Megalodon vs. Livyatan melvillei

[Grey]

Livyatan had smaller, different jaws because it probably had another prey specialization. No, it does not mean they are equal.

There are too big differences in the capacity and size of the wounds both could do.

De Muizon stated the cetacean couldn't tackle blue whale-sized preys.
Compagno suggest megatooth could have inflicted mortal wounds on even fin whale or blue whale-sized preys.

That's enough for now awaiting more potential stuff from the whale, which is likely to come.

Why keeping to insist and not have a consensus awaiting more ?

[theropod]

I do not deny the shark has the advantage when it comes to such preys, due to its gape and the ability to cause heavy bleeding. Perhaps in a similar way Carcharodontosaurus would be far more effective at killing sauropods than Tyrannosaurus would. I'm not insisting on anything. You are the one insisting that the shark is necessarily the superior biter.

[Grey]

Not superior biter strictly, but more likely better armed to kill big things.

No comparisons to do with theropods, carcharodontosaurs did not take bites in their preys after slicing through meat and bones.

[theropod]

The jaw mechanics are comaprable, so is what they are suited for best. And of course Carcharodontosaurus took bites out of its prey, of course not slicing through large bones, but its behaviour when killing prey as large or larger than itself was likely quite similar.

Yes, I agree C. megalodon would have been the better armed animal for gigantophagy. There's a reason you find large gapes and teeth able to cause massive bleeding in these animals.

[Grey]

Fair enough for the last post.

However, I quote you from the Spino/T. rex discussion for not parasite this thread with our long discussion here :

Jun 2, 2013 1:18:27 GMT 5 theropod said:

I would assume an animal like Spinosaurus wouldn't necessarily rely on its jaws to kill twice smaller opponents that would die or badly injure themselves in a simply fall...

This applies to fights between theropods in general. If Spinosaurus fought an animal the size of Carcharodontosaurus or smaller, I doubt if it got a hold on it it would have any problems toppling it over. Carcharodontosaurus in this scenario would have better chances, since it would stand a decent chance of clawing into Spinosaurus' side and attacking there, something T. rex couldn't do. But due to size deficiency, I don't think I would favour any other theropod discovered this far.

Why do you so much assume Spinosaurus to have been twice bigger than T. rex and the largest carnosaurs, which is very understandable but very debattable and debatted at the same time even in professionnals fields, and show on the other hand so much skepticism about the megalodon plausible superior size on Livyatan ?

If you take into account all the estimates for Spinosaurus, indeed a number outclasses any other theropod, including T. rex.
The reverse for T. rex is not true, at best it only rivals Spinosaurus more modest figures (in size and weight).

If you take into account all the estimates for megalodon, a number, through different methods here, outclasses even the highest for Livyatan (which in turn has not an established size estimate like T.rex).
The reverse for Livyatan is not true, at best, its upper estimate of 17,5 m just approaches some large (but not the highest) estimates for megalodon.

Going by this, you should be agreed that listing Spinosaurus being a good deal larger than T. rex is as reasonable as listing megalodon larger than Livyatan.
Or perhaps you acknowledge this but always always focus on a size parity ?

If so, I don't really acknowledge this as their size estimates, if they are comparable overall, are not rigorously the same. In absolute terms, it's very unlikely that both, different animals, from different clade and perhaps different ecological niche, achieved exactly the same size.

So I assume the best and most fair reasoning is to use all, still in the course, estimates, from the lower to the upper end in both.

For the adult Livyatan, there are two (13,5 m-17,5 m), for the adult megalodons individuals, they are more various in the methods and in the range of the adult size (11-20 m).

As nothing has been really rejected for both, the most objective approach is to take all into account, you don't think ?

That's the main reason why usually don't have problems with Spinosaurus largest estimates, only with overenthusiasm and optimism by some amateurs.
That's the same for the two guys here, I give the same credits to all figures, I don't write them in the stone. That's why I'm still studying and trying to get more info about both.

How large this specimen is compared to the rest of the population doesn't depend on its size estimate, but on the comparative size of the remains. We unfortunately don't have other remains for now, unless you include other isolated teeth. If it was 17,5m, above-average individuals would likely be even larger than that, if it was 14m, below average-ones would be even smaller.

Its size estimate can depend too if you assume we don't know the intraspecific variations. If it was indeed a 17,5 m animal, you have to understand that this an EXTREMELY LARGE SIZE BY ANY STANDARD. In all the evolution, we only know three toothed macropredators having or possibly having reached that size : the modern male sperm whale, likely megalodon and perhaps Livyatan. In the sperm whale, sizes approaching 18 m already represent large individuals. In megalodon it would have been the case too. Why then a 17,5 m Livyatan would be necessarily an average animal ? There are biomechanical and ecological constraints which pose limits to sizes. Read carefully the McHenry paper about oceanic apex macropredators size through history, most of them (except for megalodon and Physeter depending if you include teuthophagous species) did not exceed 20 tons and the vast majority was below 10 tons. So this is unlikely to think that 17,5 m would have been an average size and then assume possible largest sizes in excess of 20 or 22 m, was megalodon ever able to reach or exceed 20 m being already debattable and not conclusive yet (Kent 2013).

