|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 11, 2015 9:28:39 GMT 5
Just saying, I've recently asked to Gottfried if he considered all his sizes estimates for megalodon, in the context of the paper, as equally solid. He said me that what they published is "a range of plausible sizes for megalodon based on what can be measured and compared. Some features suggest a max length of approx 16 meters, other features and calculations suggest an even larger shark."
Not really new but just to consider that all the sizes estimates in the paper are still theoretically usable as of now.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jan 17, 2015 10:56:24 GMT 5
Hmm, what features would suggest only 16 meters max size?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 17, 2015 12:02:54 GMT 5
Measurements based on tooth vertical height but as said by Kent in the Parotodus paper, this is likely underestimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 17, 2015 13:44:16 GMT 5
If 16 m was the max out of a that high sample, what was the average size? 10-12 m?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 17, 2015 13:56:16 GMT 5
16 m is unlikely the max size of megalodon.
For now, 18 m can be considered the max size.
The question of average size is very complicated in the case of megalodon as we've already discussed. I suggest to wait the study of Balk.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 17, 2015 15:15:39 GMT 5
I know that 16 m is extremely unlikely, I just wondered how small the average would have to be then.
I also know that the average size is complicated, but we already have something to work with (http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4717/pk23.png ).
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 20, 2015 9:15:12 GMT 5
Just sayin, Pimiento and Balk's paper has been accepted so it might be published in few weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 5, 2015 2:18:30 GMT 5
Apparently the new world record breaker, from a private collection in Peru, the paleontologist who studied it shared these pictures, made a cast of it and is going to give a talk about the Miocene vertebrate from Peru. It was found in 2007 from the same region of the Black Hills tooth (which is smaller but in better condition). The perspective is unclear but he reports the maximum slant length at least 198 cm. More precise measurements for later. A monster for sure.    |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 7, 2015 15:02:56 GMT 5
^That’s truly an enourmous tooth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 7, 2015 21:56:54 GMT 5
I have some news btw. First, it's been three weeks since the Megalodon size study has been accepted and I suspect it will be on plosone, which usually takes between 3 and 6 weeks for publication after acceptance, so the paper should come anytime now.
I have news from the vertebral column in Belgium, it's been stored but they plan to mount it again. Even better, Pimiento plans to study it.
I have a contact, a Belgian paleontologist, who saw the backbone when he was young, and said me it was 9 m long. This contradicts Gottfried who estimated the whole shark to have been 9 m (I don't think Gottfried had any data about the size of the mount), which would indicate the shark was probably larger than this. I'm not sure but even if the 9 m figure included the composite dentition,, we're still looking at a maybe 7 or 8 m incomplete backbone with the large vertebra at 155 mm in width. Wait n see.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Apr 7, 2015 22:41:04 GMT 5
Well 9 meter Backbone that is 3/4 complete means a 12 meter vertebral column, add 2 meters for the head, that is 14 meters. 230 mm diameter for the largest Danish vert, means 21 meter shark, if it indeed was the largest, which is unlikely. The Tooth found in Denmark is rougly 2/3 of the largest known tooth. 28 meter is the minimum size for this new largest meg.
^Sorry for that late Aprils fool.
Magnificient tooth, Grey.
Really looking forward to the new publications.
Cant wait for an almost complete Meg to be described, which still seems to be in a far distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 7, 2015 22:53:46 GMT 5
Ahah not bad stomatopod^
I think anyway that meg max size is going to level of at 18 m, though a tooth like this one makes me think 20 m or so is still tenable.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Apr 7, 2015 23:11:18 GMT 5
Stomatopod, this is a clear underestimate for the maximum size. The diameter of a vertebra of a shark from the peruvian desert was 26cm. But we know (deep inside) that this is not the largest meg. 30m Megalodon confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 8, 2015 7:50:26 GMT 5
^^
Now, the 9 m figure for the backbone/mount is only an anecdotical report, the guy only had seen this size description when he was kid at the Museum. Maybe the column is just about 6 m which would make Gottfried figure realistic. But this certainly needs more work. I hope that in the next study it is properly measured.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Apr 8, 2015 13:24:10 GMT 5
GreyNow that is a whopper. I had a gut-feeling of possibility of an 8-inch Meg tooth but you found it.  You need to spread the word. This tooth deserves all the publicity it can receive and access to scientific community would be a plus. I am now fully convinced about credibility of 20 m TL for Megalodon.
|
|
