|
Post by elosha11 on Aug 29, 2021 23:32:36 GMT 5
Whenever you see white sharks scavenging whale carcasses, they always go for the abdominal region full of rich blubber. I would highly doubt any shark would bite the jaw region. The jaw is a bony, hard and non-nutritious place to feed. Not only that, the whale goes belly up when dead. The jaw is upturned facing the sky. How is Megalodon supposed to reach there, it seems quite incredulous at best and it has no reason too when there is tons of fat in the abdominal region. That 'prehistoric sperm whale tooth' above very well seems to be from a macropredatory whale due to the enamel caps. Modern sperm whales have no enamel caps. If theropod1 is correct, and Harrythefox's reconstruction is also correct I believe Livyatan is an extremely bulky and powerful animal, but also much slower and less agile than even a sperm whale. To put into perspective how bulky, a (20m scaled-up) Livyatan (Brygmo-reconstruction) is around 112 tonnes while a 20.7m sperm whale recorded is 57 tonnes. Added with an dense skeleton, I find the whale to be slower and less agile than a sperm whale. Just have to give a shout out to these prescient observations made years before Godfrey study making and agreeing with many the same points prehistorican made many years ago. Prehistorican, I hope you are still following the forum, and can take some much deserved praise in the raising all of these issues and pointing out the similarity of the tooth to that of Livyatan.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 30, 2021 2:05:31 GMT 5
It looks like instead of "jaw-locking", which the website that tooth was advertised on suggested, the head of these sperm whales was a viable target for an Otodus to attack. In my opinion, this makes significantly more sense.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Sept 15, 2021 6:22:09 GMT 5
Finally Part 3Finally got to part 3 of the comparison of Livyatan holotype lower mandible tooth H, and this 8.25"/21cm fossil tooth. Note the remarkable resemblance. The holotype's H tooth is just over 31.5 cm/12.44" long. FN1. This is substantially larger than the fossil tooth, but the fossil tooth is still quite large and suggests a sizable whale. If the holotype was truly 13.5m to 17.5m, and if this fossil tooth belongs to another Livyatan, it might have been a whale that was 10 to 13 metres long, perhaps a small adult or sub-adult. Is this truly evidence of a Megalodon/Livyatan interaction? It could be, but unless the fossil tooth is examined in study and rigorously compared to the holotype's tooth, it may never be known for sure. I would like to bring this to the attention of Stephen Godfrey and the other authors of Otodus-bitten sperm whale tooth, to get their thoughts and perspective. I think they would find it quite fascinating. FN 1 2016 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2017, 179, 404, 459-460
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 30, 2022 1:06:41 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 1, 2022 5:13:13 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 1, 2022 9:59:25 GMT 5
I never suspected the Livyatan holotype was scavenged on. Really interesting.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Oct 21, 2022 23:47:14 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Oct 25, 2022 6:15:05 GMT 5
The whale vertebra that was majorly broken before fossilization. Credit: Image Courtesy Of The Calvert Marine Museum The chipped megalodon tooth found next to the fractured whale vertebrae. Credit: Image Courtesy Of The Calvert Marine Museum mashable.com/article/megalodon-shark-attack-whale-discovery
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 15, 2022 5:03:22 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 15, 2022 5:07:47 GMT 5
3 more interesting fossils.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 1, 2023 23:44:24 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 20, 2023 10:31:54 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Life on Apr 2, 2023 16:35:16 GMT 5
Megalodon bite marks on several whale bones:
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Apr 20, 2023 5:37:50 GMT 5
Possible bite mark on sperm whale tooth? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on May 14, 2023 18:30:08 GMT 5
|
|