|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2019 6:32:21 GMT 5
But of course, who knows what an actual meg skeleton will give us, maybe something unexpectedly smaller and Livyatan would be as then the largest killer ever or our results will be real. I tend to think meg could be really large. Warm-blooded animals can grow larger than cold-blooded animals. Megalodon was probably warm-blooded, the modern whale shark is cold-blooded. So we know a cold-blooded fish can grow up to at least 12.6 m and even 18.8 m or 21 m according to some papers. So, in theoretically, assuming megalodon could feed as easily as whale sharks and lived as long (likely), it could probably grow larger than a whale shark. sam1, my educated guess would be that an average adult meg would be, for the regions with large individuals, would be about 15-17 m. As huge as it sounds, it is not implausible. But I suspect some megalodon populations were much smaller in average. I don't think nurseries can explain the absence of 6 inches teeth in some regions. This is a species that survived an extremely long time, incredibly successful and durable, and different genetical populations may have diverged with great size variations, maybe even diet differences. That is why using an average size is hardly significant for me. |
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Oct 13, 2019 13:50:18 GMT 5
What do you guys think about the recent "downsizing" of megalodon ? What downsizing? |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 13, 2019 15:02:44 GMT 5
But of course, who knows what an actual meg skeleton will give us, maybe something unexpectedly smaller and Livyatan would be as then the largest killer ever or our results will be real. I tend to think meg could be really large. Warm-blooded animals can grow larger than cold-blooded animals. Megalodon was probably warm-blooded, the modern whale shark is cold-blooded. So we know a cold-blooded fish can grow up to at least 12.6 m and even 18.8 m or 21 m according to some papers. So, in theoretically, assuming megalodon could feed as easily as whale sharks and lived as long (likely), it could probably grow larger than a whale shark. sam1 , my educated guess would be that an average adult meg would be, for the regions with large individuals, would be about 15-17 m. As huge as it sounds, it is not implausible. But I suspect some megalodon populations were much smaller in average. I don't think nurseries can explain the absence of 6 inches teeth in some regions. This is a species that survived an extremely long time, incredibly successful and durable, and different genetical populations may have diverged with great size variations, maybe even diet differences. That is why using an average size is hardly significant for me. I see, but still, what other objective choice is there other than using the average size? The scarcity of Livyatan data doesn't give any hints about the maximum size for the species. Anyway, about the ramming/collision resistance potential of the meg..my view is that megalodon indeed may have been extremely tough and durable, and the cartilage should provide a lot in that regard. So let's go ahead giving a benefit of the doubt and say a head on collision with a 50t livyatan charging at 30kp/h would not be enough to seriously injure megalodon..in huge majority of the cases I believe that would be the case anyway since the full frontal collision extremely unlikely, it would almost always happen at some angle, and the creatures would bruise with enormous force past each other. But should we expect at least some degree of effect on the shark? Being dazed even for a moment in that situation is one moment that shark could not afford. It is all that whale needs in order to grab the perfectly exposed fin and start shaking with all its might. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 13, 2019 15:54:47 GMT 5
What do you guys think about the recent "downsizing" of megalodon ? What downsizing? Haven't you heard? There appear to be a handful of small articles that say Megalodon was smaller than thought. Look it up and you will see what I mean |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 13, 2019 16:16:48 GMT 5
What do you guys think about the recent "downsizing" of megalodon ? Well, you, theropod, and some other members have already explained why basing size off of individual tooth crowns isn't really the best method, so I take it with skepticism. That's not to say every adult C. megalodon was 15m or more, of course, but I don't see it being an exceptionally large size. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2019 18:56:00 GMT 5
Given how large were the dentitions, I don't see a maximum size of 15 m as being plausible.
Basically, whatever its actual length, the size of the fossil dentitions suggests the largest megalodons represented by isolated giant teeth had the most voluminous macroraptorial apparatus potentially known to science (unless I'm for some reason wrong about Livyatan). This means the width between the two most posterior teeth maybe exceeded 2 m in the largest individuals.
