|
Post by theropod on Aug 26, 2024 17:06:57 GMT 5
Vividen and his crowd just have a passion for creative nicknames. This is the same fossil that Bendix-Almgreen already described and published in 1983 (indeed consisting of around 20 centra ranging from 10 to 23 cm, so if they are from one specimen the ratio would suggest the largest are probably pretty close to being the largest in the column, perhaps shy of it by a cm or so) and that has been discussed here numerous times before.
So there’s nothing new about it except whatever new information Jack might have uncovered about it, but the SVP abstracts don’t appear to be out yet (I could swear conference season is getting later every year), although I thought I had read rumours that the specimen had been lost (maybe these were misunderstandings?).
–– Bendix-Almgreen, S.E. 1983. Carcharodon megalodon from the Upper Miocene of Denmark, with comments on elasmobranch tooth enameloid: coronoïn. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 32 (1–2): 1–32.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 26, 2024 18:17:59 GMT 5
I just want to know who did that really awesome piece. I want to say it looks like an RJ Palmer piece, but I’m not sure.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Aug 27, 2024 0:17:26 GMT 5
Vividen and his crowd just have a passion for creative nicknames. This is the same fossil that Bendix-Almgreen already described and published in 1983 (indeed consisting of around 20 centra ranging from 10 to 23 cm, so if they are from one specimen the ratio would suggest the largest are probably pretty close to being the largest in the column, perhaps shy of it by a cm or so) and that has been discussed here numerous times before.
So there’s nothing new about it except whatever new information Jack might have uncovered about it, but the SVP abstracts don’t appear to be out yet (I could swear conference season is getting later every year), although I thought I had read rumours that the specimen had been lost (maybe these were misunderstandings?).
–– Bendix-Almgreen, S.E. 1983. Carcharodon megalodon from the Upper Miocene of Denmark, with comments on elasmobranch tooth enameloid: coronoïn. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 32 (1–2): 1–32.
There actually was a scientific publication that a few years ago tried to catalog and track down various Megalodon vertebral centra and regrettably found the 20 or so from the Denmark paper are indeed missing from the Museum in which they were supposed to stored. I think that article has been cited before on WoA, and I've definitely read it. But don't ask me to try to find it now. I'd love to see if Honninger could supply any more info/pictures of what he found. Unfortunately, there used to be additional photos of the Meg fossils here from Honninger in the "Special Disclosures" thread, in addition to what I've posted there. But those other pics got lost on the servers from which they were posted on this forum. I'll try to reach out to Honninger again.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 28, 2024 22:50:54 GMT 5
Vividen and his crowd just have a passion for creative nicknames. This is the same fossil that Bendix-Almgreen already described and published in 1983 (indeed consisting of around 20 centra ranging from 10 to 23 cm, so if they are from one specimen the ratio would suggest the largest are probably pretty close to being the largest in the column, perhaps shy of it by a cm or so) and that has been discussed here numerous times before.
So there’s nothing new about it except whatever new information Jack might have uncovered about it, but the SVP abstracts don’t appear to be out yet (I could swear conference season is getting later every year), although I thought I had read rumours that the specimen had been lost (maybe these were misunderstandings?).
–– Bendix-Almgreen, S.E. 1983. Carcharodon megalodon from the Upper Miocene of Denmark, with comments on elasmobranch tooth enameloid: coronoïn. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 32 (1–2): 1–32.