Forget the isolated teeth. Every time I've spoken of this to the team which described it, they recall we have no indication these are Livyatan's teeth, and even less they agree and try to estimate sizes based on teeth. You may have read the mail I had posted from Lambert on CF.

They are close in terms of morphology of the skull and teeth, indicating a similar killing-style.

They have similarities but also big differences. Check the differences of width in the shape of the skull and mandible in both animal. In Livyatan, at parity, they are narrower. Hence, they are not exact copies.
www.flickr.com/photos/sopranorca/4931667949/
www.unmsm.edu.pe/templates/noticias2011/noviembre/d09/ballena1g.jpg

You have to stop envision Livyatan as an "orca-sperm whale", this is a sperm whale sharing some similarities with orca, that's all.

That, or otherwise suffocating, has always been the purpose of cinocal teeth.

Taking out a chunk creates a wound. of course with conical teeth you cannot take out chunks in a very effective way, that's way crocodilians do not kill by letting their prey bleed to death.

Yes indeed, added that Livyatan was perhaps used to take on smaller and less powerful preys than the giant shark. That's at least what suggests both scientists having expressed suggestions about the killing capacities of both.

Volume is not that important in this regard. it matters little to your healt whether just your spine or your whole ribcage is crushed, since it is not about bleeding and tissue-damage but about damaging some vital structure.

Yes, and I don't think Livyatan was able to crush the spine or ribcage of something as large as megalodon. However, large Pliocene baleanopterids vertebras have been known to have been sliced in two, like sliced by a chainsaw, from Aurora, Pliocene deposits. Chech the Mike Siversson videos in the dedicated thread abouthis lectures.

I know they are sharp. but the ticker a tooth is, the harder it is to slice whith it.

Tell that to the rorquals vertebras I mention above...
Chuck Ciampaglio says in the video that you can need stitches only after uncarefully manipulating a meg tooth.
I repeat : the serrations are even thinner and more numerous than in the great white (that's even one of the points supporting a difference in phylogeny) and in the same time, the teeth are much thicker and more robust than those in the great white.

Both are used in different cases. It would use the raw size and power of its killing apparatus to simply bite right through smaller preys, and would behave more careful, like other slicers, with larger prey.

More careful ? More adapted you mean. You cannot crush the ribcage of a whale larger than you, so you bite of its propulsive systems. The whale then cannot swim or effectively defend itself, so the shark can perpetuate its attacks. Brett Kent also suggests a ramming attack without even biting, crushing the ribs of the whale and expulsing the air from its lungs. That's not a careful attitude, that's best technic against different preys. Yes, the consequent exsanguination can finally finish the kill.

But at the end of the day, megalodon is described as more direct and brutal than the white shark by Kent in its paper. No total similarity with the killing in carcharodontosaurs.

Analogies are the key to how these two compare. Unfortunately we don't have fossils of whales predated on by Livyatan, but there are certain rules and payoffs that apply to all jaws.

Analogies and differences have to be compared. And megalodon and Livyatan are very different.
Regarding megalodon, we know it could target heavy parts in whales body and bite off the fluke and fins of large whales (Purdy, Wroe).
We think too a 16 m individual could take 1860 pounds of organic substances including bones in one single bite (underestimate according to Ciampaglio). Who is perhaps the greatest shark specialist in the world, Leonard Compagno, suggests that megalodon jaws reconstructions indicate a predatory apparatus able to inflict mortal wounds to even the largest whales we know.

Regarding Livyatan, we know it had extremely large and robust teeth and very robust jaws. But we know that its jaws most likely aren't able to take the same volume of meat than the giant shark. We don't have either evidences of its direct food source, nor its killing style. It is suggested that it was perfect to prey on 5-7 m cetotherids. One of its describers, Christian De Muizon, argues that it couldn't have tackled something like a blue whale.

Overall, I found, (FOR NOW ONLY, EVERYTHING CAN BE OUTDATED/UPDATED) that megalodon is most likely the larger predator, with the biggest and most devastating predatory apparatus at a large scale, the most abundant (despite the relative rarity of its teeth) and the most dominant as it is unlikely that Livyatan lived as long as the shark and had any impact on the megalodon population, whereas the whale, for some reason and perhaps megalodon competition (Siversson, Reumer, pers. communication) disappeared before the fall of the giant shark . In contrast with the Cretaceous battles between large sharks and mosasaurs.

Livyatan is a paper tiger. There is not much known about it, and the few known does not compete with megalodon IMO.

For now, Livyatan doesn't appear like a strict rival for megalodon, more like an approaching, not implausible rival for megalodon.

