|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 13, 2014 16:27:42 GMT 5
@elosha 1) I’m not assuming it did not reach 9m. That would however likely represent an individual that’s "above average", considering it is very difficult to find teeth consistent with such a size anywhere (I found only one that is decisively larger than a big great white). There are many Otodus-tooth pictures, and the teeth themselves don’t appear to be uncommon (since one can find them in next to every fossil store or museum store), so if those sizes where anything close to common, even just counting the adults (because it IS quite common to find 5-7cm teeth among them, their shape fully developed, which I doubt are from juveniles, and which are probably too large relative to the alledged size to be from subadults. Either way, in megalodon tooth samples we seem to have much greater precentage of large teeth, ie. ones that are in the presumed adult size class of more than 14m). Accordingly, it is difficult to say whether it was bigger than an Orca or not, although I tend to believe it was likely longer. Regarding its tooth function, I agree with you:  The shape of these teeth seems more reminiscent of a mako shark, and probably not as good at slicing as a great white’s or Carcharocles’, and more-so designed for gripping. The teeth are unserrated, the blades are relatively narrow (compare to the height but also compared to the total tooth width), but thick-bladed. But it would be foolish to assume such sharp-edged teeth would not still have been potent cutting tools. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 13, 2014 17:11:58 GMT 5
I'd compare the dentition of Otodus with Parotodus, which Kent compared to mosasaurs dentition. My tooth, don't remember the size but I think it was it to be 8 cm or more in perpendicular height, part of it is still in the matrix, not of its position, found in Morocco.    Theropod how do you know most of the teeth are not that large ? That's the same issue than with Megalodon and Otodus teeth appear less documented. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 13, 2014 17:33:25 GMT 5
Parotodus does have a number of similarities, but its roots seem much broader and more massive, and the crowns shorter. Teeth of Otodus are relatively slender.
Compare a specimen comparable to a greath white’s to images of Otodus teeth (most of which are with either a ruler or a hand for scale), and you see that none are considerably bigger.
Otodus teeth may be less documented than Carcharocles, but they are abundant. It’s certainly not just small specimens that get published online, especially if the publishers have a financial interest in making them look as big as possible.
Can’t you measure the tooth?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 13, 2014 18:16:03 GMT 5
Parotodus was also compared to killer whales, so if we use it as an analogy, the biting strategies of both combatants wouldn't be that different (I'm not saying I would use it though, Carcharocles would be a phylogenetically valid analogy, too). I agree with the Megalodon comparison, in some animals the "average" size is simply not the size for matchups, although in this case the possibly lower average size could be used to justify a parity fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 13, 2014 21:03:12 GMT 5
I'd not question the validity of Otodus being significantly bigger than the white shark. The teeth I see on most websites appear bigger than any great white. Cliff Jeremiah also made a life model of it at 7.5 m and most of the sources clearly speak about a really big shark. I can discuss the accuracy of 12 m as a max length, but again it's from Gordon Hubbell. I don't know the size of his set but I'd not ignore that statement either.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 13, 2014 21:17:19 GMT 5
I don't question the validity of this. You have to remember that the average size for the great white is no that large either, so you can't compare maximum with possible average size.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 13, 2014 22:06:16 GMT 5
I’m not saying Otodus wasn’t bigger than a white shark. That and averaging at 9m are two different things. If Otodus was commonly around 6 or 7m, it would already have been a good deal larger than Carcharodon. But before making any concrete statements about its size, someone first has to collect and publish the necessary data to properly quantify it. What a shame they are available, but unpublished ( the dentition...), only receiving a short mention in popular-scientific books... Vertebrae 127mm in diameter likely would have belonged to a ~7.6m lamniform (i.e. smaller than, for example, Cardabiodon ricki), comparable to the size of Jeremiah’s reconstruction (Is there a reference for the size of that model?). That estimate is consistent with Siversson’s direct isometric scaling, Gottfried et al.’s formula based on vertebral diameter, and the one from Caillet et al 1985. I highly doubt Renz listed the size of the smallest vertebra, considering there appears to be a fairly large associated vertebral collumn. He likely rather rounded down the width of the biggest. Anterior or anterolateral teeth measuring 4-5cm wide and 6-8cm in slant height are not those of a 9m colossus, unless that animal had a tiny dentition for its size, in terms of both height AND width (i.e. its teeth were low-crowned and wide-spaced). Of course there are also many teeth smaller than that?, but that’s quite normal for a shark... What are those sources you refer to Grey? I found next to no rigorous data on Otodus’ size and anatomy. Just a big bunch of teeth for sale. Could you post some of those teeth presumably outsizing large great whites? EDIT: There’s a (poor resolution) photograph of half the dentition:  There appear to be several associated sets though. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 13, 2014 22:29:48 GMT 5
The upper dentition is about 548mm in lenght (but take care, owing to the image quality that’s at best very rough). For both sides, that’s 1096mm. Note that the teeth in that dentition are decent-sized, not somehow small, with the largest teeth being close to 8cm in slant lenght and over 5cm wide-bigger than most teeth you find pictures of.
If we restore it like Carcharodon, with a somewhat liberal spacing of 15%, the size based on toothrow lenght would be 7.47m. Based on Isurus oxyrinchus, with 25% spacing, we get 7.58m. I. paucus, with the same specimen, yields 8.4m.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 13, 2014 22:33:55 GMT 5
Congratulations to 2000 posts theropod!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 13, 2014 23:00:57 GMT 5
An isolated vertebrae is not enough to calculate the size of the shark, we don't know the position of that vertebrae, if it was a bigger one from the pectoral region or from another region. And even in that case, we have to find out the growth status of the shark. This 127 mm vertebrae just says the Otodus behind reached at least 7.6 m TL. Which is already in the adult size range of orcas.
Most of the websites use size of 9 m up to 12 m max. I think they are based on Hubbell's collection.
I know that David Ward has studied a partial Otodus skeleton from Morocco but I just igore if something is going to be published.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Feb 14, 2014 2:57:34 GMT 5
Parotodus was also compared to killer whales, so if we use it as an analogy, the biting strategies of both combatants wouldn't be that different (I'm not saying I would use it though, Carcharocles would be a phylogenetically valid analogy, too). I agree with the Megalodon comparison, in some animals the "average" size is simply not the size for matchups, although in this case the possibly lower average size could be used to justify a parity fight. I'm always hesitant to pare a larger animal down to the maximum size of smaller animal to make a parity fight. And Creature386, I know that was not exactly the point you were making at the end of your comment above, but I wanted to address it. For example, I think it was Sam1 or someone else on Carnivora who would say a 8 meter orca would dominate an 8 meter Megalodon. However, that of course ignores the fact that such a match up would pit an experienced, in its prime orca v. a subadult shark. Such matchups make no sense to me, although that's not to say such contests don't happen. In fact the famous orca predation on the GWS in 1997 is somewhat of a similar scenario, a smaller subadult shark v. a significantly larger, albeit not huge, orca. In any event, in all these aquatic matchups, we get so consumed with the maximum and/or average size of the combatants, that sometimes we lose sight of other factors. Size is obviously a huge consideration, but these contests do not simply come down to which one has the greatest relative size, particularly with similarly sized animals. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 2:37:46 GMT 5
I think a large determined orca would win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 3:53:21 GMT 5
At parity I would favor the Orca.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 28, 2018 17:53:08 GMT 5
I tend to favour sharks over orcas at parity, as the greater bite volume is helpful when fighting an opponent at least as large as oneself.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 21:28:53 GMT 5
I favor the shark, it can easily bite through the whale's blubber and do serious damage
|
|