I simply don't think this is paralleled anywhere anytime but I welcome anyone that could correct me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2019 21:03:49 GMT 5
But of course, who knows what an actual meg skeleton will give us, maybe something unexpectedly smaller and Livyatan would be as then the largest killer ever or our results will be real. I tend to think meg could be really large. Warm-blooded animals can grow larger than cold-blooded animals. Megalodon was probably warm-blooded, the modern whale shark is cold-blooded. So we know a cold-blooded fish can grow up to at least 12.6 m and even 18.8 m or 21 m according to some papers. So, in theoretically, assuming megalodon could feed as easily as whale sharks and lived as long (likely), it could probably grow larger than a whale shark. sam1 , my educated guess would be that an average adult meg would be, for the regions with large individuals, would be about 15-17 m. As huge as it sounds, it is not implausible. But I suspect some megalodon populations were much smaller in average. I don't think nurseries can explain the absence of 6 inches teeth in some regions. This is a species that survived an extremely long time, incredibly successful and durable, and different genetical populations may have diverged with great size variations, maybe even diet differences. That is why using an average size is hardly significant for me. I see, but still, what other objective choice is there other than using the average size? The scarcity of Livyatan data doesn't give any hints about the maximum size for the species. Anyway, about the ramming/collision resistance potential of the meg..my view is that megalodon indeed may have been extremely tough and durable, and the cartilage should provide a lot in that regard. So let's go ahead giving a benefit of the doubt and say a head on collision with a 50t livyatan charging at 30kp/h would not be enough to seriously injure megalodon..in huge majority of the cases I believe that would be the case anyway since the full frontal collision extremely unlikely, it would almost always happen at some angle, and the creatures would bruise with enormous force past each other. But should we expect at least some degree of effect on the shark? Being dazed even for a moment in that situation is one moment that shark could not afford. It is all that whale needs in order to grab the perfectly exposed fin and start shaking with all its might. I simply suggest to use any adult meg specimen in comparison with Livyatan, while not excluding the largest meg specimens known from teeth, making megalodon as the largest but recognizing Livyatan as an animal that was potentially as large on average. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 13, 2019 21:21:26 GMT 5
Okay, I've found another question. I've found the angle proposed by theropod actualling intriguing : Is there such a relationship between skull length of the orca and white shark size as prey would be meaningful for Livyatan ? It all depends if an orca the size of a large great white shark, so smaller and + tad thinner, but with the same size of the jaws of an orca, would still be able to tackle a white shark ? It has to be noticed that Livyatan jaws are still a tad narrower at the same length than the orca jaws/skull. It is to note however that if, indeed, a 17 m meg (based on dentition) jaw would be comparable to Livyatan's skull size as between a 5.3 m GWS jaws compared to the skull length of 6 m orca, the largest megalodon teeth suggest dentition that would be comparable to the jaws of a 7.1 m GWS compared to a 6 m orca. But an orca probably not as heavily built than usual... hence the relation here being more like FKW and GWS. But is it the skull size and structure that really enables orcas to kill great white sharks or is it primarily their huge bulk ? This is a question to use to comprehend the actual power of Livyatan. |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 14, 2019 1:51:44 GMT 5
I see, but still, what other objective choice is there other than using the average size? The scarcity of Livyatan data doesn't give any hints about the maximum size for the species. Anyway, about the ramming/collision resistance potential of the meg..my view is that megalodon indeed may have been extremely tough and durable, and the cartilage should provide a lot in that regard. So let's go ahead giving a benefit of the doubt and say a head on collision with a 50t livyatan charging at 30kp/h would not be enough to seriously injure megalodon..in huge majority of the cases I believe that would be the case anyway since the full frontal collision extremely unlikely, it would almost always happen at some angle, and the creatures would bruise with enormous force past each other. But should we expect at least some degree of effect on the shark? Being dazed even for a moment in that situation is one moment that shark could not afford. It is all that whale needs in order to grab the perfectly exposed fin and start shaking with all its might. I simply suggest to use any adult meg specimen in comparison with Livyatan, while not excluding the largest meg specimens known from teeth, making megalodon as the largest but recognizing Livyatan as an animal that was potentially as large on average. So you're saying that your mean number from the adult teeth/fragments is 15-16m? Is that calculated or just a ballpark guess? |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 14, 2019 1:55:40 GMT 5
Okay, I've found another question. I've found the angle proposed by theropod actualling intriguing : Is there such a relationship between skull length of the orca and white shark size as prey would be meaningful for Livyatan ? It all depends if an orca the size of a large great white shark, so smaller and + tad thinner, but with the same size of the jaws of an orca, would still be able to tackle a white shark ? It has to be noticed that Livyatan jaws are still a tad narrower at the same length than the orca jaws/skull. It is to note however that if, indeed, a 17 m meg (based on dentition) jaw would be comparable to Livyatan's skull size as between a 5.3 m GWS jaws compared to the skull length of 6 m orca, the largest megalodon teeth suggest dentition that would be comparable to the jaws of a 7.1 m GWS compared to a 6 m orca. But an orca probably not as heavily built than usual... hence the relation here being more like FKW and GWS. But is it the skull size and structure that really enables orcas to kill great white sharks or is it primarily their huge bulk ? This is a question to use to comprehend the actual power of Livyatan. Orcas have been described( or better, said, speculated) to kill great whites by stunning them with a ram, grabbing them and flipping them over to induce tonic immobility. Sounds like primarily intelligence based strategy, going for the minimum risk and energy expenditure. |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 14, 2019 2:05:53 GMT 5
So how I see megalodon winning against livyatan at all, in a non ambush scenario?
