whites by Gottfried for envision the hypothetical maximum size in C. megalodon, here you have a list of some reported very large white sharks, with the most likely and up to date estimates of their size.   Once again, I don't reject it but I have not great faith in it as I don't think the white shark is necessary the best proxy (hence Jeremiah's method), that's all the purpose of hypothetical estimate... EDIT : one reason why I don't too much believe in it is that using the 16,8 cm UA tooth you come the large sizes, but using larger teeth specimen of 18 cm or more, you come with sizes really unreasonnable IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 15:40:57 GMT 5
Those have no tooth lenghts given unfortunately. The point about the Malta specimen is that we simply don't know how large it was exactly. Using such a specimen for size estimates is pointless imo, if we can rely on much better data. The purpose of this thread should not be to establish a great number of hypothetical maximum sizes, but rather real sizes based on reliable data.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 16:22:31 GMT 5
Those have no tooth lenghts given unfortunately. The point about the Malta specimen is that we simply don't know how large it was exactly. Using such a specimen for size estimates is pointless imo, if we can rely on much better data. The purpose of this thread should not be to establish a great number of hypothetical maximum sizes, but rather real sizes based on reliable data. You really don't read my posts... I post ALL the estimates, the most conservative (and plausibly reliable) and the hypothetical maximum estimates by Gottfried. That's you who are focusing on the direct sizing since a while. The Malta specimen was most likely 6,47-6,6 m long, the paper indicates this. That's the most reliable estimate of this specimen. The 5,2-5,5 m estimate has been rejected, even by Compagno BTW. You get a point about the tooth length. The Cuba and the Malta specimen are assumed to have UA of the same size, that's why they were used for it. I was assuming then that these others large specimens had teeth of 5,9 cm as well. And I repeat these are hypothetical sizes estimates only, based on a debattable proxy in the shape of the white shark. Pay attention to the posts and to the information. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 16:43:25 GMT 5
I just saw you using these two giant specimens with the 59cm teeth to estimate the direct-sized results, not the sample averaging 5,5m and 5,92cm respectively, or the other shark he mentions that seems to have a ratio 1cm->1m. Why make them even more hypothetical by using debateable shark specimens instead of averages of several ones?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 16:49:57 GMT 5
I just saw you using these two giant specimens with the 59cm teeth to estimate the direct-sized results, not the sample averaging 5,5m and 5,92cm respectively, or the other shark he mentions that seems to have a ratio 1cm->1m. Why make them even more hypothetical by using debateable shark specimens instead of averages of several ones? These are not debattable. In 96 (Gottfied), the 7,1 m estimate was debattable. In 2001, (De Maddalena), it is not anymore as it is stated to have been more likely 6,47-6,6 m long. So then I used it. The calculation based on a sample has to purpose to establish an average meximum estimate. Not the maximum hypothetical estimate represented by Cuba and Malta individuals. And once again, I don't focuse of it and favor the most conservative statements. I don't use +20 m megs in our discussions. These results are unlikely YES. But they can still be used as hypothetical as they figure in the paper and have been later used by Wroe. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 20:02:01 GMT 5
Yes, but I cannot see why you only use these hypothetical figures, especially if you consider them unlikely yourself. This frankly gives a wrong impression.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 20:07:34 GMT 5
Yes, but I cannot see why you only use these hypothetical figures, especially if you consider them unlikely yourself. This frankly gives a wrong impression. I use published methods on unpublished teeth specimens that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 20:19:00 GMT 5
I was not talking about the methods, but the direct sizing. You should use the normal sharks rather than the outsized ones that only base on a picture comparison. I would also prefer the average of reliable sizes for specimens over one single unreliable one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 20:20:54 GMT 5
I was not talking about the methods, but the direct sizing. You should use the normal sharks rather than the outsized ones that only base on a picture comparison. I would also prefer the average of reliable sizes for specimens over one single unreliable one. The size of these large specimens are reliable or at the worst likely. The purpose is to envision hypothetical maximum sizes estimates based on maximum sized extant sharks. I use the others methods as well and personnally favor it. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 20:23:59 GMT 5
Then you should change the thread's title to "hypothetical maximum size in C. megalodon"
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 23, 2013 20:29:39 GMT 5
No, the thread is about sizes in megalodon specimens, whatever the method or the specimen.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2013 21:19:55 GMT 5
Well, then you shouldn't just use the most liberal Carcharodons, should you? and you should also note the uncertainity in the root width scaling factor.
btw, since the widths ought to be pretty constant among sharks, does someone have data on the width of extant lamniform teeth? would help to clear up the latter.
|
|
