|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 10, 2019 13:03:56 GMT 5
Yes I already informed the coworkers about that ratio in the model close to what indicates our dentitions. They should follow up to make absolutely sure the Smithsonian research supports/correlates, but it really seems that two independent research projects produced quite similar results (re dentition) and similar (huge/exciting) implications. Smithsonian model could be a really big boost to the credibility of your paper. Almost like a peer review without even intending to be.  My guess under your papers methodology, the critical question is associated width of entire tooth row. So if 4.5 inch UAs (I assume) fit comfortably, probably 5.5 inch UA's and associated set would be significantly wider and would not fit comfortably/naturally into the 52 foot model. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 11, 2019 7:35:36 GMT 5
 This pic is from a documentary of Peruvian fossil market. If this tooth alleged from Peru is real... by eyeball view it looks as large or larger than any known tooth.  Thanks to Grey for posting these on other sites. |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Jun 11, 2019 10:58:41 GMT 5
That can't be real right....? Looks too big.
Edit: Could be how big the fragment was although a big larger.
I think the fragment was around the ballpark of 10-20% larger than the tooth above it.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 14, 2019 1:04:32 GMT 5
That can't be real right....? Looks too big. Edit: Could be how big the fragment was although a big larger. I think the fragment was around the ballpark of 10-20% larger than the tooth above it. What "fragment" are you referring to? The fragment Grey posted a few comments back, or the fragment described by Jean Luc Welcomme in my previous post? I assume you meant Grey's post? Edit - Grey's post with a tooth fragment was in another thread, maybe Meg profile or Meg v. Liyatan? It was recent. I had thought it was in this thread... will track down when I have time. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 14, 2019 16:20:59 GMT 5
Correction Grey's fragement post IS in this thread, on June 4. Here it is. Prehistorican, is this what you were referring to in your last comment?
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Jun 15, 2019 11:07:59 GMT 5
Yes that is the fragment I was referring to. The seller's tooth looks like what the fragment would have looked like if it was a whole tooth. After comparing the fragment with several teeth though, its actually pretty unclear on how large it would have been, but it should be around record size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 28, 2019 4:51:51 GMT 5
One size figure that I think can be considered as quite secure even without publication is of at least 16.3 m. This is based on the Belgium skeketon that was the most recently examined by Catalina Pimiento (I m uncertain if Gottfried ever physically examined the Belgium specimen). She seems quite sure of her estimate of 11 m for the complete living animal. Scaling the widest vertebra with the Denmark vert suggests thus at least 16 m for this Northern meg. Also, interesting depiction : www.deviantart.com/pristichampsus/art/Prehistoric-Monsters-Bigtooth-752018218 |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 16, 2019 22:23:40 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by darfeik118 on Feb 5, 2020 12:03:01 GMT 5
I also think megalodon can be 18 to 20 meters long, but does a larger, wider tooth mean a larger individual?
|
|
|
|
Post by darfeik118 on Feb 5, 2020 12:29:19 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by darfeik118 on Feb 5, 2020 12:33:26 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by darfeik118 on Feb 5, 2020 12:49:47 GMT 5
I have a megalodon lateral maxillary tooth 5.814-inch long and 122.06 mm wide.
|
|
|
|
Post by darfeik118 on Feb 5, 2020 12:50:52 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by darfeik118 on Feb 5, 2020 13:13:02 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 5, 2020 19:49:33 GMT 5
To answer your question: As with all skeletal elements, a larger tooth of an equivalent position indicates a larger animal, since in the absence of any other clues it is always more probable that a larger element also came from a larger animal. That is of course not the same as saying that a larger tooth ALWAYS comes from a larger animal, which is of course incorrect, as the amount of variability (the amount of noise around the actual signal) is enormous. Another problem is the difficulty in assigning. Often we can only get a best guess (if for example there are 5 different possible positions, that would be the mean or the median of the estimates for the individual positions, but one person’s assignment can differ from another person’s by a few positions, so that can further widen that range and make the guess even more unreliable.
And sharks don’t have a maxilla, so they do not have "maxillary teeth".
|
|
