|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 1:47:18 GMT 5
Absolutely because starting a discussion like this one is boring. I only wanted to know your clear point on that. But apparently I should avoid to ask in the future.
Siverson only applies it to Carcharocles since he considers it larger (but not demonstrated beyond all doubts) larger than Livyatan.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 30, 2015 3:19:43 GMT 5
I do believe that that’s what you wanted to read. But it is not true. Show me where I claimed this reconstruction (once more, focus on that) was factual. No, it suggested it is the least biased assumption.
No, I consider that equally probable to being a non-fully grown, small individual. But both are biased assumptions. That does not create a bias towards smaller sizes in the fossil record than in life, unless larger sharks were less likely to lose teeth for other reasons than their sheer rarity itself. Now if, like someone I met recently (but who didn’t pursue the idea further), you believe that older sharks lose no teeth due to their superior hunting skills, be my guest, but be prepared to bring strong evidence. If not, as I presume, then explain to me how you figure that relative to their population size larger sharks left behind fewer teeth–and likewise provide evidence.
Yet it is smaller, although not by much in terms of mass. So how exactly does that qualify as "enlarge"?
That is not an estimate or an interpretation. Gottfried et al. calculated a length weight regression for great whites. So did Kohler et al., Casey & Pratt, Mollet & Cailliet, McClain et al. and Tricas & McCosker. All these equation do exactly the same thing, there is no difference whatsoever except for giving somewhat different results. Your grounds for considering me biased is the fact that I compared and contrasted the results of 6 studies, except for relying on only a single one. I’m very sorry that Gottfried et al.’s results happen to be the highest ones, but that’s not due to my own estimates or whatever status I give to them.
Well it really wasn’t that difficult to predict it would fall around where I thought it would, but thanks anyway.
You mean you trust me to measure a photograph of a tooth for you?
If I’m not mistaken its you accusing me since years to be a biased amateur, not the other way around.
Show me where you have compared it to "any adult size" and actually considered the result relevant.
You "even" compared it to a large female? My mind is blown from this sheer level of objectivity, to even compare the only known specimen to a large member of the larger sex… And yeah, I remember, that was years ago and did not affect your view regarding either the comparison between the two species or the objective of this topic. So it’s irrelevant. You have repeatedly claimed "megalodon was bigger", that certainly didn’t base on the Calvert mount, although if you consider 18m megalodons you should certainly take 11m ones into account just as much.
Do we have to go through this again? The regressions I used INCLUDE Gottfried et al.’s and are ALL published. Here is the complete list of references: Casey, John G.; Pratt, Harold L. (1985) Distribution of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, in the Western North Atlantic. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 9 (Biology of the White Shark, a Symposium.), pp. 2-14. Gottfried, Michael D.; Compagno, Leonard J.V.; Bowman, S. Curtis (1996): Size and Skeletal Anatomy of the Giant “Megatooth” Shark Carcharodon megalodon. In: Klimley, Peter A.; Ainley, David G.: Great White Sharks: the biology of Carcharodon carcharias. San Diego, pp. 55-66. Kohler, Nancy E.; Casey, John G.; Turner, Patricia A. (1995): Length-Length and Length-Weight Relationships for 13 Shark Species from the Western North Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin, 93 pp. 412-418. McClain, Craig R.; Balk, Meghan A.; Benfield, Mark C.; Branch, Trevor A.; Chen, Catherine; Cosgrove, James; Dove, Alistair D.M.; Gaskins, Lindsay C.; Helm, Rebecca R.; Hochberg, Frederick G.; Lee, Frank B.; Marshall, Andrea; McMurray, Steven E.; Schanche, Caroline; Stone, Shane N.; Thaler, Andrew D. (2015): Sizing ocean giants: patterns of intraspecific size variation in marine megafauna. PeerJ, 3 (715) pp. 1-69. Mollet, Henry F.; Cailliet, Gregor M. (1996): Using Allometry to Predict Body Mass from Linear Measurements of the White Shark. In: Klimley, Peter A.; Ainley, David G.: Great White Sharks: the biology of Carcharodon carcharias. San Diego, pp. 81-89. Tricas, Timothy C.; McCosker, John E. (1984): Predatory Behaviour of the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) with notes on its biology. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 43 (14), pp. 221-234.
I actually incorporated all of them as a result of your complaints. So much for me not listening to you…
If you want to tell me I made half of them up myself, you are going to have to do better than that. And surely, had I had a sufficient sample of great white measurements available the result thereof would have been just as valid (because maths don’t suddenly produce biased results just because the author is biased), but as happens I didn’t anyway.
You certainly have:
Btw I couldn’t replicate it. Based on the regression for antorbital notch width, I get lower figures, based on direct scaling from the estimate, I get higher ones.
Not necessarily. As I demonstrated (and hope you agree at least here, because the process is really foolproof and not a matter of interpretation or speculation) Livyatan following Lambert et al.’s data was somewhat wider than a Physeter of equal length. ~16% at their original estimate, ~14% at the one that ignores the outlier. That is if you favour the estimate based on it (btw did you notice I have been using the Physeter estimate for some time now, especially considering suggestions that it did not deviate as far from some stem-physeteroids as it does from Lambert et al.’s original figure. Another time I certainly revisited my opinion on the matter.).
And once again, regarding Brygmophyseter it is not my fault it has a deep chest and short tail, that is what the published data indicate and not something I made up. I would have equally accepted any figure based on those data, so once more I ask that you substantiate your thoughts as to where my errors lie (that means, of course, that you provide evidence stronger than that I already provided).
As usual I encourage you to attempt to replicate this and see whether I made any errors and point them out. Strange enough you never seem willing to do so though, so no wonder it isn’t so common for you to actually make a suggestion that helps me.
Which has not even been demonstrated. And yes, it is just as valid as using an 11m meg.
That was not a question, and that is what the data say.
Considering it was not a provocation attempt it certainly failed if it provoked you. But then, if you are not a fanboy it certainly should not even have appeared like a provocation attempt to you. And once more, you don’t get the irony.
I HAVE NOT PERFORMED A FREAKING REGRESSSION, I USED PUBLISHED ONES. STOP SPREADING LIES!
It is not the only published one. And yes, that is actually factual. If you want to suggest Gottfried et al.’s formula is just as valid as five other published ones combined, then that is certainly biased, certainly considering it happens to be the one giving the highest results. It is no more and no less valid than any single one of them.