An animal that kills by slicing tries to bleed large prey to death or can of course simply bite through smaller prey. A crusher specifically targets the bones, even very robust ones, but is not good at taking out chunks of meat or causing excessive bleeding.

Great white kills by exsanguination even smaller preys than it. Megalodon crushed the ribcage of 9 m cetotherids. It was more brutal. It killed by ramming/biting off propulsive systems/finishing the kill by bites and blood lose the large whales.

This is, IMO, a more dangerous predators and killer for anything between the size of cetotherids to large Pliocene rorqual.

[Grey]

I clarify my reasoning about the comparison.

I you ask me, if we take all the meg teeth found and reported and make an estimated size of the living meg, the holotype of Livyatan melvillei was larger and more powerful than a majority, or at least a large part of all the sharks behind the teeth found, whatever the methodology for estimate the shark.

Now these teeth do not all represent adult animals, nor of course Upper Anterior teeth, the lateral and posterior being less often used for estimates (some posterior and apparently smallish teeth certainly belong to large adults, see the 17 m adult from Gatun...).

And once your come to teeth around 12,5 cm, the disparity of sizes between methodologies makes this far too difficult (a 5 inches tooth represents a 15 m meg with liberal methods, a 12 m one with Gottfried's method...quid of the tooth width in that case which can vary and is not always reported).

I consider that megs with overall 6 inches teeth are overall too much for Livyatan, looking at the size and proportions of the one found in Bakersifeld (the tooth found was around 6 inches - source : discussion of Elosha with Chuck Ciampaglio).

But yeah, most of these megs appear quite rare so I can be agreed that Livyatan would be superior to most of owners of the teeth found (which does not mean superior to full grown adults megs at all).

Livyatan IMO beats the shark behind this (1,93 m width, 1,65 m high):




But not the shark behind this which can engulf two adult men with ease (jaws width 2,74 m, 2,13 m high) :




Of course these ones are rare, but also because adult top predators are virtually rare, and even when only known by teeth.

In other words, the adult size range of megalodon seems (I mean seems) vast (Leonard Compagno lists the adult size at 11-20 m TL, 2001), and only the largest with teeth globally reaching the 15 cm long mark may have rivalled/exceeded Livyatan's sheer power and weaponry.

Perhaps because even reaching a considerable size (+11 m) they were still vulnerable to the attacks of the raptorial cetaceans competitors, that would explain why the almost not threatened large adults were not that abundant.

[theropod]

If you take into account all the estimates for megalodon, a number, through different methods here, outclasses even the highest for Livyatan (which in turn has not an established size estimate like T.rex).
The reverse for Livyatan is not true, at best, its upper estimate of 17,5 m just approaches some large (but not the highest) estimates for megalodon.

I was just pointing out that is the estimate for a single individual, most likely an average one, while the C. megalodon specimens we are comparing it to are alltogether above average.

Going by this, you should be agreed that listing Spinosaurus being a good deal larger than T. rex is as reasonable as listing megalodon larger than Livyatan.
Or perhaps you acknowledge this but always always focus on a size parity ?

The situation if definitely different; we have 1, perhaps two adult Spinosauruses, and in the light ov evidence it seems to far outsize T. rex (vertebrae of the subadult holotype twice the lenght of baryonyx and already longer than those of T. rex, skull about 1,6-1,8m as compared to Baryonyx that has a head/total-lenght-ratio close to 1/10). I regard it as far less likely that T. rex approached the size of Spinosaurus than that Livyatan did so with C. megalodon. and the sample sizes are the exact opposite here, the suggested "smaller" animal is the one that's probably only average for the species (still when taking its upper figures it reaches the size of a large C. megalodon), not the largest in 31.

If so, I don't really acknowledge this as their size estimates, if they are comparable overall, are not rigorously the same. In absolute terms, it's very unlikely that both, different animals, from different clade and perhaps different ecological niche, achieved exactly the same size.

No, certainly not, however being comparable in size is imo the best we can predict to data and hence I personally perfer to have this at parity.

So I assume the best and most fair reasoning is to use all, still in the course, estimates, from the lower to the upper end in both.

For the adult Livyatan, there are two (13,5 m-17,5 m), for the adult megalodons individuals, they are more various in the methods and in the range of the adult size (11-20 m).

As nothing has been really rejected for both, the most objective approach is to take all into account, you don't think ?

The mean of both ranges is exactly the same, 15,5m.

That's the main reason why usually don't have problems with Spinosaurus largest estimates, only with overenthusiasm and optimism by some amateurs.
That's the same for the two guys here, I give the same credits to all figures, I don't write them in the stone. That's why I'm still studying and trying to get more info about both.

So am I.

Its size estimate can depend too if you assume we don't know the intraspecific variations. If it was indeed a 17,5 m animal, you have to understand that this an EXTREMELY LARGE SIZE BY ANY STANDARD.

Yet C. megalodon probably even exceeded that at maximum, so other animals could have done the same.

