|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 18, 2014 19:09:27 GMT 5
I've asked to the Black Hills Institute the width of the Peruvian 18.5 cm slant height tooth found by Pete Larson in 1987 : 14.3 cm wide.  On ebay I've spotted that pic but couldn't found the original page. The eroded one seems to reach the 7 inches in slant height. The other one is pretty big too.  On mountain megalodons, they have a pretty large Lower Anterior that is 16 cm in slant height. If that's really a Lower, that means that Upper were possibly in the upper known size range and record-sized.  www.mountainmegalodons.com/monster.htmlCrossed path that tooth, I don't know if the ruler used for scale is correct, if it is that's a very large tooth.  www.divetime.com/articles/Scuba_Diving_Trivia/Fossil_Hunting_302.html |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 18, 2014 19:34:54 GMT 5
I have to say, I am impressed by your skills of finding 17 cm+ teeth!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 18, 2014 19:51:25 GMT 5
Largest Cuban tooth found to date, 17.6 cm slant :  Can't see the exact length of these ones, seem to reach the 7 inches :   17.62 cm :  I let you guys calculate the vertical height, crown height and width if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Sept 26, 2014 22:53:19 GMT 5
^It's not the best picture angle, but the first tooth shown with a ruler above seems to be close to 7.5 inches in slant height.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 5, 2014 9:03:53 GMT 5
Vito Bertucci's giant 19.4 cm slant length tooth, before restoration and after. It was restored but the original length was not modified, that tooth was really that size as the three points (crown tip, extremities of the root lobes) were intact(I've discussed with the person who restored it) : fossilrestorations.com/sharkstooth2slide.htmlSo I guess, regarding the slant length, this tooth represents at least the largest confirmed Meg tooth found in North America. Roberto Cabrera personnal Meg teeth collection from the Peruvian desert. Some of them seem to be extremely massive and thick :  Also, it appears Hubbell's giant tooth is actually 14 cm wide and 16.9 cm in vertical height (a guy who asked him the tooth size showed me the email), which makes the Black Hills Peruvian tooth slightly larger (wider). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 5, 2014 11:02:20 GMT 5
Vito Bertucci's giant 19.4 cm slant length tooth, before restoration and after. It was restored but the original length was not modified, that tooth was really that size as the three points (crown tip, extremities of the root lobes) were intact(I've discussed with the person who restored it) : fossilrestorations.com/sharkstooth2slide.htmlSo I guess, regarding the slant length, this tooth represents at least the largest confirmed Meg tooth found in North America. Roberto Cabrera personnal Meg teeth collection from the Peruvian desert. Some of them seem to be extremely massive and thick : Also, it appears Hubbell's giant tooth is actually 14 cm wide and 16.9 cm in vertical height (a guy who asked him the tooth size showed me the email), which makes the Black Hills Peruvian tooth slightly larger (wider). How come that tooth continues to change in size? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 5, 2014 11:33:13 GMT 5
Don't know, maybe it depends from which specific part of the tooth is measured, Renz said it is wider when measured a little lower on the root.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 13, 2014 0:54:57 GMT 5
Thanks for the restoration link for the Bertucci tooth Grey. It seems to show that the tooth never had any corner or point restored, so it's original length remained intact Did Bertucci or the restorer ever take pictures of the tooth being measured at 19.4 centimeters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 18, 2014 18:48:15 GMT 5
No Elosha, that's the only picture available of that tooth unfortunately, I doubt any other picture of it from Bertucci will surface.
For the record, the study of Balk and Pimiento is being reviewed as of now so hopefully it will be available soon enough. The working title is "The extinct shark Carcharocles megalodon: A model for understanding long-term microevolutionary body size trends".
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 29, 2014 2:54:25 GMT 5
18 cm tooth recently found in Beaufort, South Carolina.  12.5 cm wide, crown height about 14 cm. Looks like a lower anterior tooth.  |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 30, 2014 5:03:08 GMT 5
Another big one.   |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 30, 2014 23:35:17 GMT 5
^ Wow, that's a really wide 6 inch tooth. Is that an upper anterior or a lateral?
Thanks for the update on the Balk/Pimiento research, Grey. I'm glad it's being peer reviewed for publication shortly. Any update on Kent's draft work and when it will be published. It would be interesting to compare their conclusions as to body size and other areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 31, 2014 0:05:10 GMT 5
I'm not sure about the position, should ask.
I've no news from Kent since months, last time I checked the book was planned for 2015. I'm not sure if the respective works could be compared, Pimiento/Balk focuses on the body size/extinction of meg, Kent is more into the phylogeny and physiology. Kent is not interested into making sizes estimates given the potential issues with them, but he agrees that the available methods are the best and apparently does not complain about others sizes estimates.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 31, 2014 1:53:02 GMT 5
Well I know we will all appreciate all of their research from every angle. I really though the Pimiento statistical evaluation on the probable date of Meg's extinction was well done. Looking forward to their insights on body size and possible causes of the extinction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 31, 2014 4:13:17 GMT 5
According to the authors of another incoming study regarding meg extinction, there were some shortcomings in Pimiento's paper, the date being not that precise. This paper will focuse on the extinction of Meg in the Pacific.
|
|
