|
Post by theropod on Jun 19, 2016 17:50:41 GMT 5
As I wrote, it is related to more than just the size of the bite. Also, for example, to the area available for muscle attachment and to the size of the gape (irrespective of the joint angle).
So do you think Megalodon had proportionately smaller teeth than a great white?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 19, 2016 18:09:28 GMT 5
But the respective configuration of their muscle attachments is too different to be compared, although the size of the gape is of interest in it, I'm focused on bite size and the maximum possible volume of organic substance engulfed by both (sort of what tested the Mythbusters team in a Sharkweek special). I admit their respective feeding apparata are hard to compare.
Smaller anterior teeth for the same tooth row length. The decoupled scaling in both has been reported by Kent. For the same size in a posterior tooth of the same position you'd expect absurdly large anterior teeth in a great white-like dentition. For example, if you compare the Yorktown adult meg dentition with the C. hubbelli dentition (assimilable to C. carcharias), you remark that for the same first anterior crown width, the meg row lenght is 16 % longer than in hubbelli. I've observed a similar discrepancy while comparing with other white sharks dentitions from Mollet and Hubbell's data. Hence my suggestion that megalodon either was sensitively larger than the current estimates based on isolated anterior teeth or that it had a noticeably larger mouth compared to the body length than a scaled-up white shark. In the order to be conservative, I currently go with the second option, meg has a maximum size of about 18 m but would have a significantly larger mouth than a 18 m white shark (so maybe somewhat larger than the scaled-up ct-scan you used in the comparison). This would make the scaled up CMM jaws valid, at about 12.5 % larger than your scaled-up great white ct-scan. The first option would possibly validate body sizes around 21 m or so (if row length remains constant at much larger size and is comparable to the white shark)... Not sure if we have discussed this at length before but if not you might find this interesting.
I have a secondary question, not related to the thread. You type "Megalodon" with a capital. I've remarked that Pimiento and some other authors do the same while not using the binomial name.
Simply speaking, is it valid to use "Megalodon" with a capital at all?
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Jul 14, 2016 18:03:16 GMT 5
Livyatan wins.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 15, 2016 7:25:20 GMT 5
There is nothing more uncertain, especially if the shark was indeed in the 48-103 tonnes range.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jul 15, 2016 19:44:53 GMT 5
A valid opinion, but can you provide your reasoning? It's very close; I still favor the shark but it's almost like tiger v. lion at this point.
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jul 15, 2016 19:46:40 GMT 5
Life, do you know why there's not a voting poll on this thread? I just noticed there doesn't seem to be one. Gotta have one for this debate.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 15, 2016 19:53:50 GMT 5
Featured at 15 minutes in this doc : www.dailymotion.com/video/x4jnr7dFrom Daniel Huber in private discussion : It’s a great question, and one that we could spend hours debating without really getting anywhere because there are so many unknowns. From a purely physical perspective I’d have to go with Megalodon because of its massive bite force and maneuverability. The body proportions of Livyatan don’t really strike me as making the whale all that agile. On the other hand, you’ve definitely got to give the cognitive advantage to Livyatan. Sharks can’t compete with mammals in cognitive ability. If you add in the possibility of social behavior and pack hunting, I’d definitely give Livyatan the edge, but we just don’t know what it was up to all those years ago!!!
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Jul 15, 2016 20:06:47 GMT 5
A valid opinion, but can you provide your reasoning? It's very close; I still favor the shark but it's almost like tiger v. lion at this point. The size gap is pretty small(47 tonnes for Livyatan and 50 for Carcharocles.) Plus, Livyatan is smarter, has larger teeth and a tough head for butting.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 15, 2016 20:17:36 GMT 5
A valid opinion, but can you provide your reasoning? It's very close; I still favor the shark but it's almost like tiger v. lion at this point. The size gap is pretty small(47 tonnes for Livyatan and 50 for Carcharocles.) Plus, Livyatan is smarter, has larger teeth and a tough head for butting. There is no published weight estimate for Livyatan although 47 tonnes is realistic but could be somewhat lower as well (depending on the true size and proportions). Body mass estimates for Megalodon are in the 50-100 tonnes range. Larger teeth are not indicative of physical superiority since these teeth are primarily very large because of the very long root contrary to sharks teeth. Comparatively Tyrannosaurus has larger teeth than Megalodon as well, does that mean it would be physically superior? That's the way the whole dentition functions that is relevant, not the sole size of vastly kind of teeth. The relative intelligence is a good argument but hard to quantify. That's often something you read : Livyatan was smarter. Yup, so what? Modern sharks are known to attack similar-sized cetaceans with higher cognitive skills. The only potential indication is about social behavior which would give an obvious edge to the whale.
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Jul 15, 2016 20:52:52 GMT 5
Well, killer whales are known to flip sharks around. Livyatan could theoretically replicate that feat. And btw, I myself got Livyatan's mass from Zygophyseter which I think is 3 tonnes.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 15, 2016 21:01:47 GMT 5
Orcas can do that with sharks much smaller than themselves. Megalodon is as large or larger than Livyatan. Plus, applying a rather advanced skill from a modern delphinid to a Miocene stem sperm whale is very speculative.
There's no published volumetric estimate of body mass for Zygophyseter.
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Jul 15, 2016 21:32:24 GMT 5
Orcas can do that with sharks much smaller than themselves. Megalodon is as large or larger than Livyatan. Plus, applying a rather advanced skill from a modern delphinid to a Miocene stem sperm whale is very speculative. There's no published volumetric estimate of body mass for Zygophyseter. I was just guessing based on this: And I'm highly skeptical of 100 tonnes for C. megalodon.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 15, 2016 21:54:53 GMT 5
Prehistoric wildlife models are not the best although they have improved a bit with time. 3 tonnes sound realistic though. If Megalodon indeed reached or exceeded 20m TL and was robust like a white shark the neighborhood of 100 tonnes is plausible.
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Jul 15, 2016 21:58:57 GMT 5
Prehistoric wildlife models are not the best although they have improved a bit with time. 3 tonnes sound realistic though. If Megalodon indeed reached or exceeded 20m TL and was robust like a white shark the neighborhood of 100 tonnes is plausible. 1. That's true but I didn't want to work with nothing. 2. I think only very old C. megalodon got to 20+m. And it's Carcharocles megalodon not Megalodon the same way Homo sapiens isn't Sapiens.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 15, 2016 22:06:00 GMT 5
Well, there is no rule that says the popular name can't have something to do with the species name. In fact, there are no rules for popular names.
Anyway, the 20 m thing is based upon some very large teeth which have been discussed in our Megalodon size thread.
|
|