In all the evolution, we only know three toothed macropredators having or possibly having reached that size : the modern male sperm whale, likely megalodon and perhaps Livyatan. In the sperm whale, sizes approaching 18 m already represent large individuals. In megalodon it would have been the case too. Why then a 17,5 m Livyatan would be necessarily an average animal ?

I didn't write "necessarily", just that it wouldn't be fair to compare it to the maximum size in C. megalodon. At this size, I am too inclined to believe it would be a large individual, again, not necessarily of course, but certainly not maximum. Therefore I have compared the upper estimate for Livyatanj to that of a large C. megalodon.

There are biomechanical and ecological constraints which pose limits to sizes. Read carefully the McHenry paper about oceanic apex macropredators size through history, most of them (except for megalodon and Physeter depending if you include teuthophagous species) did not exceed 20 tons and the vast majority was below 10 tons. So this is unlikely to think that 17,5 m would have been an average size and then assume possible largest sizes in excess of 20 or 22 m, was megalodon ever able to reach or exceed 20 m being already debattable and not conclusive yet (Kent 2013).

I'm not assuming any largest size here, merely suggesting how we should compare the two of them. The maximum size, to some degree of both these animals, is still open.

They have similarities but also big differences. Check the differences of width in the shape of the skull and mandible in both animal. In Livyatan, at parity, they are narrower. Hence, they are not exact copies.

Thank you, I know about skull morphology of these animals. The analogy was for the way they killed, not implying their skulls were the same. As you stated yourself, C. megalodon has a slicing bite, able to take out chunks and cause bleeding. when have you ever seen a conical-toothed predator doing that? In this regard, Livyatan is closer to T. rex, as the obvious purpose is rather damaging the bones than taking out chunks.

You have to stop envision Livyatan as an "orca-sperm whale", this is a sperm whale sharing some similarities with orca, that's all.

I don't know were I implied it to be an orca, but I think the orca-spermwhale fits pretty well for a sperm whale that is ecologically and morphologically more similar to an orca.

Yes indeed, added that Livyatan was perhaps used to take on smaller and less powerful preys than the giant shark. That's at least what suggests both scientists having expressed suggestions about the killing capacities of both.

Perhaps prey comparable to the prey crocodilians or T. rex took, some of the prey C. megalodon took being rather an analogy for sauropods. Not being gigantophagous doesn't necessarily imply a less potent killing apparatus.

Yes, and I don't think Livyatan was able to crush the spine or ribcage of something as large as megalodon. However, large Pliocene baleanopterids vertebras have been known to have been sliced in two, like sliced by a chainsaw, from Aurora, Pliocene deposits. Chech the Mike Siversson videos in the dedicated thread abouthis lectures.

It fully depends on how large we make our Megalodon. Of course making it 20m and livyatan 15 the whale would have very bad chances, however at lenght parity...

Tell that to the rorquals vertebras I mention above...
Chuck Ciampaglio says in the video that you can need stitches only after uncarefully manipulating a meg tooth.
I repeat : the serrations are even thinner and more numerous than in the great white (that's even one of the points supporting a difference in phylogeny) and in the same time, the teeth are much thicker and more robust than those in the great white.

Of course it is beneficial for slicing bone. How thin the serrations are does not equal cutting power tough. A C. megalodon when slicing ordinary flesh would need more power, hence be less efficient than a comparable Great white. That does not mean it wasn't still good at it, but there is a basic payoff here.

More careful ? More adapted you mean. You cannot crush the ribcage of a whale larger than you, so you bite of its propulsive systems.

I remember you used that very word (or was it cautious) when referring to the way carnosaurs would have killed. I think it describes the attach style of disabling the propulsive system pretty well, it is the technique for example komodo dragons also use on water buffalo.

The whale then cannot swim or effectively defend itself, so the shark can perpetuate its attacks. Brett Kent also suggests a ramming attack without even biting, crushing the ribs of the whale and expulsing the air from its lungs. That's not a careful attitude, that's best technic against different preys. Yes, the consequent exsanguination can finally finish the kill.

Completely agreed.

But at the end of the day, megalodon is described as more direct and brutal than the white shark by Kent in its paper. No total similarity with the killing in carcharodontosaurs.

Actually, there is. Up to a certain prey size it could simply slice through its prey, regardless of the bones. Above that size it targeted the tail or fins to kill by blood loss and keep its prey from fleeing or fighting back. How large the size is up to which they would have killed by sheer power is variable, but apart from that, it is the same.

Analogies and differences have to be compared. And megalodon and Livyatan are very different.

Exactly.

Regarding megalodon, we know it could target heavy parts in whales body and bite off the fluke and fins of large whales (Purdy, Wroe).
We think too a 16 m individual could take 1860 pounds of organic substances including bones in one single bite (underestimate according to Ciampaglio). Who is perhaps the greatest shark specialist in the world, Leonard Compagno, suggests that megalodon jaws reconstructions indicate a predatory apparatus able to inflict mortal wounds to even the largest whales we know.

