Megalodon size

[theropod]

I’m not the one struggling to move on. I’m absolutely fine with what we have. It’s you who is seeking to establish a very unrealistic percentage as some sort of "mean point", when all the data suggest something is it not.

I can measure them if you really want me to, but I will not measure and add up every single tooth and spacing in another jaw just to be ridiculed by you. I have already measured the jaw with the largest spacing I found. In the mean time, its the same as with the calculation, do it better yourself before complaining and ignoring stuff!

[Grey]

That's not an unrealistic percentage, that's the percentage deduced from the mean point in which the boneclones GW, because of its size range, is clearly fitting. It's you who don't want accept this whereas I've never rejected the other range of percentage, only criticzing that I was not interested at playing arbitrary between almost 0 to 15 % like you did. Also, I wanted to know how Siversson did his estimate.

I don't care about your measurements, I care about the actual datas.

The jaws reconstructed by Ciampaglio (but I guess you'll also consider this guy a douchebag until he talks to you...) and the one they are based on. There is a clear spacing in this rigorous reconstruction.





But I'm really really really done with you. You spit on the data because it only slightly increases the TL of megalodon based on the previous range of spacing ? I don't give a coin. Ignore list is fine for me, I don't read or discuss biased guys. Go discuss about average and maximum sized T. rex, go.

[theropod]

I’ve checked with the tables from Mollet et al. 1996. The specimen from boneclones is not included in their dataset.

Interestingly, there really is a gws with a jaw perimeter of exactly 98cm, it’s 5.486m long and has an UA1 of very similar dimensions to the measurements from the KO-009 toothset (which is interesting because that is a fairly large tooth in a dentition not that big overall), but the reference isn’t Hubbell and it isn’t from California either.

H5384 is a specimen at 5.944m that could also fit (19ft 6in was one of the initial estimates for the individual and the UA1 lenght is the same), but that individual is from Australia and was caught in 1984. Also, Mollet explicitely noted on his site that 5.94m was a "likely overestimate" so he probably wouldn’t list it at this size in the paper anyway.

[Grey]

Now that's some good info.
I'm awaiting some boneclones details if they have it.
A 5.31 m female has 1.063 m. A 5.49 m has 1.067 m.
Again, based on the average, 110 cm or so is the "normally" expected circumference for a 5.5 m GW.

Edit : I've got some info from boneclones :

I’ve taken an approximate measurement of the upper jaw of BC-095, and the outside perimeter is ~56” (142.25 cm). Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.

Well that's outside measurements, difficult to know how to deduce the actual perimeter normally measured.

Mollet :

I've just replied to the same question from another person. Appendix 2 in
attachment that I sent you has several sharks from Gordon Hubbell in the
total length region of interest and it gives dried upper jaw perimeter for
each shark. Use the ID given in Appendix 2 and go backwards thru the
publication to find out if it the shark you're interested in.

I guess that this other person might be theropod. I've looked too at his paper and like theropod said, there's not the specimen we are talking about.
But I'd say there is not the specimen listed at 5.50 m. Originally, the specimen was reported 5.94 m by Gordon Hubbell and there is a specimen at 5.94 m reported by Hubbell.



Dried upper jaw perimeter about 1.30 m. Is that this one ?

Anyway, Mollet just gave me Dr. Gordon Hubbell's contact, so I've directly sent him a mail to him. I think we're finally gonna have a response.

[theropod]

This was the paper Kent was referring to: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00539785

The summary states this:

Frazzetta 1988 said:

In many shark species serrations are concentrated along the proximal portions of the tooth crown, where the bases of adjacent teeth are in near contact along the jaw margin. In these regions food can be pressed during feeding, resulting in a binding of the teeth in the prey. Release of the binding must be accomplished by cutting the jammed food, to permit clearance of the prey material so it can slip past the tooth rows. The more prominent serrations in such regions may act to puncture and slice the jammed tissue.

[Grey]

[Grey]

From lab of the Departamento de Paleontología de Vertebrados MUSM, Lima.

"The beast C. megalodon, compared against the tiny C. brachyurus."

[theropod]

Based on the scalebar the last one is 15.07cm in slant height on the longer side, 14.37cm on the shorter one, 13.12cm in maximum width, and 14.25cm in perpendicular height. Its degree of asymmetry and kink in the crown screams "anterior lateral".

The first one looks a lot like that tooth on the cover of Mark Renz’ book if you ask me. Seems to be an anterior.

[Grey]

That tooth looks like almost exactly a lateral owned by Dr. Kent, from the same location and almost exactly the same proportions.
He said me that based on the proportions and placement, the largest teeth in the dentition were around 17 cm in perpendicular height. Assuming this tooth is from the exact same position.

[elosha11]

Grey/Theropod, I want to thank you both, along with Life, blaze, coherentsheaf, and creature386 for this great thread on Megalodon size and other related threads. Sometimes there's some bickering, sometimes a little heated debate, but by and large you are quite civil and that has truly made this one of the most informative and broadly reaching "amateur" analysis of Megalodon's size. Indeed, I think outside of professional research, WoA has some the best access to research, developments and overall analysis to Megalodon, other mega-toothed sharks, pliosaurs, mosasaurs, Livyatan and ancient crodilians as any site on the web. We have certainly long passed carnivora in that regard (notwithstanding that most of carnivora's information comes from us.) I am proud to have made a few contributions myself, but Grey and Theropod have shouldered most of the load.

The info both of you have provided on the various methodologies for determining Meg's size from teeth, vertebral centra, etc. are particularly well researched and valuable. I still can't say I've read every single post, but I plan to and I have already learned much from your hard work.

I can't speak with specificity yet, but I am working on getting some very new information on Megalodon released to the public very soon. No promises, and I can't say exactly how long it will take, but keep your fingers crossed.

[Grey]

A 7 incher slant measurement. From Georgia, don't get the exact position. The former owner said it was over 12.7 cm wide and an UA3.






Maybe theropod can take various measurements, even it sounds difficult given the perspective.

[theropod]

I don’t think the photos are perpendicular enough to make proper measurements. Also, we don’t see the complete tooth in either of them, which would be important since we need a measurement for reference.

I whished some fossil collectors would make use of this paper→, at least with their most important specimens. That would make a whole lot of additional specimens acessible to science without them even having to sell or donate them.

[Grey]

Another potentially big example.



The american quarter is 24.26 mm in diameter...

Note the tiny fossil catshark tooth on the right of the coin ! The size difference between the two sharks teeth just confirms their huge diversity.

Not sure about the position of the meg, nor the exact measurements.

[Grey]

A fossil collector said me that tooth is 181.93 mm in slant height.

[elosha11]

^At 7.16 inches, that's probably in the top 15-20 largest/longest "officially" known teeth. I think there's probably at least 20 7+ inchers floating around in Peru and Chile, some "official," some not.