|
Post by Grey on Sept 28, 2015 22:39:47 GMT 5
Sharks sinking boats larger than themselves by rammings is enough evidence for me regarding the potency against an opponent.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 28, 2015 22:43:18 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 28, 2015 22:59:06 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 28, 2015 23:00:13 GMT 5
Tell me if I’m wrong but if I follow your suggestions since a while :
Livyatan was around 15-16 m conservatively, and weighed 55-60 tonnes at this size. It was an average-sized individual and much larger individuals have existed. Its ram was more potent than megalodon and it had the bigger teeth and the most powerful jaws, so it was more powerful.
Am I right ?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 28, 2015 23:06:15 GMT 5
You are wrong. And I think that sort of provocation is useless and childish.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 28, 2015 23:11:10 GMT 5
That is impressive, but not the same as an animal actually being capable of using, and known to use its ram for killing.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 28, 2015 23:15:55 GMT 5
You are wrong. And I think that sort of provocation is useless and childish. That's not a provocation at all but the summary of your suggestions since a while. No need to be paranoid while discussing with me.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 28, 2015 23:21:10 GMT 5
That is impressive, but not the same as an animal actually being capable of using, and known to use its ram for killing. Sperm whales are not known to have killed opponents by ramming. As for orcas, I ask how many of these individuals were attacking and ramming against the Minke whale, how long the battle lasted. I see here a different contest than between two equally mobile predators. Sharks don't usually ram into their preys (though, one should tell that to seals) since all they need for the kill is to inflict a severe bite, but the simple record of a white shark capsizing a boat by ramming shows they are potent at this. But this is true for any large marine animal. Mysticetes too, which are not particularly built for ramming, have been known for ramming boats and capsize whaleships back in time.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 29, 2015 0:28:05 GMT 5
That's not a provocation at all but the summary of your suggestions since a while. No need to be paranoid while discussing with me. Very well, if that is what you think we should do, then I’m sure you will give a professional, objective and polite [ well that was certainly too much too ask for from you] answer to what I actually have to say to this too: I did not repeatedly insist in calling estimates of 18m and 60-70t for megalodon "conservative". I never even called my estimate for the Livyatan holotype (which is 15.4m, 56t) that. And even if I had, I would have use the term to denote its proper meaning, being "least speculative", not in the sense of "too low", as you do. In case you will want to make it look as if everybody favoured the Physeter-based model and considered C. megalodon the bigger animal, I know of at least one cetacean and shark specialist who considers other stem-physeteroids a better analogue and who also did not support the view that megalodon was larger. Considering Boessenecker expressed his opinion in a reply to one of your own comments, I probably don’t have to tell you what I’m talking about, for anyone else here is the link→. 14.16m is what I consider a lower length estimate for the Livyatan holotype, because it bases on Physeter, an animal with a large sample and comparable body size, but few other similarities. Based on that, a mass estimate could be based on the corrected weight figures this sample→ of stranded Physeter(though noted to be somewhat underweight, but they were the only sample of actual length/weight data I could get my hands on), which yields a mean of ~33.4t, with a range from 28.5 to 44.7t, when applying the correction factor I posted elsewhere, or if you want to insist on using the original estimate of 13.5m, a mean weight of 29.4t, with a range of values from 21.6 to 34.0t. And yes, there were almost certainly larger individuals, but another thing I don’t do is making speculations about the hypothetical maximum sizes of individuals not yet confirmed to exist, because as I think I mentioned from time to time, I find them irrelevant. So speaking in rough terms, the lower estimate of the L. melvillei holotype is similar to the average adult megalodon, the upper estimate based on closer relatives being equivalent to a large specimen (<3% of the whole population). That is by the way completely independent of whether you use my estimate, that you so love to criticise, or the only published weight figure based on an unknown methodology, which were rather similar. Based on the current data I am inclined to say L. melvillei is rather larger than C. megalodon, but of course with future data on both these animals there is also the potential for revisions to both of them. I would still be fine with giving the shark the benefit of the doubt, and consider them equal in size as our default assumption. Feel free to explain what exactly about that makes me seem biased to you, should that (as usual) be the case. As I hope this makes clear, your summary of my "suggestions since a while" is not accurate, and in many ways reminds me rather of your own recent suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 29, 2015 2:05:56 GMT 5
The answer may be objective and professional but not polite. I ask you your opinion not a personnal argument against me.