I don't know why anyone should disagree with this.

Regarding Livyatan, we know it had extremely large and robust teeth and very robust jaws. But we know that its jaws most likely aren't able to take the same volume of meat than the giant shark. We don't have either evidences of its direct food source, nor its killing style. It is suggested that it was perfect to prey on 5-7 m cetotherids. One of its describers, Christian De Muizon, argues that it couldn't have tackled something like a blue whale.

You forgot to add it has very different teeth and jaws, not built to maximise volume because that wasn't how it killed. That it wasn't suited for attacking something several times larger does not make it an inferior fighter in a faceoff at parity (I think no intelligent person ever wrote "carcharodontosaurus owns T. rex because it tackled larger prey").

Overall, I found, (FOR NOW ONLY, EVERYTHING CAN BE OUTDATED/UPDATED) that megalodon is most likely the larger predator, with the biggest and most devastating predatory apparatus at a large scale, the most abundant (despite the relative rarity of its teeth) and the most dominant as it is unlikely that Livyatan lived as long as the shark and had any impact on the megalodon population, whereas the whale, for some reason and perhaps megalodon competition (Siversson, Reumer, pers. communication) disappeared before the fall of the giant shark . In contrast with the Cretaceous battles between large sharks and mosasaurs.

You are entitled to your opinion, I'm merely phrasing mine.

Great white kills by exsanguination even smaller preys than it. Megalodon crushed the ribcage of 9 m cetotherids. It was more brutal. It killed by ramming/biting off propulsive systems/finishing the kill by bites and blood lose the large whales.

This is, IMO, a more dangerous predators and killer for anything between the size of cetotherids to large Pliocene rorqual.

The killing style is not better, just because it is a bit different. And a 9m cetothere to a megalodon is not very large.
Carcharodon too rams into its prey and violently shakes it. It doesn't specifically target bones in large preys; in very large preys, c. megalodon didn't either. There is more than one effective way of killing. Komodo dragons can bring down prey ten times their size without ever damaging a bone. Wolves pn the other hand have been recorded killing muskox by crushing their skulls.

[Grey]

Substantiate response coming later in our European time.

Another thing, Steve Alten plans to unleash Livyatan in his next sequel of the MEG series. I've sent him some informations and sources about it for avoid too much inaccuracies, don't know if he will do all what I give him but I was the one who was behind all the beasts in the 4 th novel.

My character will possibly be back.

[creature386]

This is my third attempt to reply (damn computer).

Jun 2, 2013 14:30:53 GMT 5 theropod said:

Yet C. megalodon probably even exceeded that at maximum, so other animals could have done the same.

There is a small difference. You were talking about a maximum, while the holotype specimen likely represented an average specimen. I'm sure that 17,5 m is too much for an average C. megalodon. Sperm whales are also far smaller than that on average.

Jun 2, 2013 14:30:53 GMT 5 theropod said:

The maximum size, to some degree of both these animals, is still open.

Not if we differ "higher average" from "unusually large" or "freak specimen". I believe we have a good idea of C. megalodon's upper average size.

Jun 2, 2013 14:30:53 GMT 5 theropod said:

Actually, there is. Up to a certain prey size it could simply slice through its prey, regardless of the bones. Above that size it targeted the tail or fins to kill by blood loss and keep its prey from fleeing or fighting back. How large the size is up to which they would have killed by sheer power is variable, but apart from that, it is the same.

You should read the "Hell's teeth" article. There attacks of a large Megalodon on a 9 m whale were studied and it used the "immobisizing and biting internal organs" strategy.

Jun 2, 2013 14:30:53 GMT 5 theropod said:

How thin the serrations are does not equal cutting power tough.

Agreed, otherwise larger Carnosaurs would be handicapped, when compared to smaller ones, as they tend to have larger denticles.

[theropod]

There is a small difference. You were talking about a maximum, while the holotype specimen likely represented an average specimen. I'm sure that 17,5 m is too much for an average C. megalodon. Sperm whales are also far smaller than that on average.

my point is just that it certainly doesn't represent the maximum. I'm not suggesting 17,5m would be average, that would be a pretty damn high average for any predator. We can use 15,5 vs 15,5m if you want.

Not if we differ "higher average" from "unusually large" or "freak specimen". I believe we have a good idea of C. megalodon's upper average size.

Not quite sure what you mean by "upper average"

You should read the "Hell's teeth" article. There attacks of a large Megalodon on a 9 m whale were studied and it used the "immobisizing and biting internal organs" strategy.

I suppose it could have used whatever strategy it wanted on a whale that size, from ramming, to directly attacking the ribcage, to first biting off the fins or tail.

Agreed, otherwise larger Carnosaurs would be handicapped, when compared to smaller ones, as they tend to have larger denticles.