It states something you just claimed you didn’t state…
I disagree=>I’m a fanboy.
No, it doesn’t. It implies that the majority of the times, when you take an adult megalodon and an adult Livyatan, the Livyatan will be larger. As I wrote before I have a tendency to think this is the most likely state of things, based on current data. And unlike you I have actually revisited my opinion frequently, and neither did I call everybody who doesn’t agree a biased fanboy. I neither care about nor made any statement hypothesizing Livyatan’s maximum size in a very long time.
Improve your skills at making scientific arguments so that I can agree with you.Or use them, that might already be enough.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 4:43:42 GMT 5
You never end ?
Any attempt to list a status about its size is biased. The only thing we know is that it's an adult Livyatan.
The shark being larger becomes less frequent in the coastal areas, hence fewer teeth from it. Note that the 18 m individual comes from a shallow nursery, where one is likely to find teeth for big females but less likely in other regions.
The access to coastal deposits primarily. The fact that many large teeth become broken and fragmented with time, the bias because of the collectors who often look at the larger teeth.
And on another point, beside the proportion of very large individuals, the possibility that the shark itself was larger than 18 m because of the many factors listed earlier.
Larger at the same length, larger than a sperm whale.
And still you don't use them. But I guess Gottfried et al. are fanboys like me. Anyway the difference is rather unsignificant and the fluctuation between the various regression expected. I've stated earlier than I can roll with all of them. Yes, including Gottfried's.
Usually yes, I count on your precision and on your potential bias for downsizing, to be sure the result is reasonnable, I know that you'll never derive a >20 m TL from one of these teeth but that's not what I ask.
I've certainly never claimed to be a professionnal.
This is not my trial, you can search in the past pages of the thread, that's not the first time I suggest to compare to holotype to various specific meg individuals.
Such as specimens that we know to have died at one point and not only shed a tooth.
In which case you can as well compare the Livyatan holotype to the small specimen behind the set of teeth by Hubbell or the Denmark associated specimen that you estimated at 16.8 m.
This shows how Livyatan can be anything, though not an equivalent to Hubbell's specimen since this one is regarded as a juvenile.
Yes, the only know Livyatan could as well correspond in terms of size to the adult meg from Denmark. Both adults, both died at this point...
I'm comparing specimens with specimens, like made between dinosaurs specimens. Sorry I didn't thought this was blasphemy here.
The "large female" is of course the conservative 16 m individual from Gottfried et al.
Yes megalodon is, as far as we know, bigger or at least can grow bigger, as far as we know. We have data for meg reaching at 18 m, that's not the case for Livyatan.
I don't think there is anything absurd in this statement.
I was talking about body mass estimates. I've made none. And what's the problem with the estimate derived from Boersam results ?
I was asking you if you can list a fossil macropredator larger than the 18 m reached by megalodon in the current record. Obviously you couldn't since there is currently none.
Even if I'm not the target, I know how to recognize a provocation when I see or read one. Your parallel with 200 tonnes sauropods or 24 m Physeter was a example of this. Accept my 200 sauropods and I'll accept your 20 m megalodon.
Yes, I've not forgotten your club "blue whale is not the biggest animal ever, a sauropod is !".
Fine, take it easy. Are these regressions taking into account the expected bigger bulk in the larger animal ?
It is the only one used for megalodon and Kent agreed Gottfried et al. have the best data for now. But again the difference with the others is rather small.
And yet I've several times questionned the claim these past months, performing research about a private Chilean tooth from Livyatan to verify its size (I even got a picture of it from a Chile collection) and various investigations regarding pliosaurs size (the back of the 17-20 m Peterborough pliosaur ?).
Yet, each time it appears that Carcharocles remains the only apex predator currently quite confirmed to have reached 18 m for weight in excess of 50-60 tonnes.
So no problem while using this claim.
But I'll avoid to use it now if you want.
If you disagree, then you implicitly admit that Livyatan reached maximum sizes in excess of 18 m. But afaik, it's baseless.
Well, I focuse on the maximum known size of each species and currently Carcharocles is larger. So you're implying that Livyatan was larger on average than megalodon but not larger in maximum size ? Any indication about their growth curve ? Could one be larger one average and the other be larger at maximum size ?
But again I don't believe in this assumption, especially in the light of all the reasons listed before.
No, you never demonstrated that you revised your opinion, at least I have absolutely zero souvenir of this.
But if you have demonstrated that Livyatan was an average-sized adult, I should inform Lambert et al. to credit you in their next paper. Note that while asking Lambert about that, he strongly avoided to advance such a statement.
But apparently you can, you have demonstrated that the holotype of Livyatan melvillei is the equivalent of a 14 m adult megatooth (which possibly corresponds to a large immature female btw if you strictly follow Gottfried).
