I assume you're Magnum Kek? I was referring to komodo. Has anyone brought up the Leder research with associated dentition to denis? It suggest Megalodon reached and exceeded 18 meters.
I haven't ready through the entire carnivora thread to see if he's aware of that. Or pointed the the fact that the latest downsizing proposal may have significant flaws, including but not limited to Shimata only using a 6.6 inch tooth come up with his downsized estimate. Not saying there's anything wrong with using reliable museum specimens, but there are obviously documented larger teeth out there well over 7 inches.
It's fine for anyone to favor Livyatan or Meg, but at least all the facts and arguments should be acknowledged and addressed.
This is not only the last of the fossil whale vertebrae we will ever offer, it is THE MOST MEGALODON BITTEN we have ever seen! This is a RARE AND LARGE Sperm Whale (Physeter sp.) fossil vertebra WITH THE MOST DRAMATIC CUTS AND PUNCTURE MARKS FROM MEGALODON SHARK BITES. It features SEVERE bite cuts as the shark scraped and shook the whale body as it bit down. One bite shows a J-shaped curve, a sign the shark was shaking the prey as it was biting down, a common way sharks feed to tear off the flesh of its prey.
The damage is unquestionably from a Megalodon shark, based on the sheer size and power the bites exhibit. This fossil vertebra's size and proximity to associated Sperm whale teeth and Megalodon shark teeth leave no doubt this came from the largest predatory whale of this period. The Megalodon shark and Sperm whales were THE apex predators of this period and both competed for food as well as served as each others' food source when possible. The image of two powerful killing machines larger than passenger buses fighting and tearing at each other underwater must have been an absolutely incredible battle to witness! The sheer size of this thoracic vertebra and its Megalodon bite mark gives us a glimpse of the size of these killers.
Last Edit: Apr 27, 2020 11:49:14 GMT 5 by elosha11
Well yes, but I don't think his counterpart is doing all that well either. Carnivora seems to have relatively little interest in marine animals lately, which leads to bad posting in general on those topics. OTOH, they do have a large number of quality threads for terrestrial conflicts.
His opponent and me are running circles around him. He had to resort to taking a statement out of context to try and paint me as a "Carnosaur Fanboy"in order to try and gain an upper hand.
For you to reference in case you want to rebut denis poor arguments for bull elephant seals/GWS (as a proxy for his claim that Meg would not attack large prey). There was also another study I found but now cannot locate that noted that bull elephant seals are often targeted at sea because they swim in deeper water than females and are often dragged and consumed underwater. Thus the ones we see to make it to shore simply show those that were lucky enough to escape, it does not indicate the shark does not prey on them with some regularity. Judging by the massive size of these bull seals and the massive wounds, to claim a large GWS cannot prey on a large bull elephant seal is highly dubious.
Here are quotes from the research article WHITE SHARK PREDATION ON PINNIPEDS IN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATERS, which documents multiple great white shark attacks and some subsequent deaths of large bull elephant seals. Keep in mind these were all observation of animals on the shore, not in the waters where successful predations take place. The full article can be found at www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/spo/FishBull/80-4/leboeuf.pdf.
. We report evidence of the first two kinds regarding shark predation on northern elephant seals, Mirounga angustirostris, and harbor seals, Phoca vitulina.... Between 1976 and 1980, 44 elephant seals with shark-inflicted injuries were observed (Table 2). Most of the elephant seals bearing recent shark wounds were adults. Males incurred the highest injury rate. Even the largest adult bulls, measuring more than 4.9 m and weighing between 1,800 and 2,700 kg were observed with shark bites(see Figure 2a). This may be due to the male habit of spending more time in the water near the rookery during the breeding season than females.... In February 1978, a large 7-yr-old male died on the island's main breeding beach from massive shark wounds incurred within the previous 24 h. The most serious wounds consisted of two large oval chunks of flesh missing from the left side of the thoracic region (Fig. 2e). The bites measured 61 and 69 cm wide, 61 cm high, and 30 cm deep. No bite penetrated the body cavity although some muscle was removed and a rib was partly exposed
Here's the pictures of Figure 2a and Figure 2e, showing very large wounded male and and the other large bull elephant seal, which died from the great white's attack. Click on image to enlarge and note particularly the extreme damage done to the large bull elephant seal in Figure 2e, leading to its death, along with the significant damage done to the large bull in 2a.