Exactly.
My expierience with knifes tells me a one with larger serrations can cut just as well as one with smaller ones or vice versa. Denticle size is not an issue here

[creature386]

Jun 2, 2013 23:04:47 GMT 5 theropod said:

We can use 15,5 vs 15,5m if you want.

Sounds good. I would have used 15 vs 15 m, but the difference is tiny.

Jun 2, 2013 23:04:47 GMT 5 theropod said:

Not quite sure what you mean by "upper average"

The upper size the animal can reach, without taking freak specimen into account.

[theropod]

You mean a normal but large specimen, kinda like FMNH PR 2081 the T. rex? Sounds reasonable.

I took the mean of the size-ranges Grey gave, in Megalodon for different specimens, in Livyatan for different estimates. The 50cm don't really matter. I think there is good reason to suspect this is a parity fight.

[Grey]

A quick response.

I'm not agreed at all, guys.

The published size estimates do not allow to establish a parity size, unless you make a specific thread.

Both have different estimates, different ontogeny and different methodology, especially in the case of the shark.

Or then do the same thing for Spinosaurus as nothing is established in both specimens.

Frankly that's partial and a starting of pure speculation.

I take all the estimates and compare them, not trying to list an average which is virtually unknown within these species.

Or you make a specific thread for parity fights, which could also be done with some pliosaurs.

We have to use published figures, not making our own science.

In other words, I have nothing against list them specifically at an equal size since their respective ranges overlap (and I've already did it), but not list this or that as an average.

Us or the specialists, no one is able to establish this at now.
And I doubt we'll ever be able to.

Edit : here's my feedback.

Yet C. megalodon probably even exceeded that at maximum, so other animals could have done the same.

No problem with that once it comes with material and evidences. But at the question of what is most likely the biggest macropredator we know of in science, here's the response by Brett Kent :




That doesn't mean it is really certain, factual or definitive, that shows what is, with what we have at now as evidences and material, the most likely candidate.

And Brett is not the lone to have suggested that. Some quotes are seen in the megalodon size thread with sources.

I didn't write "necessarily", just that it wouldn't be fair to compare it to the maximum size in C. megalodon. At this size, I am too inclined to believe it would be a large individual, again, not necessarily of course, but certainly not maximum. Therefore I have compared the upper estimate for Livyatanj to that of a large C. megalodon.

I have no problem with that as it is still in the actual proposed range. I don't speculate on the status of the specimen once again. All what we know is that it's an adult and that no death by disease or predation is known. That's all, no speculation here. Playing with the probabilities is a boring game.

I'm not assuming any largest size here, merely suggesting how we should compare the two of them. The maximum size, to some degree of both these animals, is still open.

The last line is true, that's why we cannot list an average midline.

Thank you, I know about skull morphology of these animals. The analogy was for the way they killed, not implying their skulls were the same. As you stated yourself, C. megalodon has a slicing bite, able to take out chunks and cause bleeding. when have you ever seen a conical-toothed predator doing that? In this regard, Livyatan is closer to T. rex, as the obvious purpose is rather damaging the bones than taking out chunks.

T. rex teeth share similarities with both. It has the rounded teeth of Livyatan and the serrations of megalodon. All the three had clearly no problem biting through bones. Read Renz, 2002, for the analogies between T. rex and megalodon teeth.

I don't know were I implied it to be an orca, but I think the orca-spermwhale fits pretty well for a sperm whale that is ecologically and morphologically more similar to an orca.

There are similarities. But differences. Livyatan possesses the spermaceti skull structure of a sperm whale, Livyatan mandible is more related in its structure to a sperm whale than to an orca with rounded jaws.
It is not morphologically similar to an orca, but ecologically. Orca is not used as proxy in the reconstruction.

Perhaps prey comparable to the prey crocodilians or T. rex took, some of the prey C. megalodon took being rather an analogy for sauropods. Not being gigantophagous doesn't necessarily imply a less potent killing apparatus.

If I remember right, you express exactly the reverse when comparing tyrannosaurs and carnosaurs, but I'm maybe wrong.
Megalodon was gigantophagous but was able to prey on a very broad variety of preys. The jaws are immense in volume and the teeth have no problem to target bones on any prey at any size (biting off the fluke or fins of a large sized whale implies to bite through bones).

It fully depends on how large we make our Megalodon. Of course making it 20m and livyatan 15 the whale would have very bad chances, however at lenght parity...

At length parity, the skull of Livyatan remains the same 3-m long in size using what we have. I've explained longly how much the jaws of a 16 m meg (Bakersfield) impress me far more in terms of volume and size of potential wounds than the jaws in the Livyatan skull.

Of course it is beneficial for slicing bone. How thin the serrations are does not equal cutting power tough. A C. megalodon when slicing ordinary flesh would need more power, hence be less efficient than a comparable Great white. That does not mean it wasn't still good at it, but there is a basic payoff here.

There's no data about comparative sharpness as I know and I've lost your point.