An assumption that the only known specimen of this whale corresponds to the 14 m individuals of Carcharocles is not a scientific argument.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 30, 2015 15:23:30 GMT 5
True enough. But that could also be said about the whale. Which an unbiased person would have assumed could just as well lead to a bias towards large teeth in collection as it could lead to a bias against them… You never stop, do you? That is besides the point, if the shark got larger it did so so rarely that it did not leave behind evidence. No, as large as an adult male Physeter, as was suggested by Lambert et al. 2010. Do you have some sort of reading problem? I did use them. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/24334And surely I’m the paranoid one, but when I include one regression along with others I’m the one calling the authors fanboys because I did not EXCLUSIVELY use their data, instead testing it against others. According to you Kent is calling Gottfried et al. fanboys too then, he also used several great white (and Isurus) regressions in his Parotodus paper and not exclusively that one… I did include Gottfried et al.’s regression, but you just absolutely want to view me as biased so much that you repeatedly make the same wrong claim. So basically your (only) example of relying on "my data" itself includes the suggestion that I’m biased, and that is supposed to prove how extremely open minded you are towards me? On the other hand I certainly have relied on your data. The very fact that I measured more than a few teeth you wanted me to measure is an example of that. As are the various times when I have relied on other data you have posted. Or do you want to say you criticise me because I don’t cite you as if you had actually produced your own research on the matter? If we do that, they are still similar in size. Livyatan is comparable to the Yorktown (was that the one?) dentition or larger at its lower estimate, comparable to or larger than the specimen from Denmark at its upper estimate. Again, that applies regardless of whether you use "my figures" or the original ones. I’m supposed to take it easy that you repeatedly make up utter lies about me? And yes, they are actually the main piece of evidence for that. If you were right, and meg had a proportionately smaller dentition (your reasoning behind all the estimates being "potentially conservative", i.e. "probably too low"), it would actually be the only piece of evidence for that. And I don’t think I should have to tell you that more than once, even though you could EASILY have checked yourself in the first place. If you want to consider this equation superior, care to point out the crucial difference between it and others like it? As I wrote I could not replicate it, so perhaps you’d like to post the calculation you made. The problem is not the estimate, it is that you have been explicitely calling me an arrogant fanboy for making my own estimates and alledgedly "loving them so much", yet you do the exact same thing yourself, proposing what you perceive as a better alternative to the published estimates. That again? So say I had claimed to have questioned my own claims, without ever having shown that publicly. That would surely suddenly make me totally objective in your eyes, wouldn’t it? Claim what you want, just stop considering yourself to be such a high moral authority on matters of objectivity. You have repeatedly lied outright here, both about what I have written and about what you have written, in trying to make me a biased fanboy and yourself a totally objective saint. That surely isn’t the work of the only truly objective person on earth. And as you know, it it totally beyond my comprehension how you can compare the maximum known size in a sample of one to the maximum known size in hundreds of specimens. the sheer fact that you are willing to highlight, of all things, sampling bias in suggesting our estimates for megalodon are too low, but can look past an actual, demonstrated, huge and blatantly obvious sampling bias like applies here is just incredible. That is within the realm of possibility, which does not mean I imply it is the case. I do not IMPLY anything about the maximum size of L. melvillei, because it is totally unknown. What the data indicate for now is that the only known Livyatan is comparable to a large or at least average specimen of megalodon in terms of size. What does that have to do with their growth curve? It is a matter of individual variation. I definitely did more to demonstrate that than you did. And I’m not the one claiming to be totally objective, you are that guy. Supposedly because you have problems articulating the difference between "it necessarily, definitely was" and "it is best to assume that it was". An assumption that it corresponds to the 18m individuals even less so.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 18:07:56 GMT 5
I don't deny that, but we have more hints about larger megs than 18 m than for the Livyatan holotype, for now at least.
Have you looked at the numerous teeth in the thread about size that could suggest sizes at least rivalling the upper figures from Pimiento. They're all from private collections and I can assure you I don't post all the specimens I see.
But I keep in mind the potential conservative approach from Pimiento, the others methods suggesting slightly larger sizes, the fact the larger sharks were less frequent in the coastal areas, something interesting observed in the Pliocene deposits of my country, most teeth are small but there are more and more reports of isolated truly gigantic specimens suggesting large females in nurseries, and the bias suggesting the presence of more numerous giants specimens in private collections.
Fair enough if you consider your weight estimate to be similar to a well fed Physeter.
Fair enough here again. Note that Kent still acknowledges Gottfried as the best available data per private com.
Yes, I don't try to rely on someone who's going to be oversensationnalistic while calculating the TL from these teeth. I think that's reasonnable.
I tend to think it is more comparable to the Yorktown adult specimen because of the "new" estimate i.e. our doubts about the validity of the 16-17.5 from Lambert et al.
In that case, we one meg that died leaving traces that was larger than the Livy holotype.
Gottfried et al. suggests their estimate was conservative because it appears the teeth stop to grow in the largest great whites. They never implied this would contradict with a bulky morph since the shark grew with its proportionnally larger teeth the main part of its life.
Other than this possibility, I don't think we can verify the data much more than this. But we have to keep in mind this possibility observed in modern large great whites.
I've not posted my estimates (which are not much different than your) in the profile thread of Livyatan.
Absolutely.
So you think we are both objective ?
My only point is that we do have evidence that C. megalodon reached at least 18 m while that's not the case for Livyatan. That's what says the record, for now the shark is known to us through scientific methods to have grown larger.
My other point is that assuming Livyatan was an average sized individual and that it corresponds to a 14 m megalodon is a simplistic assumption. This Livyatan died at maybe 15-16 m long while most megs known from isolated teeth did not die at this size stage.
I agree but I add that comparing the 14 m average figure for megs could be potentially conservative and even then that a 14 m meg is mostly known by a tooth that it shed while still doing its life, while the Livy holotype may have died at this comparable size.
Related to the previous question, a potential larger average size systematically implies a larger maximum size ?
You accused me to be fanatic claiming about the absolute title of top dog for megalodon while I've made a thread dedicated to that where I tend to seriously consider the case of Physeter, macropliosaurs and Livyatan.
The best is to assume nothing for now. Livyatan is a paper tiger in terms of intraspecific variations, while megalodon is not. So assuming anything here is doomed.
But nevertheless possible...or to a 17m individual, or to a 16m one...
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 30, 2015 19:38:58 GMT 5
And since we have hundred or thousand-fold more megs than Livyatans, the question is why these situations seem comparable or even noteworthy to you? In a new monotypic taxon one would simply never expect to have found individuals as large as the largest of another similar-sized animal known from thousands of specimens.
Have you not been especially crawling the web in search for the largest teeth that you could find?
Yes, the best published weight estimate for megalodon. Also the only one btw.
Being purely your opinion though. I have demonstrated how it is quite possible that the Livyatan holotype was as massive as the danish megalodon if you consider those data. So do you call me biased once again, because I consider that? And once again, what are you doing? Arbitrarily picking the bigger meg, as well as the lower Livyatan estimate (Didn’t you just recently accuse me of bias because I ALLEDGEDLY had revised the lower bound upwards without revising the upper downwards? Where does that leave us? But then, you also accused me of bias because I considered six regressions instead of just one, so I guess we have got very different standards. In fact the only way I seem to be able to not be biased in your opinion is by chosing the biggest meg estimate at the highest weight estimate for the biggest specimen, but the smallest Livyatan).
No, they suggested more massive jaws and bulk due to the size of the dentition. If the dentition was proportionately smaller that doesn’t apply. I have already given you an explanation consistent with that; that they were referring to anterior tooth height with their statement, but not necessarily other teeth, and not in terms of width. You rejected that statement however.
That is your fixation, not mine. After you have demonstrated how you actually made that estimate, by all means, post it there.