There actually was a scientific publication that a few years ago tried to catalog and track down various Megalodon vertebral centra and regrettably found the 20 or so from the Denmark paper are indeed missing from the Museum in which they were supposed to stored. I think that article has been cited before on WoA, and I've definitely read it. But don't ask me to try to find it now. I'd love to see if Honninger could supply any more info/pictures of what he found. Unfortunately, there used to be additional photos of the Meg fossils here from Honninger in the "Special Disclosures" thread, in addition to what I've posted there. But those other pics got lost on the servers from which they were posted on this forum. I'll try to reach out to Honninger again. I'm aware of this, it's not done by Cooper but by the same team that proposed the new body shape earlier this year. I'm not even sure the incoming article focuses on the Danish vertebrae but I do know the new maximum length they will propose. People are confusing some research that was done privately by prehistorican with Vividen (but we have now news from him since months) from this forum and the actual research being done by those authors currently working on megalodon shape/size. Also, like for the big shastasaurids, people have a boring tendency to throw wild size figures here, especially in tonnage... The Peruvian specimens are apparently legit (reportedly confirmed by O. Lambert) and are being studied but the publication might come only years later. There are many things that will come from Peru in the next years like a new big whale... theropod yes the Danish material has been discarded but I guess the Bendix-Almgreen paper is enough to work with for the authors assimuming it focuses on the vertebral scaling.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Aug 29, 2024 7:52:55 GMT 5
There actually was a scientific publication that a few years ago tried to catalog and track down various Megalodon vertebral centra and regrettably found the 20 or so from the Denmark paper are indeed missing from the Museum in which they were supposed to stored. I think that article has been cited before on WoA, and I've definitely read it. But don't ask me to try to find it now. I'd love to see if Honninger could supply any more info/pictures of what he found. Unfortunately, there used to be additional photos of the Meg fossils here from Honninger in the "Special Disclosures" thread, in addition to what I've posted there. But those other pics got lost on the servers from which they were posted on this forum. I'll try to reach out to Honninger again. I'm aware of this, it's not done by Cooper but by the same team that proposed the new body shape earlier this year. I'm not even sure the incoming article focuses on the Danish vertebrae but I do know the new maximum length they will propose. People are confusing some research that was done privately by prehistorican with Vividen (but we have now news from him since months) from this forum and the actual research being done by those authors currently working on megalodon shape/size. Also, like for the big shastasaurids, people have a boring tendency to throw wild size figures here, especially in tonnage... The Peruvian specimens are apparently legit (reportedly confirmed by O. Lambert) and are being studied but the publication might come only years later. There are many things that will come from Peru in the next years like a new big whale... theropod yes the Danish material has been discarded but I guess the Bendix-Almgreen paper is enough to work with for the authors assimuming it focuses on the vertebral scaling. Grey, thanks for the details. Are the Peruvian specimens you mentioned the Klaus Honninger Meg skeleton(s)? Did someone find them again, or convince Honninger to finally share more information? Do you know any more details? Remind me who O. Lambert is again. I know he's a researcher, but don't remember his background. What was the research from prehistorican and Vividen? I'm not familiar with that.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 29, 2024 16:13:25 GMT 5
I'm aware of this, it's not done by Cooper but by the same team that proposed the new body shape earlier this year. I'm not even sure the incoming article focuses on the Danish vertebrae but I do know the new maximum length they will propose. People are confusing some research that was done privately by prehistorican with Vividen (but we have now news from him since months) from this forum and the actual research being done by those authors currently working on megalodon shape/size. Also, like for the big shastasaurids, people have a boring tendency to throw wild size figures here, especially in tonnage... The Peruvian specimens are apparently legit (reportedly confirmed by O. Lambert) and are being studied but the publication might come only years later. There are many things that will come from Peru in the next years like a new big whale... theropod yes the Danish material has been discarded but I guess the Bendix-Almgreen paper is enough to work with for the authors assimuming it focuses on the vertebral scaling. Grey, thanks for the details. Are the Peruvian specimens you mentioned the Klaus Honninger Meg skeleton(s)? Did someone find them again, or convince Honninger to finally share more information? Do you know any more details? Remind me who O. Lambert is again. I know he's a researcher, but don't remember his background. What was the research from prehistorican and Vividen? I'm not familiar with that. Yes the Klaus related specimens, I don't have much details, just that Olivier Lambert (one of the describers of Livyatan) confirmed they are legit and will be described at some point. Prehistorican (with whom I discussed a lot) was working on scaling the Danish vertebrae to present it on the Vividen YT channel.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Aug 30, 2024 4:51:42 GMT 5
GreyThanks. That's so encouraging to know the Peruvian Meg fossil(s) may have survived after all these years. I'm going to try to contact Klaus again for more details.
|
|
otodus
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 20
|
Post by otodus on Oct 18, 2024 22:59:47 GMT 5
|
|