|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 14, 2013 6:57:27 GMT 5
How do you know that ?
It's big, it's features in the paper and in a doc about meg. Sounds very likely to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 14, 2013 11:28:36 GMT 5
Maybe they just wanted to show a big teeth, no matter if it is the largest.
It looks like documentaries are not always able to get freely available fossils, for example the COTD guys were unable to get a Brachiosaurus skull.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 14, 2013 11:46:35 GMT 5
But the tooth is the same seen in the actual paper and it looks already pretty large, in the vicinity of 16.8 cm, whatever vertical or slant height. I tend to think that theropod is right but I still have some doubts because of the lack of more precise information on the potential total slant height in that tooth and the contradictorial comments. Awaiting more explanations, I can live with it. Anyway, the tooth height might be irrelevant at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 14, 2013 15:33:35 GMT 5
The caption of the image explicitely sais it is an "Upper lateral tooth (x0.5), in lingual view"
This cannot be the same as the upper anterior, and it also looks too small for that if it is the same as in the vid.
They probably just wanted to show a nicely preserved, acessible specimen. If the numbers he was talking about were general (makes sense), that appears even more likely; just an example of a megalodon tooth, and the same in the paper.
In the paper they also show a pair of reconstructed jaws that undoubtedly isn't the biggest jaw in the world (you can see it in the same paleoworld episode).
16,8cm is the biggest tooth height they could verify, not the biggest tooth in their posession.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 14, 2013 15:47:19 GMT 5
My mistake. Indeed, that's a lateral one, but look closely, that very looks like the same tooth featured in the video. So yes, that's not the 168 mm tooth.
However the 168 mm UA was really the biggest tooth in their possession at the time, he even refers to larger specimens in the paper, that's why they've used that one for estimate max size.
I don't know the size of the jaws Gottfried built, a corrected version of the Smithsonian model, based on the great white jaws structure.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 14, 2013 16:09:29 GMT 5
Anyway, the jaw shown in the video isn't a particularly large specimen either, jsut one that was available.
Yeah, the tooth in the video seems to be that one (looks indeed pretty straight and symmetrical for a lateral one, but it sais "upper lateral").
The paper states the teeth to "reach a height of 168mm, altough unsubstantiated reports of even larger teeth exist"
I don't think that tooth was necessarily in their posession, and actually, it seems unlikely they had a tooth this big (big enough for maximum estimates and the biggest verifyable one) available. More likely, that is just the confirmed height of the tooth.
In the further course it is stated "the largest UA teeth of megalodon ar at least 162-169mm high"
Which makes me wonder, perhaps it is the same as Hubbel's tooth, since the figures for the latter were in inches and rounded to quarters, and it might have been available to them...
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 14, 2013 16:24:42 GMT 5
Anyway, the jaw shown in the video isn't a particularly large specimen either, jsut one that was available. Yeah, the tooth in the video seems to be that one (looks indeed pretty straight and symmetrical for a lateral one, but it sais "upper lateral"). The paper states the teeth to "reach a height of 168mm, altough unsubstantiated reports of even larger teeth exist" I don't think that tooth was necessarily in their posession, and actually, it seems unlikely they had a tooth this big (big enough for maximum estimates and the biggest verifyable one) available. More likely, that is just the confirmed height of the tooth. In the further course it is stated "the largest UA teeth of megalodon ar at least 162-169mm high" Which makes me wonder, perhaps it is the same as Hubbel's tooth, since the figures for the latter were in inches and rounded to quarters, and it might have been available to them... What's the point with the jaws ? They've simply built a corrected model of the one in the Smithsonian Museum which had several errors, no purpose here to make a maximum-sized specimen. Regarding the tooth, normally publications use material owned by the team or previously owned in an anterior work. They don't use or study material only known from private collections, and if so, they precise it. That's not Hubbell's tooth. That tooth was first found by Vito Bertucci who later gave it to Gordon Hubbell (posterior to 1996 I think). Also, Gordon Hubbell participates into peer reviewed research and if that 168 mm tooth was part of his private collection, he would have been credited in the paper. You speculate too much my friend ! The best is to take the info at the source. Compagno did not respond you ? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 14, 2013 16:25:28 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 14, 2013 16:28:30 GMT 5