No, I think we are both unobjective, as is everyone. You are the one who can not accept the possibility of me making an unbiased statement as long as that statement disagrees with you.
And as already demonstrated we could not expect to find such evidence if we had only a single megalodon.
Only 27% of the adult megs were estimated at 15m or larger. Yes, yes, I know, you think there are various biases because of which this figure is too low. Can you demonstrate that there are no equivalent biases for Livyatan, can you quantify their impact? Otherwise you have to admit that you can not possibly know that meg is bigger.
Well, of course I have. I’m just not in the habit of using unverifiable, irrelevant arguments. So in that case, that discussion it over, I am not biased after all, simply because I say so?
Or it could be potentially liberal. I do not agree that one is necessarily more likely than the other, though I should suggest to put that on your list of things to discuss with your contacts. And you can always use a "conservative" estimate for Livyatan if you want, the lower estimate is still on par with the average megalodon.
No it doesn’t (no comment on whether it’s likely or not to do in this case). I still don’t get why that’s relevant though, what’s this fixation with maximum size?
If you were seriously considering the case you wouldn’t be the one claiming me to be a fanatic. And no, I didn’t call you a fanatic, but surely when you make a post literally boasting how objective you believe you are, and at the same time explicitely calling me a fanboy for reasons such as that I disagree with you, me in turn questioning your own objectivity should not surprise you.
So how come you assume stuff then, and don’t simply write "I do not know which is bigger"? Or as I REPEATEDLY proposed (for which I got all sorts of nice remarks from you) to assume size parity?
As I wrote, it’s just as possible that it corresponds to the 11m individuals, so how come you prefer your assumption that megalodon is bigger on the ground of 18m individuals over the assumption that it is smaller on the grounds of 11m ones?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 20:51:08 GMT 5
Please, calm down, your tone is unnecessarilly agressive while mine is not. Hundred or thousands-fols of megs specimens that for a large part are composed : - of neonates - of juveniles - of subadults - of possibly large adults of smaller-sized populations. Remains the truly adults specimens of the large-sized populations. Then you add the possibility of slightly conservative approach in some of the methods involved and the vast number of gigantic teeth from any positions from private collections. I've been searching for the largest teeth from any positions and they are more numerous comparatively to the proportions from Pimiento matrix. Not saying that 18 m specimens were common but they were not necessarilly as rare as can be indicated by the matrix by Pimiento which is itself filled with a number of uncertainties factors. He said explicitely "Gottfried has the best data, I can live with it". If the holotype of Livyatan was actually around 14-15 m as indicated by the various revisions we made recently ( excluding the outlier in the regression based on Physeter , and doubting about the validity of the guess estimates at 6.5-7 m for Zygophyseter and Brygmophyseter) so the danish meg would be bigger. Arbitrarily picking the bigger meg ? At first I've not picked anything. But let's try something : excluding all the isolated teeth which indistinctly come from megs at any life stage, let's use the first associated specimen confirming the specimen died at this point, being then the true equivalent to Livyatan holotype. Which one was the first one discovered and described : the big Danish specimen described in 1983. The Belgium specimen found earlier was obviously a young specimen, not comparable in terms of life status to the Livyatan holotype which was an adult. All the other associated specimens (Uyeno specimen, the Yorktown specimen, Hubbell's set) were all found after the Danish specimen. This specimen is the biggest individual known by associated remains that died at this location, and the first adult at that. It is the equivalent to Livyatan. Am I arguing that this individual was an average-sized individual ? No. And I'm not arguing this for the Livyatan holotype too. No one is arguing about that (except you). Still I don't argue that the Livyatan was a large sized individual. I don't argue anything actually because we don't know anything. I've not rejected the statement, I've said the data is too vague to conclude anything. But basically smaller anterior teeth in larger specimen can (not necessarilly) suggest narrower teeth and a somewhat smaller dentition. And no, a white shark growing all it life with a normally-proportionned dentition does not become suddenly sendler at the end of its life because its teeth have stopped to grow since its bulk and girth has already been influenced by decades of allometric developpment. Sure. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/23630theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/24371So we're both unobjective but I'm biased and you're unbiased ? No, we could have the Danish specimen indeed, the first associated specimen of meg that we can consider as adult. And there is zero chance that the Livyatan holotype was the equivalent part of its population species ? Yes, there are less potential bias toward Livyatan holotype given less numerous methods, with less numerous uncertainties. I know that currently we have scientific record of 18 m Carcharocles, not for Livyatan. The unverifiable, "irrelevants" arguments (that I took from Gottfried et al. and Kent's paper) of mine were not in the goal to question myself. I've questionned myself considering the upsizing in other kinds of macropredators. Nothing suggests it could be liberal, the method involved is conservative (per Shimada's words), the life status for megalodon are from Gottfried et al. who acknowledged that estimates based on great whites using tooth height are somewhat conservative. Based on this, the actual average could be nearer to 15 m than 14 m. Nothing suggests something it is liberal (for now at least). I've been clear for a while that I focuse on maximum size. I've not used the term of "fanatic", rather than you're biased (since you're the only one to want to scientifically consider the holotype as an average-sized individual of its species) and rather obsessed with this discussion (but here is your colossal ego). I'm objective because I don't speculate wildely, nor I assume unverifiable statements. I'm objective because while I'm impressed with the species represented by C. megalodon, I'd love to see evidence suggesting 20 m + raptorial odontocetes or thalassophoneans definitely bigger than Carcharocles. But for now there's zero evidence for this, other than speculations usually used by carnivora fanboys or psychopaths novelists writing about echolocating 27 m pliosaurs... I know that for now we have evidence for Carcharocles growing bigger or slightly bigger(18 m or a bit more). I assume nothing, I use the data. Now give me a break please and let's take this later when more data comes. For example, if Lambert et al. indicates a bite absolutely unparalleled in the history of the life for the odontocete, I could possibly revise my statement, regardless of size. In the meantime no need to continue this discussion, all your arguments are not convincing to me and I don't expect mines to work for you. You can claim everywhere that the Livyatan specimen was an average sized individual if you want I cannot care less.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 30, 2015 21:26:36 GMT 5