Here are images of other large adult or subadult bulls attacked, usually at the hindquarters, a clear predation attempt. There's also a dead bull elephant seal which was either fed upon and discarded or made it up to shore before dying from its wounds. In summary, there's a large body of evidence demonstrating that great whites can and do prey upon even the largest bull northern elephant seals, even ones that can exceed the shark in size. This, along with with other examples of great whites hunting similar sized prey, does away with benko2015's claim that great whites don't hunt large prey, unlike crocodiles.
"In the foreground a sub adult bull carries the scars of an encounter with T-Rex. While bull elephant seals are extremely tough and do not go quietly when attacked, even alpha bulls are a potential target for the worlds largest known predatory shark, the white shark, C. carcharias."
Here's pics mentioned above, attachment was too large for last post:
Here's the pictures of Figure 2a and Figure 2e, showing very large wounded male and and the other large bull elephant seal, which died from the great white's attack. Click on image to enlarge and note particularly the extreme damage done to the large bull elephant seal in Figure 2e, leading to its death, along with the significant damage done to the large bull in 2a.
EDIT: It's still too large, attachments can now only be 1 MB. You can see the massive damage done to large elephant bulls in figures 2a and 2e on my 1/25/18 post in this thread:
I think here one of Carnivora's greatest strengths over us does not favor them here. That is, if you already have a large base number of animal enthusiasts and experts, you have it easier to attract like-minded individuals. Most of the Megalodon vs Livyatan people have left Carnivora and migrated here long ago, producing lots of quality content. Thus, anyone interested in these animals is more likely to find WoA than Carnivora via google.
Well yes, but I don't think his counterpart is doing all that well either. Carnivora seems to have relatively little interest in marine animals lately, which leads to bad posting in general on those topics. OTOH, they do have a large number of quality threads for terrestrial conflicts.
His opponent and me are running circles around him. He had to resort to taking a statement out of context to try and paint me as a "Carnosaur Fanboy"in order to try and gain an upper hand.
I see the carnivora crowd is jumping all over the Shimada study to try to downsize Meg and favor Livyatan. It's funny how they always resisted the multiple opinions and studies showing Meg reaching or well exceeding 18 meters, yet many posters there (including the admin) are happy to now jump on the Shimada bandwagon even though (1) he admittedly used only a 6.6 inch tooth to get his 15 meter max estimate, (2) there's definite problems with crown height analysis of a single tooth which are greatly mitigated by Leder et al's associated dentition analysis, and (3) Shimada apparently admitted to Grey (one of the co-authors of Leder's coming work) that there are likely problems with his methodology and that he's eager to see the associated dentition full analysis.
Leder's analysis may suggest that the largest Megs could comfortably exceed 18 meters. We will have to see when it comes out.
His opponent and me are running circles around him. He had to resort to taking a statement out of context to try and paint me as a "Carnosaur Fanboy"in order to try and gain an upper hand.
I see the carnivora crowd is jumping all over the Shimada study to try to downsize Meg and favor Livyatan. It's funny how they always resisted the multiple opinions and studies showing Meg reaching or well exceeding 18 meters, yet many posters there (including the admin) are happy to now jump on the Shimada bandwagon even though (1) he admittedly used only a 6.6 inch tooth to get his 15 meter max estimate, (2) there's definite problems with crown height analysis of a single tooth which are greatly mitigated by Leder et al's associated dentition analysis, and (3) Shimada apparently admitted to Grey (one of the co-authors of Leder's coming work) that there are likely problems with his methodology and that he's eager to see the associated dentition full analysis.
Leder's analysis may suggest that the largest Megs could comfortably exceed 18 meters. We will have to see when it comes out.
They do not understand a few things.
1. Both Gottfried et al (1996) and Shimada (2002) admit offering conservative TL estimations for the Megalodon in respective papers. I have seen a partially preserved dentition of the Megalodon which gives the impression of similarities with the Ginsu shark. Therefore, Great white shark is not sufficient proxy by itself.
2. Shimada (2019) does not rule out the possibility of Megalodon(s) exceeding 15 m in TL (he is aware of some teeth which indicate as much and even estimated the TL of one such). Unfortunately, paleontologists are not allowed to draw conclusions from fossils in PRIVATE HANDS in publications (Paleontology conventions); average JOE does not understand this. Some of the most interesting and impressive fossils are in PRIVATE HANDS around the world. So there's that. In fact, there are numerous fossils in Museums which are not published and/or revisited in new publications due to different factors although some researchers are taking a good look as of late.
2. Even juvenile Megalodon were BIG-GAME HUNTERS at some point and fed on a higher trophic level than the Great white shark (solid evidence at hand). Large Megalodon (TL = 11 m and above) would have ripped any animal to shreds in an attack.