Well, assuming an intelligent and patient enough approach, I think the chances would be pretty high actually.
All it needed to do was to circle at the shortest possible distance and wait for the right moment, with the whale resurfacing to respirate and exposing itself. It would have to be timed perfectly and the whale would probably try his best to avoid it, but again, given enough patience, the opportunity would inevitably present itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 14, 2019 2:15:57 GMT 5
Okay, I've found another question. I've found the angle proposed by theropod actualling intriguing : Is there such a relationship between skull length of the orca and white shark size as prey would be meaningful for Livyatan ? It all depends if an orca the size of a large great white shark, so smaller and + tad thinner, but with the same size of the jaws of an orca, would still be able to tackle a white shark ? It has to be noticed that Livyatan jaws are still a tad narrower at the same length than the orca jaws/skull. It is to note however that if, indeed, a 17 m meg (based on dentition) jaw would be comparable to Livyatan's skull size as between a 5.3 m GWS jaws compared to the skull length of 6 m orca, the largest megalodon teeth suggest dentition that would be comparable to the jaws of a 7.1 m GWS compared to a 6 m orca. But an orca probably not as heavily built than usual... hence the relation here being more like FKW and GWS. But is it the skull size and structure that really enables orcas to kill great white sharks or is it primarily their huge bulk ? This is a question to use to comprehend the actual power of Livyatan. Orcas have been described( or better, said, speculated) to kill great whites by stunning them with a ram, grabbing them and flipping them over to induce tonic immobility. Sounds like primarily intelligence based strategy, going for the minimum risk and energy expenditure. Don't we have several accounts of them doing that? |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 14, 2019 13:51:54 GMT 5
There are many accounts of orcas killing great whites, but only one had eyewitnesses catching glimpses of what was going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 14, 2019 15:02:25 GMT 5
Okay, I've found another question. I've found the angle proposed by theropod actualling intriguing : Is there such a relationship between skull length of the orca and white shark size as prey would be meaningful for Livyatan ? It all depends if an orca the size of a large great white shark, so smaller and + tad thinner, but with the same size of the jaws of an orca, would still be able to tackle a white shark ? It has to be noticed that Livyatan jaws are still a tad narrower at the same length than the orca jaws/skull. It is to note however that if, indeed, a 17 m meg (based on dentition) jaw would be comparable to Livyatan's skull size as between a 5.3 m GWS jaws compared to the skull length of 6 m orca, the largest megalodon teeth suggest dentition that would be comparable to the jaws of a 7.1 m GWS compared to a 6 m orca. But an orca probably not as heavily built than usual... hence the relation here being more like FKW and GWS. But is it the skull size and structure that really enables orcas to kill great white sharks or is it primarily their huge bulk ? This is a question to use to comprehend the actual power of Livyatan. Orcas have been described( or better, said, speculated) to kill great whites by stunning them with a ram, grabbing them and flipping them over to induce tonic immobility. Sounds like primarily intelligence based strategy, going for the minimum risk and energy expenditure. My understanding is that this technique is necessarily made possible by the much larger girth and larger size of the orca. How heavy is supppsed to be a 6 m orca ? Around 4 tonnes ? |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 14, 2019 19:59:06 GMT 5
Orcas have been described( or better, said, speculated) to kill great whites by stunning them with a ram, grabbing them and flipping them over to induce tonic immobility. Sounds like primarily intelligence based strategy, going for the minimum risk and energy expenditure. My understanding is that this technique is necessarily made possible by the much larger girth and larger size of the orca. How heavy is supppsed to be a 6 m orca ? Around 4 tonnes ? I'd say 3000-4000kg. There are some 4000kg+ captive orcas with a tl around 6m, but those may be a tad overweight. |
|