But the Megalodon specimen from denmark definitely is, and you are only using it for comparison. Do you or do you not argue that megalodon was bigger? The data is too vague to conclude anything, yet you consider your conclusion so good that you mention it on every possible occasion. That’s the same guy who told me that I "love my estimate" too much… If its proportionately larger teeth were the only reason to suspect a more robust built, then there certainly is no reason why it should continue to grow in terms of bulk given that the teeth stopped. If that happened before the shark stopped growing in terms of length, then yes, that means it becomes less robust. I’m not suggesting it did, I’m also not the one suggesting it got a proportionately smaller dentition at larger sizes. And if you look back a little you’ll notice that I actually wrote this in the context of explaining the meaning of the regression equations to you (and not the first time). If there aren’t proportionately more massive teeth to indicate a bulky built, that only leaves these growth trends of the great white. You quoted your own passage. I did not claim I was unbiased. I do however do my best to keep whatever personal biases either of us might have out of the discussion. You however are always the first to accuse me of bias–more than that, you often use it as a strawman argument as if it invalidated actual arguments. Which probably isn’t 18m long. No, but it is less than half as likely as that it wasn’t. There is quite a big chance that estimates based on Physeter reflect underestimates, considering very strong hints that raptorial stem-physeteroids had different proportions. You have been remarking on the "potentially conservative" estimates for megalodon at least once per post, but that did not get any mention. I was referring to your argument that you had changed your opinion, and just never stated so, and hence were not biased. and I have questioned myself concerning that of megalodon. Am I really the one making the wild assumptions here? Also I’m not getting the impression that you actually responded to me. I’ve been clear that I don’t. And yet I am the biased one here according to you, while you are completely objective. You have even used the term "fanboy", right here→. Great, now Mr "I’m so totally objective" accuses me of having a colossal ego… And that’s where you are wrong, you have been speculating much more wildly than I have, and relied on unverifiable statements more than I have. For example the supposed ceased growth of great white shark teeth at large sizes, the supposed underestimates yielded by Shimada’s method, and most of all your assumption that Gottfried et al.’s regression was somehow better than any of the others at predicting the weight of C. megalodon. So once again, all I need to do in order to be considered objective is stating "I’d love to see evidence of 25m megalodons, but there is none?" No we don’t, because we do not know the maximum size of Livyatan. You are the one assuming that we do. Yet another assumption.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 22:05:07 GMT 5
The Danish megalodon is the first adult meg found by associated remains indicating an individual at this point, just like the holotype of Livyatan.
That's why I use it as example that the first adult specimen can be as well a large specimen and that assuming the first one found is an average-sized individual is not appropriate.
I don't argue anything about the status of Livyatan and if it was or not bigger than the average megalodon.
But I argue the current record has megalodons at least around 18 m, while that's not the case for Livy.
There's no data suggesting large great whites with proportionnally smaller teeth than smaller ones are more slender.
And again I'm only reporting the statement by Gottfried that their regression of size estimate is conservative because this does not take into account the stopped growth in large white sharks teeth. This implies Shimada's results are conservative as well. Indeed, Shimada considers them conservative in his paper. At last, Kent 1999 says estimates based on vertical measurements are going to underestimate the shark.
I hate informatics.
Clicking on the links, this leads to your posts about volumetric estimate of Livyatan and calculations of its proportions compared to Physeter in the profile thread, unlike you said.
You treated me like if I was a fanboy in the Project Paleontology project while I stayed calm and objective all along. But you're certainly objective.
Near 17 m according to your estimate. So the first associated adult meg found to date is a large adult. That could be the case for Livyatan as well.
Keeping in mind all the points I've listed before ? Keeping in mind the case of the Danish adult large meg ?
The Livyatan holotype can be anything.
Raptorial stem-physeteroids seem to have less numerous vertebra and the strong hints are that estimates of 6.5-7 m for Zygo and Brygmo are overestimates.
The 13.5 m estimate based on Physeter is potentially an underestimate because of the outlier. However your revision of 14 m, and the calculations I derived from Boersma usind antorbital notch width comparison are about 14.5-15 m.
So 13.5 m is potentially an underestimate, and 16-17.5 m potentially an overestimate. We end up wit a Livyatan at 14-15m or somewhere between 15 and 16 m.
The Top Dog thread is a revised opinion.
You upsizing estimates for Carcharocles ? Where and when ?
If the method suggesting 14 m is conservative, then 15 m is not absurd. But I don't argue anything.
You suggest Livyatan is the most powerful of both of these carnivores because you say it is bigger than the average 14 m for meg and that you say the holotype was an average-sized adult.
I say that I don't know for now any Livyatan specimen or hints of specimens that could rival with a 18 m Carcharocles.
You're everywhere, responding to anyone, trying to have the last work in every case, putting your personnal works in the profile threads...
Isn't that a mark of your ego ?
There is nothing more unverifiable than claiming the holotype of Livyatan melvillei is an average-sized individual.
My unverifiable arguments come from Gottfried and Alessandra de Maddalena, not from my biased mind.
No, but every post you make about this species is about downsizing it, both in length compared to the published data, in weight, in bite force, in ramming potency, in dominance...
I recall your analogy of a dogfish against a giant octopus while hypothesizing a battle between a meg and a giant kraken-like squid both at same weight...
No one needs to be fan or fanboy or even enthusiast about this extinct shark, but comparing Carcharocles with a dogfish in a comparative contest was quite bold, if not biased.
Yes we don't know yet but for now the data indicates Carcharocles as larger.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 30, 2015 23:47:34 GMT 5
I didn’t claim there were. Gottfried et al. were the ones to draw a connection between a relatively large, massive dentition and a bulky built. I was under the impression that you agreed with this argument, considering that you have recently pointed this out yourself, but of course you may have changed your mind.
You can’t claim the animal was disproportionately bulky due to it’s large, massive teeth, but then presume it actually had proportionately smaller teeth. If you assume tooth size correlates with girth, and you assume tooth size stopped increasing, the conclusion is totally obvious–girth would also be expected to stop growing. Considering you think you understand me good enough to be able to attribute everything I say to my bias, this should not be too complex for you to grasp. But no, you want megalodon relatively longer but just as bulky, with proportionately smaller teeth but just as effective a bite…
And let’s be clear here, there are no data suggesting great whites with proportionately larger teeth are more robust either, but that is a hypothesis made by gottfried et al., not mine. There are also no data suggesting great white shark teeth stop growing beyond a certain size (and considering the terrible reliability of great whites above 6.4m one could seriously question whether the statement was based on sufficient data), but that too is suggested by Gottfried et al. It appeared to me that you were quite willing to accept their statements without questioning what data they base on, or is this another situation where you accept the ones you like and question the ones you don’t like?