Rely on the facts, evidences show megalodon was able to cut through the whole body of multi-tons whales. Combination of cutting power and bite force. Regarding the sharpness, collectors often wound themselves when unearthing these teeth.

I suppose it could have used whatever strategy it wanted on a whale that size, from ramming, to directly attacking the ribcage, to first biting off the fins or tail.

Brett Kent does not suppose this...Please, can you check the mentionned articles before arguing ? I have the impression you don't care of the documentation sometimes.

Kent explained how megalodon was more brutal and direct than a white shark. A white shark avoid bones in any case, megalodon searched bones. Read the articles in the megalodon thread please !

You forgot to add it has very different teeth and jaws, not built to maximise volume because that wasn't how it killed. That it wasn't suited for attacking something several times larger does not make it an inferior fighter in a faceoff at parity (I think no intelligent person ever wrote "carcharodontosaurus owns T. rex because it tackled larger prey").

Larger or robust preys, megalodon preyed on a very wide range of preys, having no problem biting through bones and cutting off the limbs of gigantic preys.

The analogies with the land, necked, more similar between each other theropods are totally limited here.

Let's focuse on the two animals that interess us here or at the worst, use oceanic analogues with similar traits, not land bipedal predators with different traits and specific problematics.

The killing style is not better, just because it is a bit different. And a 9m cetothere to a megalodon is not very large.
Carcharodon too rams into its prey and violently shakes it. It doesn't specifically target bones in large preys; in very large preys, c. megalodon didn't either. There is more than one effective way of killing. Komodo dragons can bring down prey ten times their size without ever damaging a bone. Wolves pn the other hand have been recorded killing muskox by crushing their skulls.

Biting through fluke and fins is not biting through bones ?

You really don't pay attention to the information about megalodon biology (Purdy in that case).

Frankly Theropod, I much more appreciate my discussions with you than one year ago, really no bad feelings, I guess we all improve ourselves in respect and open mind and that the more mature atmosphere of the board is not alien to this, but really, it seems like you have a very limited interest into megalodon biology as you actually seem to ignore or forget notions and datas I thought you had already learnt since all ours discussion. I like our discussion but I still somewhat feel an non-objective debatter or more likely a lack of rigor when you dicuss about the extinct shark, don't pay attention to Purdy, Kent's paper and when you hstrongly establish large sizes for Spinosaurus and not for megalodon, both still disputed in their respective precise dimensions.

If really you have no big interest and passion for sharks or this shark, no problem, but then be sure to know what you are talking about.

I have demonstrated a number of times my interest and open mind toward Livyatan's related possibilities regarding sizes. I love both of these gigantics carnivores. Then why can't you accept the possibility of megalodon being the largest of both and the largest marine predator known, something suggested several times by several authors and not decades ago ? And I've posted sources, mails, quotes a number of times.

[theropod]

Sorry, a rather late reply but I was pretty busy and wanted to take a break from this debate.

I'm not agreed at all, guys.

The published size estimates do not allow to establish a parity size, unless you make a specific thread.

Both have different estimates, different ontogeny and different methodology, especially in the case of the shark.

Or then do the same thing for Spinosaurus as nothing is established in both specimens.

Frankly that's partial and a starting of pure speculation.

I take all the estimates and compare them, not trying to list an average which is virtually unknown within these species.

Or you make a specific thread for parity fights, which could also be done with some pliosaurs.

We have to use published figures, not making our own science.

In other words, I have nothing against list them specifically at an equal size since their respective ranges overlap (and I've already did it), but not list this or that as an average.

Then we basically agree here. Their ranges, the ranges you gave, have exactly the same mean figure, that was my point, not that these specific sizes must be average, which, in fact, is very unlikely to be true and speculation.

T. rex teeth share similarities with both. It has the rounded teeth of Livyatan and the serrations of megalodon. All the three had clearly no problem biting through bones. Read Renz, 2002, for the analogies between T. rex and megalodon teeth.

I know them, I have seen both in person and know the respective similarities and differences.

There are similarities. But differences. Livyatan possesses the spermaceti skull structure of a sperm whale, Livyatan mandible is more related in its structure to a sperm whale than to an orca with rounded jaws.
It is not morphologically similar to an orca, but ecologically. Orca is not used as proxy in the reconstruction.

I don't think Livyatan's mandible is anything like a Sperm whales:


It is not the same as an orca's either, but much closer morphologically and functionally.

If I remember right, you express exactly the reverse when comparing tyrannosaurs and carnosaurs, but I'm maybe wrong.

No, I did not. i expressed they were jsut as formidable, just like I do here. As I always like to express, both have certain advantages and disadvantages, and both can be just as potent. In T. rex and carnosaurs I'm merely a bit frustrated that the rest of the world seems to be of the stubborn belief that carnosaur bites were not potent, just ebcause their bite forces were not that strong.
I think it was you who expressed the bite of T. rex was "more brutal and direct"...

