Why are you showing these pictures to me?
I was actually thinking to show some of these exact photos to prove my point - that dolphins can survive a full bite on a critical region from a LARGER(than themselves )GWS.
Larger than themselves.
That first photo shows a dolphin surviving not one, but two of such bites. And that's my point.
A bowhead whale is TWICE the size of a megalodon and its blubber is far, far thicker in respective to megalodon's teeth than any of those poor dolphins' fat layer was to the attacker's teeth.
Life just can't wrap his mind around these simple facts.
For how long that dolphin endured after suffering those injuries? I doubt that it survived.
Your contention is that an adult bowhead whale is more likely to live to tell a tale than other species after experiencing a bite from an adult Megalodon (ENTER REASONS....), but are you in the position to substantiate your HYPOTHESIS with relevant biomechanical modeling and dismiss assertion of paleontologist Victor J. Perez consequently? What did Mr. Perez suggest in the first place?
Megalodon likely hunted in a single-strike manner: it charged at its prey and chomped down hard. Whatever didn’t die on the spot was left immobilized or too crippled to run away, and bleeding heavily.
“It would just become scavenging after that,” says Perez. “A shark wouldn’t want to grab and hold onto a whale because it’s going to thrash about and possibly injure the shark in the process.”Link:
www.zmescience.com/science/megalodon-teeth-evolution-8235224/Mr. Perez got this right, he have had considerable exposure to relevant fossil records.
Important considerations below:-[1] Fossil records - when observed in large qualities - indicate a
pattern of inferred attacks from Megalodon as in directed towards skull (missing skulls; dental imprints on parts of skulls, and even on teeth), chest cavity (dental imprints on fragments of rib cage) and caudal section (dental imprints on fragments of caudal bones and/or largely intact caudal bones in few cases); these patterns suggest sufficient intelligence to process how to immobilize a whale and/or to kill it swiftly.
[2] Megalodon featured a substantially (more) robust dentition than in modern sharks.
Excessively thick roots visible even in the teeth of neonates/juveniles of Megalodon. Modern sharks do not feature this kind of dentition.
Megalodon's dentition indicate an adaptation to cut through large bony cetaceans,
exceeding the capacity of other sharks in this respect (
Hell's teeth, 1999; Bretton Kent).
[3] Consider following example (solid evidence of a trophic interaction involving a Megalodon).
Closer look:
A juvenile Megalodon (5 - 6 m TL range) is the most likely culprit, and the whale [in question] literally dwarfed this shark in size.
The shark apparently aimed for the chest cavity of the whale (refer to
[1] above), was able cut through a thick layer of blubber and flesh all the way down to the bone. Given the sheer disparity in size between predator and prey, and to the extent this shark was able breach the outer layers of the whale, the shark had bitten off more than enough and further attacks on the whale were not necessary.
Nevertheless, the shark would have left a gaping wound behind (not preserved); excessive loss of tissue in the chest cavity and subsequent infection might explain why this whale did not last long.
"Evenly spaced bony protrusions such as those preserved in CMM-V-3977 are not known to occur naturally on mammalian ribs. The size, shape, even spacing and gently curved alignment of these conical lesions are probably the result of reactive bone formation following sharp point trauma and subsequent infection." - Kallal et al (2010)
The whale was most likely healthy at the time of attack and able to escape (aforementioned rib fragment indicate signs of healing). However, healing process is
partial (i.e. the whale perished some days later), probably succumbing to its wounds due to developing infection.
"The very presence of these bony reactions indicates that the whale survived the initial trauma. The widespread thin layer of woven bone is the result of an inflammatory process almost certainly caused by infection secondary to the trauma. Woven bone forms quickly in response to both trauma such as fracture and infection (Ortner, 2003). The fact that woven bone shows minimal, if any, evidence of remodelling into compact bone indicates that survival following trauma was probably less than 6 weeks (C. Howard, personal communication, 2009)." - Kallal et al (2010)
Emphasis mine. 1. If a juvenile Megalodon could do
that to such a big whale, imagine what an adult Megalodon could do to the same whale [clearly ONE-SHOT territory].
2. Modern-era sharks are not known to take their chances with large bony cetaceans on a frequent basis due to obvious 'capacity-constraints'
but Megalodon could manage just fine (refer to
[2] and
[3] above).
3. Large jaw structure + robust dentition = potentially lethal bites (reduction in chances of failure). Subject to these conditions, larger jaw dimensions would translate into larger bite sizes and corresponding losses to a biological form. Dentition type will deeply
facilitate biotic destruction aspect when staggering forces are involved.
It is very likely for an adult Megalodon to ONE-SHOT a whale of equal size and/or larger [in line with the assertion of paleontologist Victor J. Perez; see above)
unless disparity in size was absolutely enormous (refer to
[3] above).
4. Numerous types of cetaceans existed millions of years ago in the Miocene as well as in the Pliocene including
forms (
HUGE + ROBUST); all were FAIR GAME to gigantic sharks.
Evidence of 'failed predation' is exceedingly scarce in relation to Megalodon as a species (just one or two examples), and virtually non-existent when an adult Megalodon was involved in a trophic interaction. Therefore, documented instances as well as statistical frequency of 'failed predation' in relation to modern sharks, are
not really
instructive in relation to Megalodon (refer to
[1] +
[2] +
[3] above).
---
You overlook biological differences between Megalodon and modern sharks, inferred examples of trophic interactions involving a Megalodon (many), biomechanical inferences of experts who have studied Megalodon fossils for years, and continue to jump to
ill-informed conclusions from time-to-time.
Most notably, you - and a few others -
MISUNDERSTAND statements.ONE-SHOT = not necessarily succeed in killing a prey item on the spot but the prey item is as good as dead after the primary attack. Purpose is served regardless.
I have cautioned you - and a few others - to not try to look at Megalodon through the lens of biomechanical limitations as well as physiological limitations of modern sharks. Megalodon does not have a true analogue in modern times much like the
Livyatan-types. Megalodon isn't just a gigantic shark - it had adaptations for
big-game hunting not noticed in modern sharks.
I am getting a bit tired of pointing out the obvious again and again and again and again. My advice to all is to not waste my time, and pay attention to provided information from this point onwards.