He considers "them" conservative, or he considers one particular estimate, based on one particular tooth position conservative? Also you recall the discrepancy between what one can mean when using the term "conservative"? Most scientists would not tell you that "conservative" automatically means "too low".
Specifically applying to Parotodus benedenii, although by analogy he extends this to C. megalodon. And he specifically refers to anterior teeth, for a good reason that you keep ignoring. I have never denied that those estimates are likely underestimates, but I have also previously demonstrated that the reverse is just as likely the case for posterior teeth, considering the same line of evidence, as well as the fact that Hubbell’s supposed subadult tooth set and the other associated dentition produce astronomical estimates (not just slightly but actually way too high) with the more posterior tooth positions, not even in the same ballpark of what their jaw perimeter would suggest. These may cancel each other out in a large sample, so once more your suggestion that the average is an underestimate remains to be demonstrated and until you do you certainly shouldn’t criticise my "wild assumptions".
Read again, please. I never said that. The line you attribute to me was written by none other than yourself. Yes, certainly I did post those in the profile thread. I already explained the situation and am increasingly getting tired of always having to explain the most obvious things twice because you don’t care that much about precision when reading what I write.
And yes, my tone is unpleasant (as is yours) because after years of being disproportionately patient while reading you make the wildest insults and accusations, I have finally lost patience.
You previously called me paranoid, but seemingly you just don’t hold yourself to the same standards as you do with me.
I was not the one to make allusions of bias there. I mentioned that I considered 100t megalodon estimates similarly liberal to 200t sauropods, thar is all. I have certainly given you at least two or three references in support of that. You were the paranoid one, even though long before that you had made tireless, deliberate efforts to misrepresent what I wrote ("your regressions" when referring to published data...), and were also the one to first make claims of bias (regarding "tendencies to downsize it at all costs"). Yet when you post your biased, simplistic little summaries of what you may or may not perceive as my opinion you call me paranoid because I'm tired of playing your stupid game...
I certainly did not say that this was impossible anywhere, unlike you seem to believe. What I wrote was that it is unlikely. There is no rule in nature that the holotype or first found individual automatically represents a large individual (because really that is the assumption you are currently arguing, which is ludicrous). Just as often it occurs that is is a small individual.
Anyway, I have already included this individual in my comparisons and can roll with comparing it to Livyatan, but I prefer to not compare it to the lower estimate for various reasons I have explained.
So once more, they end up quite similar in size. Yet you still think you can attribute that entirely to my bias, because you do not want to accept another viewpoint than your own as valid.
You can deny it as long as you want, but your home-cooked estimate is certainly not better than mine, if it is not biased for you to use your own figures then it is certainly not a sign of bias for me to do the same. I have already demonstrated that no matter your opinion of me, the estimate I made is objective. I did not take any extra assumptions, I strictly followed the data. This is further demonstrated by your ongoing inability to criticise it on scientific grounds (the MOST scientific criticism you gave me was literally "it looks strange") and your infantile resorting to making personal attacks instead. It is well within the scope you have to consider for the Livyatan holotype’s size, especially if you also consider comparing it to a large megalodon.
Yes, yes, and yes certainly.
That’s not some figure I guessed (unlike your 15m average for C. megalodon), it is from the actual statistics. And finally, even if it corresponds to those 27% there is still a good chance it might be bigger, considering 15m itself can by your own logic be considered conservative for Livyatan.
So in the majority of those scenarios it ends up larger than C. megalodon. If that statement is not conservative enough for you, consider them the same size. And if you still disagree, think what you want, but stop blaming your disagreement on my alledged bias.
There are also strong hints that Brygmophyseter is extremely robust in built. It is just your opinion that makes you consider one but not the other, yet in your opinion its me who is biased and arrogant because I am not completely ignoring stem-physeteroids in my reasoning.
Now you are going to tell me that that’s "my homework" or "not published" or something like that. Neither is your criticism of Lambert et al.’s upper estimate, neither is that figure you made up yourself, and neither is your considering Pimiento et al.’s figures for megalodon underestimates. always funny to see someone do twice as much of what he criticises as the people he criticises it in. And then you of all people claim yourself to be "certainly objective", and go on to remark on my "ego". That belongs in a comedy show, really!
Where in that thread did you revise your opinion considering megalodon the largest predator in earth history? That’s right, you didn’t. You only obviously do not consider the possibility of Livyatan being larger (or even the same size) worthy of consideration, or you would be able to tolerate that opinion in others.
In the same place you may or may not have seriously considered that Livyatan was bigger, my brain. Just like your possible thoughts on that matter it never left my brain though, I could not find objective evidence to support that.
And no, you never changed your mind about this issue, if you did, bring evidence!
Some half-baked consideration that didn’t turn out to be correct or change your opinion in the long run do not count? I certainly recall having suggested a very large tooth possibly being a lower anterior. When I measured (so much for not citing you, although there is precious little to cite you for) the preliminary data from Pimiento & Balk that you posted one of the data points came out at over 18m, larger than in the finished study (so much for not upsizing megalodon, although that was obviously in error just like the only times you acted as if you considered "upsizing" Livyatan).
Again, my point was that the method suggesting 14.2m for Livyatan can be argued to be "conservative" just as well. It factually is, it is the lower figure. By comparison, 14m is the only figure–you still have to demonstrate higher estimates while that has already been done for the physeteroid.
For the case that you want to avoid taking assumptions, I have repeatedly proposed the option of not considering either of them bigger.
I have expressed this very cautious and diplomatic view for years. The biased hater and fanboy you always thought I was would not have done that to begin with, yet it was because of this that you did consider me such. Yes, you are certainly the most objective person on earth…
And I’m totally fine with it not rivaling the very largest megalodons, I do not claim it does. In a population only known from a single specimen you cannot expect such hints.
As are you. I think if we counted out-of-the blue (and frequently impolite) comments regarding megalodon being the largest, most dominant, most formidable predator ever you’d win hands down. .