My work will surface eventually, and it will raise many a eyebrows.
since so many people put so many good points and so many good attachments from internet I'm only going to briefly put my point of view.
Megalodon would probably win this battle or at least have a small edge because of its larger size. But pound per pound livyatan is stronger than megalodon.
Since we often use great white sharks as proxies for this conflict, I am curious to know what any of you think about the two recent documented recordings of 4 meter great white sharks killing 10 meter humpback whales, albeit weakened ones. I would imagine many people would have thought that much smaller sharks would not have been able to physically kill the whale under any circumstances. Yet they instinctively recognized that they need to bite the tail and bleed out the much-larger whale.
Does this change anyone's views on how Megalodon may have approached a conflict with Livyatan? I have some comments, but I first wanted to hear other members' thoughts.
Since we often use great white sharks as proxies for this conflict, I am curious to know what any of you think about the two recent documented recordings of 4 meter great white sharks killing 10 meter humpback whales, albeit weakened ones. I would imagine many people would have thought that much smaller sharks would not have been able to physically kill the whale under any circumstances. Yet they instinctively recognized that they need to bite the tail and bleed out the much-larger whale.
Does this change anyone's views on how Megalodon may have approached a conflict with Livyatan? I have some comments, but I first wanted to hear other members' thoughts.
two? I thought it was just one.
I was also surprised that the great white managed to drag the 10 meter whale down and drown it. Even if the whale was weakened it must have weighed twice or more than the shark
Since we often use great white sharks as proxies for this conflict, I am curious to know what any of you think about the two recent documented recordings of 4 meter great white sharks killing 10 meter humpback whales, albeit weakened ones. I would imagine many people would have thought that much smaller sharks would not have been able to physically kill the whale under any circumstances. Yet they instinctively recognized that they need to bite the tail and bleed out the much-larger whale.
Does this change anyone's views on how Megalodon may have approached a conflict with Livyatan? I have some comments, but I first wanted to hear other members' thoughts.
two? I thought it was just one.
I was also surprised that the great white managed to drag the 10 meter whale down and drown it. Even if the whale was weakened it must have weighed twice or more than the shark
the first great white shark attack was documented in May 2020. The second one was July 2020. The first one:
Infinity Blade: I'm not sure. Freshwater plants certainly grow from the underwater sediment upwards, but I don't know if they support the same kinds of diverse ecosystems seagrass meadows do.
Mar 25, 2022 21:40:57 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Is there a freshwater equivalent of seagrass meadows?
Mar 24, 2022 22:17:28 GMT 5
hypezephyr: IN DROWN, WATER WILL CHIMPS
May 27, 2021 22:33:21 GMT 5
kekistani: IN WATER, CHIMPS WILL DROWN.
Mar 18, 2021 11:18:01 GMT 5
roninwolf1981: I wonder why is it that the greater apes would drown if they fell into water from the trees?
Mar 16, 2021 22:25:11 GMT 5
kekistani: The virgin and bluepilled Mokele Mbembe versus the CHAD and REDPILLED Water Elephant
Mar 4, 2021 22:31:57 GMT 5
Ceratodromeus: Considering even the most terrestrially inclined extant crocodilians are also very good swimmers, i see zero reason for sebechids to not be.
Feb 25, 2021 21:09:18 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Virtually every terrestrial animal can swim if it needs to. I don't know about tail flexibility, though.
Feb 21, 2021 22:17:14 GMT 5
jhg: Probably not. Terrestrial crocodiles stayed on land for a good reason.
Feb 21, 2021 11:17:16 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Do you think sebecids and other crocodile-like terrestrial animals were good swimmers and if so, would they have used their tails to swim or would they have been too stiff?
Feb 21, 2021 6:16:35 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Welcome to World of Animals.
Jan 31, 2021 5:06:24 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Any idea how well pterosaurs would have fared in extremely cold climates? I can't help but assume that their wing membranes would be more vunerable to frostbite than a bird's wing.
Jan 23, 2021 9:38:14 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Turns out there is a study: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08812-2 fresh bones provided 63% more energy than dry bones but what I find intresting is that dry bones that are between 3-12 months old is still a viable food source for them.
Jan 4, 2021 9:18:34 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I think they might get calcium from the bones, but those might be harder to digest as well. For bone marrow, I'd say however long it's around before it completely decays.
Jan 4, 2021 6:23:06 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Question: I know a bearded vulture's diet consists mainly of bone marrow, but are they able to derive nutritional value from old bones or do the bones have to be relatively fresh?
Jan 4, 2021 2:59:21 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Happy New Year mudda fuggas.
Jan 1, 2021 10:02:06 GMT 5