No but the methods involved are potentially conservative. And much like Livyatan larger than 13.5-17.5 m, there are chances to find a bigger Carcharocles specimen than 18 m.
On Carnivora, you said not a long ago in the equivalent thread that even 16 m was conservative for Livyatan. That was in a discussion with Sam1, the guy saying that 30 m Physeter existed and that orcas are actually more intelligent than H. sapiens.
The very much evidence of the contrary is that I keep investigating the potential size in both since years now, with similar efforts in both cases. But yes C. megalodon is usually considered the biggest animal based on the current data.
Bobby Boessennecker was only a PhD student at the time, he was unaware of the latest data from Pimiento 2013, nor the very details of Gottfried and Shimada methodolgy, nor even the implications of decoupled scaling from Kent 1999, nor even the sizes estimates of 19 m based on UJP.
I discuss regularly with Boessennecker and he did recently change his view about that, merely saying "it depends the metric you use for each species".
Not sure you refer to which shark specialist.
No one says stem-physeteroids are a bad analogue but doubts about their oroginal size estimates are appearing.
Again I'm not one of your fanboys pal on carnivora, there is no bias on my side and I've demonstrated this very much often (but seems like you're blind when I try to revise the data). I've never denied 14 m, but I admit I prefer to use the still current data of 13.5-17.5 m. I've myself estimated 14.5-15 m based on the data from Boersma.
The question being is the 14 m average for adult megalodon from Pimiento & Balk isn't itself somewhat conservative ? And is the 16-17.5 m for Livyatan valid at all ?
Also, I tend to have some reservation while comparing Livyatan holotype specimen with individuals shed teeth from sharks still living/growing at the time.
And I find the idea to consider Livyatan being necessarilly an average sized individual ludicrous.
There were certainly larger individuals but how much larger ? 1-2 m longer or 5-6 m longer ? If the first possibility is valid, Livyatan wouldn't be larger than the largest Carcharocles megalodon specimens.
I don't criticise your estimate but the fact you love it so much that you put it in the thread of the animal, despite the various potential issues with it.
Not unknown, the weight estimate of 57 000 kg is obviously derived from adult Physeter at a roughly similar size than the upper estimate for Livyatan and it's reasonnable one.
Kent sayd he'd expect Livyatan and Carcharocles to weigh similar at the same lenght because they would operate at exceptionnally high Reynolds number.
Exactly what I'd say in the opposite way. Unless one considers L. melvillei to necessarilly be an average individual at its upper size estimate, C. megalodon is the largest known from the current data.
Well let's be honest since you want to make this personnal. You're sometimes very much objective, sometimes less. In the case of Carcharocles you rarely have been objective in the various discussions about its potency, since the very beginning :
Your wild assumption of Livyatan being an average individual and that you tend to ignore indications that current estimates for C. megalodon could, and I do mean could, be conservative/underestimates.
The fact to assume average meg is 14 m, average Livy is 14.1-17.5 m is also too much oversimplified to be objective. I don't use the 13.5 m figure since Lambert et al. were stupid enough to include a huge outlier in their dataset...
The fact to forget that one being 1 m longer on average than the other, the other could be actually 2 m longer at their respective pinnacle size. Larger average size does not imply larger maximum size.
The fact you promptly propose your 60 metric tons figure for the holotype of Livyatan as a serious figure that deserves to be figured in the thread and the Paleontology project where you pose yourself as an expert.
The fact that since years you always have fought the claim that megalodon was way possibly the largest apex predator in the fossil record, at first arguing the megapliosaurs were larger, then Livyatan since the oversizing for pliosaurs has been debunked in the meantime.
And the fact you imply Livyatan reached more than 18 m in size since the largest recent estimate for Carcharocles is 18 m and that you imply Livyatan was larger than Carcharocles, in despite there's near zero indication that Livyatan actually reached, let alone exceeded 18 m, unless you round the somewhat doubtful upper estimate of 17.5 m to 18 m.
But as an enthusiast in macropredators, I pretty much love both of them, I have absolutely no bias toward one or the other, only regretting the lack of data and fragmentary material from the odontocete.