EDIT: Since you bring up my number of posts, it appears to me that on average you have made two posts for every one I have made here. And unlike you, I do not spend all my free time on establishing the dominance of Carcharocles megalodon, I have other interests (serious interests, that I actually spend time doing research and educating myself on, not stuff I sometimes feel like making an uninformed claim about) which make up the majority of what I am posting. Really if one of is "everywhere, responding to anyone, trying to have the last work in every case" it is definitely you, and I strongly suspect a look at one of your deviantart or google plus pages would quite easily demonstrate that.
Moreover, regarding our respective tendencies to state our opinions, you claim that you are "certainly objective", not me. I certainly admit that I voice my opinion more clearly and frequently on subjects that I feel strongly about, and potentially when my opinion is one that i personally like, than when that isn’t the case. We’ve certainly all got out respective tendencies towards some subjects, and you yourself aren’t the worst example of that seeing as how you almost exclusively argue about this subject. But where I state my opinion, on what subject, and how often has nothing to do with whether that opinion itself is biased. On all accounts your criticism of my ego is hypocritical.
Leaving this: Which I have already responded to on this, discussed in other (endless, pointless, offensive) arguments with you.
I think that you are fine to have people post whatever they want on the profile threads (artwork, newspaper articles, personal opinions all have been posted by yourself and others, yet for some odd reasons this is the first time you freak out about something posted there…) until it comes to me making an estimate (again, one discussed and improved at length before that and open to anyone’s suggestions) is more than anything else a mark of your personal problems with me.
Again, if you propose completely objective rules for material to be and not to be posted on profiles I will happily abide by them, given that other people are fine with them of course. But that does not include the double standard of posting a (slightly dated) reconstruction by a deviantart user yourselfbut spending so much energy on trying to kick out an equivalent, though better documented and more recent restoration I did. Someone as objective as you claim you are would not have done that, someone as objective as you claim you are would not be fine with all sorts of scientifically questionable profile content and freak out once I post mine. The only conclusion I can get from that is that you dislike the results.
Yes, that is not a matter of my ego, it is about what constitutes an interesting contribution to a profile in the light of what has already been posted.
Speaking of big egos: At least I don’t have the ego necessary to arbitrarily start molesting people because they posted something on a profile thread. Have you ever seen me or anyone else do that to anyone? Also so far I have not put a comment below every Livyatan reconstruction I could find saying "biggest macropredator ever, holotype is only an average-sized individual, current estimates are all underestimates!" as surely I should if I were as biased and as arrogant as you have convinced yourself I am and arguing what you claim I argue. One needs a totally overgrown ego simply to behave the way you have behaved here and in every other discussion we have had. Convincing yourself that you are so objective and happily attributing every single one of my arguments to my bias, not even feeling the need to find scientific points of criticism in many ways. And being very happy to declare your opinion to be a fact and even literally state that me not agreeing with you is evidence that I am biased. Not the signs of a humble person, so deal with your own ego first!
Well yes, claiming to know the maximum size of Livyatan of course! How did you verify that, did one of your little birds tell you?
Indeed they do, and my "unverifiable" ones came from photographic evidence and measurements in Kimura et al. and Hirota & Barnes, but you happily ignore them. My bad that you disagree with them so much, but once more your disagreement certainly isn’t due to the estimate being biased, otherwise by now you’d have been able to point me to a single biased assumption I took while making it.
I am not downsizing it at all, I am just not considering the current estimates to be underestimates (as you do). I am strictly following what they suggest (even strictly following what Gottfried et al. suggested in terms of growth stages, which seems consistent with the data from McClain et al. or at least within the upper range of possibilities given the disagreement as to when exactly great whites mature).
Show me a discussion where your ultimate conclusion is not to either consider it as big as currently proposed (as the largest known macropredator, of course) or hint the possibility of even bigger sizes. Yes, I think your insistence in not considering the potent ram capable of dealing significant or fatal injuries, demonstrated in the case of cetaceans but not sharks, is a mistake. You can criticise me for that all you want. Also consider your opinion as I already summarized it, you insist to consider it bigger, to have the nastier bite, at least as potent a ram, be more dominant etc. etc. And then you complain about tendencies you think you see in me…
I have by no means "downsized" megalodon in terms of bite force (it is more likely that its bite force estimate would represent an underestimate based on the method used doing so with mammals and reptiles, although of course the mechanisms by which bite force scales in animals orders of magnitude bigger than their analogue are completely unknown), and considering there is no means to establish its dominance I don’t know how you figure me downsizing it (but of course if me not necessarily considering it the sole greatest predator ever qualifies as such, you can include that).
As for the weight, I am very sorry that the published data are such a pain in the *** and contradict the single symbolic figure you are used to automatically being the most rigorous estimate. Pointing out how expecting people to do apply those standards to all animals will affect them was apparently considered a provocation equivalent of calling you a fanboy by you, but that makes it no less true.
I only recall your lack of an analogy. And yes, I considered an octopus (not necessarily a squid) superior to a selachian of the same hypothetical body mass, simply on the grounds that if the shark bites it (no matter how potent that bite is) at best it will get to sever a few arms before the rest of the octopus can latch onto it and drown it. Yes, real octopuses have demonstrated the ability and aptitude for doing so, as in the video with the dogfish. Snively et al. compared the feeding mechanics of Allosaurus to a falcon’s, I suppose because Allosaurus is way bigger and more fearsome that makes them biased fanboys in your opinion? But no, I suppose that’s just the result of my bias towards carnosaurs, and it isn’t actually bigger…
If you can clearly, objectively demonstrate me that my argument was biased, then be my guest–I for my part do not recall the computional biology paper simulating physically possible fighting behaviours of octopuses against macrophagous sharks. How is that relevant, how is digging in long-past discussions in an irrelevant part of another forum not most of all a sign of your own inobjectivity? Really ridiculous to bring that up here, especially considering how if anything this demonstrates your astonishing willingness to become personal and offensive regarding suggestions of anything, even mythological animals, possibly being more powerful than megalodon. Again, not a sign of someone as objective as you claim you are, and bringing it up now certainly isn’t either, it’s rather a sign of desperation.
I recall (much more relevant considering it being both more recent and actually on topic) how your immediate reaction to me pointing out the forced perspective in some comparisons you put together was prompting me to "check my eyes". Fair enough, but in that case objective measurements were completely on my side and continued to prove me right. The fight between a kraken and a megalodon of the same size on the other hand is not just a matter of opinion, it’s also fantasy.