Megalodon was gigantophagous but was able to prey on a very broad variety of preys. The jaws are immense in volume and the teeth have no problem to target bones on any prey at any size (biting off the fluke or fins of a large sized whale implies to bite through bones).

Not sure of that. For disabling the propulsion system, it is absolutely sufficient to sever the muscles and/or tendons, just like commonly seen in komodo dragon attacks.

There's no data about comparative sharpness as I know and I've lost your point.

Rely on the facts, evidences show megalodon was able to cut through the whole body of multi-tons whales. Combination of cutting power and bite force. Regarding the sharpness, collectors often wound themselves when unearthing these teeth.

My point is that there is no combination, just a compromise. There is no ultimate animal that is equally good at everything as a specialist in one of those fields.

Larger or robust preys, megalodon preyed on a very wide range of preys, having no problem biting through bones and cutting off the limbs of gigantic preys.

Relative to its size, a whale flipper isn't very large. Modern sharks have been recorded cutting off human limbs too.

The analogies with the land, necked, more similar between each other theropods are totally limited here.

Then we should have no problems agreeing we cannot compare these two animals merely on the basis of volume, if they are even more different than theropods among each other.

I have demonstrated a number of times my interest and open mind toward Livyatan's related possibilities regarding sizes. I love both of these gigantics carnivores. Then why can't you accept the possibility of megalodon being the largest of both and the largest marine predator known, something suggested several times by several authors and not decades ago ? And I've posted sources, mails, quotes a number of times.

Then there should be no problem for you to accept these two animals are equals for now, when their size ranges clearly overlap in a way that suggests this.

Biting through fluke and fins is not biting through bones ?

You really don't pay attention to the information about megalodon biology (Purdy in that case).

Frankly Theropod, I much more appreciate my discussions with you than one year ago, really no bad feelings, I guess we all improve ourselves in respect and open mind and that the more mature atmosphere of the board is not alien to this, but really, it seems like you have a very limited interest into megalodon biology as you actually seem to ignore or forget notions and datas I thought you had already learnt since all ours discussion. I like our discussion but I still somewhat feel an non-objective debatter or more likely a lack of rigor when you dicuss about the extinct shark, don't pay attention to Purdy, Kent's paper and when you hstrongly establish large sizes for Spinosaurus and not for megalodon, both still disputed in their respective precise dimensions.

If really you have no big interest and passion for sharks or this shark, no problem, but then be sure to know what you are talking about.

I pay a lot of attention, and I think it is rather impolite that you allege me not to have "big interest and passion for sharks or this shark", jsut because I am not all the time marveling about how formidable it is.

I have read the relevant articles (I suppose you mean the ones posted on the profile). What I can see is small to medium sized whales, decapitated or with crushed ribcages. I can also see C. megalodon did not hesitate to attack bony regions in large whales, but I fail to see it specifically trying to damage the bones in these animals, that's not what is shown by the fossils, and not what its dentition suggests, despite the existence of overhyping media reports, whcih really don't pay attention.
There are bite marks on whale flippers and vertebrae, but they are not crushed. That is much more indicative of an attack style similar to Varanus komodoensis, which doesn't hesitate to attack bony regions either, with the purpose of severing the soft tissue on these regions. We also have bite marks of Allosaurus on the leg bones of sauropods.

I remember Greg erickson showing a bite mark of a great white on the vertebra of a whale at one time. Leaving bite marks on bones doesn't mean the animal crushed them, and it certainly doesn't mean that it was some kind of superlative of its relative because said relative usually doesn't target bones. Newspapers, even some scientists have been very sensationalistic about this fact, that doesn't mean it was in some way "better" than its relatives (of course seen with regards to its size). It is simply not possible for an animal to do something just as well as an animal more specialized in it. Thicker teeth bring an advantage for one thing, but a disadvantage for another thing.
Yes, C. megalodon could slice through large bones, but not because it was some magic mixture between the best features of a crusher and a slicer, but because it was a huge behemoth with a dentition built to slice, but sturdy enough to damage these bones. If thick teeth could slice just as well as thinner ones, every animal would have thick teeth. If it was possible to both be an excellent slicer and able to crush huge bones at the same time, all animals would have a tooth design that allows for this. C. megalodon was a slicer with the capability to slice through most bones, without the need to specifically target soft tissues (something that, at least going by countless reports of sliced-off feet, C. carcharias doesn't always do either)

Again, The killing style of Livyatan was very likely completely different from that of Megalodon, and it certainly did not rely on taking out chunks of meat.

[Grey]

Not the time to write a detailed response, but really, beside Livyatan's traits, respectfully you fail to understand the functionality of megalodons teeth. And I don't get this tendency to want make these animals equal when they are not. There sizes overlap but to date, those of the shark reach upper ends which those of the odontocete don't reach. You have no problem with the upper ends in some large theropods known by limited material too.

I would advise you to check again the information about megalodon and the Livyatan publication meanwhile. I'll respond later.