Anyway, the jaw shown in the video isn't a particularly large specimen either, jsut one that was available. Yeah, the tooth in the video seems to be that one (looks indeed pretty straight and symmetrical for a lateral one, but it sais "upper lateral"). The paper states the teeth to "reach a height of 168mm, altough unsubstantiated reports of even larger teeth exist" I don't think that tooth was necessarily in their posession, and actually, it seems unlikely they had a tooth this big (big enough for maximum estimates and the biggest verifyable one) available. More likely, that is just the confirmed height of the tooth. In the further course it is stated "the largest UA teeth of megalodon ar at least 162-169mm high" Which makes me wonder, perhaps it is the same as Hubbel's tooth, since the figures for the latter were in inches and rounded to quarters, and it might have been available to them... What's the point with the jaws ? They've simply built a corrected model of the one in the Smithsonian Museum which had several errors, no purpose here to make a maximum-sized specimen. Regarding the tooth, normally publications use material owned by the team or previously owned in an anterior work. They don't use or study material only known from private collections, and if so, they precise it. That's not Hubbell's tooth. That tooth was first found by Vito Bertucci who later gave it to Gordon Hubbell (posterior to 1996 I think). Also, Gordon Hubbell participates into peer reviewed research and if that 168 mm tooth was part of his private collection, he would have been credited in the paper. You speculate too much my friend ! The best is to take the info at the source. Compagno did not respond you ? Yes, this was only speculation, but no owner is mentioned for the tooth, just that this was the biggest verified height. I haven't made the observation of researchers mainly using stuff they own themselves, that would be highly impractical and make major scientific contributions nearly impossible. Mike Taylor certainly didn't own the holotypes of Giraffatitan branca and Brachiopsaurus althithorax when he separated the two genera based on thorough descriptions of the osteology, and that tooth is mearely a reported height measurement, it could be any tooth they happened to have data on. Neither Compagno nor Gottfried responded so far. The point with the jaws is redundant now: the jaws are certainly not the biggest ones, and yet they are figured, so why should the tooth necessarily be the biggest one? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 14, 2013 16:28:42 GMT 5
Good point regarding sant height. There is no contradiction about Jeremiah's, the tooth width is typically used on the UA because they are normally the widest, but L5 are often of similar width. You can use this on a wide tooth, but assuming it is not the widest tooth, the total size is conservative. I've posted the exaplanations in the Meg size thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 14, 2013 16:31:54 GMT 5
What's the point with the jaws ? They've simply built a corrected model of the one in the Smithsonian Museum which had several errors, no purpose here to make a maximum-sized specimen. Regarding the tooth, normally publications use material owned by the team or previously owned in an anterior work. They don't use or study material only known from private collections, and if so, they precise it. That's not Hubbell's tooth. That tooth was first found by Vito Bertucci who later gave it to Gordon Hubbell (posterior to 1996 I think). Also, Gordon Hubbell participates into peer reviewed research and if that 168 mm tooth was part of his private collection, he would have been credited in the paper. You speculate too much my friend ! The best is to take the info at the source. Compagno did not respond you ? Yes, this was only speculation, but no owner is mentioned for the tooth, just that this was the biggest verified height. Neither Compagno nor Gottfried responded so far. The point with the jaws is redundant now: the jaws are certainly not the biggest ones, and yet they are figured, so why should the tooth necessarily be the biggest one? I really think the tooth is part of their collection, publications do not use private specimens normally. Gottfried now works on another field, so I'm not sure he will respond at all... I don't understand your reasonning in your last line, I feel the assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 14, 2013 16:34:44 GMT 5
If that tooth was in their own collection, it was a private specimen.
They haven't necessarily even seen it in person, they just needed a reliable measurement. It could be any tooth.
The reasoning you don't have to care about any more is that they didn't show the biggest verifyable meg jaw either, so why should they have shown the biggest verifyable tooth?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 14, 2013 16:38:58 GMT 5
If that tooth was in their own collection, it was a private specimen. They haven't necessarily even seen it in person, they just needed a reliable measurement. It could be any tooth. The reasoning you don't have to care about any more is that they didn't showed the biggest verifyable meg jaw either, so why should they have shown the biggest verifyable tooth? If the tooth was owned by them and used in the publication, it is not part of any private collection, although I'd like to see where this tooth coms from. But material from private collections used in publication is always referred to. I still don't get what you mean. If you talk about the video doc, yes and so what ? I'm fine with this. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 14, 2013 16:47:53 GMT 5
A tooth owned by a private person, in this case one of the researchers, would be in a private collection. I don't know what tooth it is, there is no indication. It isn't necessarily owned by them.
They only used a measurement of the tooth, that only means it was a reliably reported figure they got from somewhere. So this tooth may be a big specimen anywhere, one they could measure or get a measurement of. Not necessarily in their posession.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 14, 2013 16:54:44 GMT 5
If that tooth was owned by another person, this would have been indicated, that's the procedure when a measurement taken on a material not in their possession is made.
Kent refers also that all the published sizes estimates by various methods (13-16.8 m) are based on the largest tooth available each time and may not reflect the largest size.
|
|