You yourself have compared Livyatan’s overall abilities to a false killer whale before, considering the comparison between it and C. carcharias an analogue for this fight. That was in total disregard of a fact (which of course I pointed out to you), that if Livyatan had the proportionally small skull and jaws of a false killer whale it would be 23m long, in which case it would be considerably larger than the shark. How was that in turn not "bold, if not biased"? May I suggest we stop bringing up examples from the past and focus on the current facts?
How is it was not a "wild assumption" to suggest megalodon was bigger than something not even known?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 1, 2015 1:25:48 GMT 5
We're going nowhere like this...
Yes I agree with the argument and the fact that the teeth stop to grow when the shark approaches 6 m doesn't imply the shark becomes suddenly less bulky.
He considers his estimate conservative. But the implications of conservative TL from Gottfried et al. are directly implied in the crown height estimates.
Gottfried explicitely said that 16 m as conservative is a minimum size for this specimen.
Because of the reasons suggested by Gottfried et al. 1996, some of these teeth could have stopped their growth and came from larger sharks than expected.
Also estimates based on anterior teeth are prone to underestimates using CH method, anterior (both upper and lower) based estimates represent 267 of all the teeth in the sample. In the sample, there is no extremely posterior teeth above L7. L8 and L9 teeth are not included in it. And a large number of potential L7 are equally listed with L1.
This indicates a bias toward the underestimates produced by the anterior teeth based calculations.
Hence, 14 m as average size in this sample is a probable conservative figure.
You're the only member posting your homework in the profile threads. Probably your ego.
That's your paranoid attitude which brought us into this endless boring argument filled with your agressive posts. I've not reacted as such in the Paleontology Project discussion.
Still, the only associated mature meg remains come from a rather large individual.
No I argue anything about the Livyatan holotype. You certainly argue it's an average-sized individual.
No, no and yes indeed.
No Livyatan ends up at 14-16m, so the Danish specimen appears larger or at least in the upper range of Livy's published size range.
There are some indications that Brygmo is robustly built but no formal description of this. There's no indication regarding the robustness of Zygophyseter.
I have not reconsidered megalodon size in the Top Dog thread ? Are you kidding ?
Read the first parts of the Livyatan discussion thread, read the premise of my Top Dog thread.
Why's that ? My estimate based on the upper estimate of Ochrynodon derived from Physeter and Kogia body size regression based on the antorbital width suggests 14.95 m. That's higher than your estimate indeed.
Avoiding assumptions and considering the published data, Carcharocles is known to grow larger at 18 m.
I won't ignore this estimate for your pleasure and believe in your assumption that Livyatan was average-sized or that 14 m of average size for megalodon is absolutely not conservative.
For now there is one known to grow bigger, I won't segregate this.
Yes, the very largest known megalodons.
I don't have near 4000 posts in WoA, more than 9000 messages on carnivora and I don't know how many elsewhere.
Yes, the profile thread is a matter of your ego, so that the random viewer wanting access to articles, artworks or litterature about Livyatan (or any other subject) can have access to your fantastic work.
For now, the maximum known size is in the range of 13.5-17.5 m just like the average size.
Hopefully this will be tweaked with time but unsure.
No your unverifiable one is your assumption of the Livyatan holotype necessarilly corresponding to the 14 m TL average for Carcharocles.
Of course the first associated adult meg specimen from denmark has to be a large adult but the first specimen of Livyatan is necessarilly an average-sized adult...
I consider current estimates as potentially conservative or slight underestimates based on reasons from Gottfried and Kent.
That's merely what says the current data, not saying it will stay confirmed. And I have no issue to admit it's shared by a number of authorities.
Comparing a cute little thing as a dogfish with probably the most powerful and brutal fish that ever evolved than comparing an already powerful, agressive giant octopus, with a hypothetical 50 tonnes creature which never existed (and which would certainly not have the some proportionnal strength than its smaller counterpart) appears as an unbiased statement to you ? Okay !
I just show one of the numerous examples where you undermined the fearsome nature of Carcharocles .
I certainly have never recognized you were right, since I'm a biased fanboy.
The comparison GW/FKW with meg/Liv was based on :
- proportionnally massive teeth in FKW - comparable body mass, body size ratio between the two - respective and disctinct ecology
I don't even recall you suggesting Livy should be 23 m based on FKW but I'm not surprised of this.
Saying that Carcharocles grew bigger than what we know of Livyatan is factual.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 1, 2015 1:31:01 GMT 5
Don't you think we should stop ? This discussion leads nowhere, we're circling around the point and the argument is boring.
I've chosen to not continue the discussion on Paleo Project, would be nice if you stop here your turn.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 1, 2015 2:42:04 GMT 5
I would suggest that we cease accusing each other of bias, because that certainly is the main source of and cause for bias in this (and every other) discussion between us. But it depends on you.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 1, 2015 3:11:51 GMT 5
I think we can wait for the next documented data (size, ecology, biology...) about both before start again the discussion on a neutral point.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 11, 2015 7:36:57 GMT 5
For theropod, Even if the pug-nose is likely to be outdated soon, here you a have the real expectations of the proportions between Carcharocles and Livyatan skull (contra your model) using the actual scientific reconstructions in both (from the respective descriptions). The Livyatan holotype skull compared with the "medium-sized adult male megatooth" (11 m) from Gottfried et al. 1996 (aka the Calvert Marin Museum skeletal model) : The Livyatan holotype skull compared with the "large (17 m) megalodon female" : Now please, compare these body parts with your deviant models. Let's assume you're not biased, but do you really think your sharks are seriously built and based on the scientific reconstruction of the species ? I mean, don't take this bad, but I'm really supposed to take this as a rigorously built reconstruction of C. megalodon ? Let alone the skepticism toward this Livyatan. I don't even mention the overly thin caudal peduncle, the very small jaws (I thought an adult megalodon could engulf a man whole ?) and the shallower body, 20 % of the forke length against 25 % suggested by Kent. But I'm maybe wrong and that's simply you're not effective at drawing sharks. Seriously, the 11 m shark from Gottfried has a head almost as large as in your 16.8 m model... And I won't even mention the comparison of an average weight result among three different regressions for the shark compared with the volumetric model based on a suspicious mount of Brygmophyseter.
|
|