|
|
Post by thalattoarchon on Sept 16, 2018 14:42:31 GMT 5
It seems that I found this account with the great white shark predation on beluga whales:  Source: "Alaska's Great White Sharks" by Bruce A. Wright. See post by Elosha: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/31358There are also account with possible interaction between pilot whales and great white shark/sharks: |
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Sept 20, 2018 20:01:44 GMT 5
But what about sperm whales?
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Sept 20, 2018 21:38:27 GMT 5
^Why would a great white shark attack a much larger sperm whale? The last few comments are discussing attacks/predation on similar sized cetaceans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Sept 25, 2018 13:54:33 GMT 5
But what about sperm whales? Great white shark is known to take its chances with pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps). It doesn't have the mindset to take its chances with a much larger prey, but a Megalodon would have. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 5, 2018 22:34:47 GMT 5
I've just watched a new French-American tv doc featuring several ancients giant animals, including meg and to a lesser part Livyatan, and it featured some interesting points, in French version (Mysteries of the lost giants). It features also cool info about Titanoboa, Baluchitherium and Megatherium. As seen in some documentaries, the doc featured some data that are recently published and other that might be published soon. The show also compared superficially Livyatan and meg. Stephen Godfrey, Catalina Pimiento, Bretton Kent, Olivier Lambert and Stephen Wroe appears in it. Among the interesting points : - it seems Pimiento studied the meg backbone from Antwerp and she determines the individual was 11 m (contra 9 m per Gottfried 1996). The centra are also more impressive looking that I thought.   - from this, the tv doc appears pretty much confirm megalodon was able to reach 18 m. I hope Pimiento publishes about the backbone. - Pimiento plans to create a 3D model from the backbone in order to determine the robustness, agility... of the Antwerp individual. - Lambert reports the size of Livyatan between 12 and 17 m. - Wroe states either meg or Livyatan was the largest predator of all time. He seems to imply meg to have had a more powerful bite but sadly doesn't say much about Livyatan other than the teeth were more robust but never replaced.  Here is a trailer : vimeo.com/232990945 |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Oct 6, 2018 7:40:31 GMT 5
Very cool trailer, and Pimiento's research sounds intriguing.
The images you posted don't show up. Can you take a screenshot and attach them to your post? I assume they are pics of the Antwerp specimen?
Also, here's another longer video from the The Mysteries of the Lost Giants, featuring Megalodon and Livytan. The shark appears quite a bit larger.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 6, 2018 14:14:27 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Dec 20, 2018 10:31:02 GMT 5
Still say Livyatan takes it. Jaws is fake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 23, 2018 19:32:17 GMT 5
Still say Livyatan takes it. Jaws is fake. Jaws is a fictional 7.5 m great white. Megalodon is a real-life very large shark species that possibly grew up to more than 20 m, so larger than Livyatan upper size limit known. Start writing more clever posts than this please. The Jaws reference is irrelevant and a little bit ridiculous of an argument. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 30, 2018 21:21:05 GMT 5
Still say Livyatan takes it. Jaws is fake. Hey JHG, just trying to interpret your post. Do you mean that believe "Jaws" was supposed to embody the traits of the extinct Megalodon, and you think Megalodon didn't share the aggressive traits of the fictional Hollywood shark? I'm not really understanding your analogy. Please elaborate and I'll respond further. |
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Jan 16, 2019 11:20:39 GMT 5
1. It was a joke directed at people overrating sharks.
2. Megalodon got to 18 meters max on average. The 20 meter ones are rare and would turn an otherwise well balanced battle into a mismatch.
3. I have been learning about and been passionate about animals for the past 18 years. I will NOT tolerate being called an idiot!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 16, 2019 17:29:08 GMT 5
1. It was a joke directed at people overrating sharks. 2. Megalodon got to 18 meters max on average. The 20 meter ones are rare and would turn an otherwise well balanced battle into a mismatch. 3. I have been learning about and been passionate about animals for the past 18 years. I will NOT tolerate being called an idiot! 1. People overrates and underrates many animals. Sharks are overrated just like orcas are overrated (the propency to believe they hunt and kill 100 tonnes mysticetes on a daily basis). When we discuss scientific matters, this kind of sentences is useless, we have to be objective. 2. Max on average ? This is meaningless. The actual maximum size of O. megalodon is unknown. Based on tooth height or width method, it would be 18-20 m, based on dentition perimeter, figures over 22 m come into play. Even the "18 m max" has never been stated as such and the actual tooth specimen from which this size was resulted (Pimiento 2013), actually indicates a 19.5 m size figure. On the other hand the Livyatan holotype is in the 14-17.5 m range, Lambert in a recent interview reports 11-17 m. So Livyatan is in the megalodon league but not exactly as large as the common larger estimates and future scrutinity could still reduce this size figure given the wide range. The other isolated elements from Livyatan sp. here and there don't seem to support larger specimens to use so far. The fact that the larger megalodon specimens appear to be rare for a number of reasons (sampling bias, propencity for larger teeth to be eroded or not accessible...) is no reason to exclude them. Going by Pimiento's matrix, the average size for adult stage megalodons would be about 14 m but there are two issues here : - the assessments from Gottfried 1996 using GWS life stage appears to be outdated (Kent 2018). - the method used to estimate those specimens is, globally, probably inaccurate (Perez 2016) except for the lateral teeth and decoupled scaling from the GWS may underestimate the size (Kent 1999). Conservative dentition based estimates for the Aurora meg dentition indicate 16.5 m of mean size (Perez 2018). The first upper anterior crown of this dentition is 101.17 mm. By comparison, the biggest upper anterior crown in Hubbell's collection has a crown width of 134 mm. This implicitly suggests an individual about 22 m. Of course there is some variability, using the same data for the Chilean dentition in Perez 2018 would scale the 134 mm wide crown in a 20 m specimen. Using isolated teeth to template with the dentition data inevitably induce variations. But figures easily above 20 m are certainly plausible, especially as there are larger teeth and some very large isolated posteriors. Even using a parity size, I invite you to check the comparison of the Livyatan skull with the CMM meg jaws scaled to a 17 m specimen. Livyatan appears quite matched in terms of predatory apparatus. 3. Without any contest or sarcasm, your post clearly seemed idiotic and troll-like. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 16, 2019 20:11:02 GMT 5
3. I have been learning about and been passionate about animals for the past 18 years. I will NOT tolerate being called an idiot! No-one called you an idiot, Grey merely asked for cleverer posts. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 5, 2019 19:10:45 GMT 5
This is a deleted post
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 5, 2019 19:40:02 GMT 5
Considering Grey just wrote a lengthy post arguing for a much larger average size, you might want to back this up.
|
|