But I have, and really it would be time for you to freakin' wake up and remark this so that you don't have to moan everytime I contradict you on the subject, absolutely no bias toward Carcharocles, on the contrary I tend to question its size very regularly. Even three years ago, I tended to be cautious (but against fanatics in discussions it's hard to stay cautious in the research of data). But I'd be interested to see where am I showing bias or fanboy attitude like you attempted to induce in the Paleontology Project discussion where you became unnecessarilly agressive because I challenged your claims toward the guys asking you about the "mythical 20 m megalodon".
And for the record, I was really asking the summary of your suggestions, that was no provocation. And I was actually right, you consider the physeteroid larger and more powerful for all the reasons I've listed.
Erf...my summary of your suggestions is almost 100 % exact to what you've responded me.
My own recent suggestions are derived from details in Gottfried 1996 and Kent 1999 that the current published sizes estimates for Carcharocles are potentially understated and that much like other extinct taxa, we always can find for an even larger individual of 18 m (a size that we don't know to have been reached by Livyatan according to the current data). Your current conclusion is mainly based on wild assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 29, 2015 2:58:06 GMT 5
This is just sad.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 29, 2015 3:14:05 GMT 5
There's nothing sad, we disagree, period. But next time we discuss stop to see me like one of your T. rex fanboys. I'm researching, not promoting my champ.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 29, 2015 3:20:30 GMT 5
While I don't really want to participate in this, I guess he found your tone sad. No offense, but I believe after three years, we can finally bury the 25 m pliosaur story, theropod developed significantly since 2012 and there is no need to dig that up the way you did it when comparing his views about Livytan's size with his views about megapliosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 29, 2015 3:24:15 GMT 5
I've acknowledged several times that he had significantly improved his skills, and he's certainly much, much better than me in the analysis of a number of subjects (and in maths). He's certainly a future paleo-researcher while I'm not. That does not mean he's that objective, and anyway he surely implied I was not objective but a fanboy preaching for his 20 m, 100 tons otodontid, already in another discussion, despite I stayed polite and not offensive.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 29, 2015 3:47:14 GMT 5
Tell me one thing. What would your reaction have been if I had written "yes" (as was your conclusion pertaining to my response) instead of answering in detail and explaining what I perceive as my actual viewpoint (which always leads you to call me biased and aggressive). Would you have accepted that as an unbiased viewpoint (even I don’t think it is, and according to you, I’m a fanboy)? If not, then you certainly were trying to suggest that I am biased.
Quite a double standard to do that, and at the same time complain about how I supposedly suggested you were biased (while in fact just demonstrating the consequences of liberal methodologies applied to other taxa, leaving it open to you to accept or deny those). At least in that discussion (neither in any other one for that matter) I did not start the "he is skilled but soooo biased"-talk you always bring up sooner or later.
Perhaps you even want to tell me a second thing. For all those years that you claim I was busy being a biased megalodon hater and Livyatan (and can you believe it, even pliosaur) fanboy who absolutely wanted to avoid having to admit to it being the "mother of all predators", how come you were not biased? You were at least as busy (considering your two sockpuppets on DA exclusively dealing with this subject, and your declared lack of interest in most other animals, perhaps even busier?) trying to establish megalodon as the absolute biggest predator ever.
Everybody can claim to have revised and questioned their own opinions. Without actually changing that opinion in the process that amounts to very little–and during the last 4 years you never seem to have changed your opinion about megalodon’s position among the largest predators, despite rather common statements in the form of "I’m so objective, I always question myself!" (and even more common statements calling me arrogant…). I think the work I actually put into it produced some reasonable demonstration that I have questioned and revised my own opinion (for example you may or may not have noticed I have not been using the 17.5m figure in a while, neither have I criticised you for totally ignoring it in favour of your own estimate).
And why are you allowed to home-cook your size estimate for Livyatan based on studies of your choosing and consider it the most likely (namely your last figure based on that physeteroid-paper we were discussing), but when I do the same (though as I hope in a much better documented, more detailed and replicable form) I’m an arrogant fanboy who "loves" his estimate so much? Can you explain to me why in recent posts you always complain because you think I’m treating you like "one of those T. rex fanboys", and yet in the end of the post it’s always you who’s felling your oh-so-important judgement on me (not even my work, no, but me as a person!).
|
|