|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Aug 23, 2016 14:09:31 GMT 5
It is definitely true that Orcas struggle a lot with larger whales.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Sept 1, 2016 20:35:46 GMT 5
Livyatan takes this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 3, 2016 4:10:15 GMT 5
Depends. Livyatan upper size currently stays at 17.5 meters, there are good possibilities the shark upper size exceeded 20 meters, which would be too much of a size advantage. Livyatan doesn't appear to be to Megalodon what orca is to the white shark although we never know with future findings. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Sept 4, 2016 6:53:01 GMT 5
^Yes, it's certainly not orca v. great white. Frankly, the orca dwarfs the great white shark in size comparison, outweighing it by up to three or four times. A 20 foot orca, for many subspecies, is merely average/below average adult size, whereas a 20 foot great white is absolutely enormous. Really you have to get to the size of something like Otudus to compare to a large orca.
What limited evidence we have thus far suggest Livyatan was at maximum not larger than Megalodon, and it certainly was not going to massively outweigh the shark. It's hard to know for sure, with such a (currently) limited fossil record of Livyatan. But what we have now suggests that large adult Megalodons were larger than the Livyatan holotype, perhaps even significantly larger.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 4, 2016 12:57:46 GMT 5
To be fair, jhg was not suggesting that Livyatan was larger than Megalodon, there could be reasons why he even favors it at parity.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Sept 5, 2016 19:40:06 GMT 5
Certainly correct creature386. No one should fault anyone for backing either of these species. I myself think that if Livyatan lived in large groups, which included large males, (notably that's not often the case in modern sperm whales, where large bulls live mostly solitary lives), they may have been able to at least deter any usual Megalodon attacks, and perhaps even dominated encounters with the shark. On the other hand, if their true size was nearer the lower end estimate of the holotype, they may have been opportunistically preyed upon by larger Megs even if they lived groups, although not without significant risk to the shark.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Sept 20, 2016 2:28:24 GMT 5
significant risk to the shark. Meaning a bite to the face. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Sept 20, 2016 15:21:11 GMT 5
Yes, both animals would have posed significant risk to each other. Don't you think the threat of a bite from a Megalodon with a 2.5 - 3 meter wide and a 2.5 - 3 high meter jaw with 7+ inch serrated teeth would have been a significant risk to Livyatan? A single bite could readily kill the whale. It would be a serious risk to an animal as large as an adult blue whale, much less the 13 to 17 meter Livyatan.
|
|
|
|
Post by neogeneseamonster on Sept 20, 2016 20:20:27 GMT 5
No offense but a bite to the facial region can be deadly to Livyatan as well since nasal passages and other important organs are located there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Sept 23, 2016 20:29:01 GMT 5
No offense but a bite to the facial region can be deadly to Livyatan as well since nasal passages and other important organs are located there. True. Plus there's the rearranged face to consider. Would it be able to eat?! |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 15, 2017 17:48:36 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 10:25:43 GMT 5
Oh my. This thread.
(sigh) I think this can go either way, no matter how controversial my opinion is.
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on May 21, 2018 12:02:03 GMT 5
60/40 Megalodon, it has a higher maximum weight and length and does not suffer from the bends. If Summerville tooth really does suggest a shark of 21-22+m then it would be even more in favor of the shark.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on May 26, 2018 19:49:08 GMT 5
Oh my. This thread. (sigh) I think this can go either way, no matter how controversial my opinion is. Thinking it could go either way isn't controversial.  This is one of the most fascinating conflicts that we know about. Hence, the length of the threads here, on carnivora, and elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 27, 2018 0:23:29 GMT 5
I confirm it is reasonable to consider the gigantic jaws reconstruction made by Vito Bertucci as scientifically credible.
The first of this reason is that beside Shimada, all the fossil sharks specialists I've talked to about this jaw weren't critic of this reconstruction.
Shimada once said the size of the teeth in the reconstruction was decreasing far too slowly.
But I strongly suspect Shimada only had in mind the smaller Bone Valley dentition, which indeed has a decreasing size of its teeth faster than what Bertucci made in his reconstruction.
However, Shimada quite probably didn't have in mind, or perhaps didn't examine the Aurora larger dentition. This dentition definitely have a far slower decreasing rate of the size of its teeth. In fact, using GimP on high resolution pictures of the Bertucci reconstruction, it appears the Aurora dentition has an even slower decreasing rate. Which means that if Bertucci had modeled his reconstruction on the Aurora set of teeth, it could have been even a bit larger than that.
Stephen Godfrey also considered the jaws to be reasonable.
Of course, Bertucci jaws are directly based on the great white jaws architecture and made in an unatural position, like many trophee sharks jaws.
But at the very least, the size of the teeth of this composite is perfectly reasonable.
To me, this confirms this mouth quite more massive than the one in Livyatan.
|
|
This is one of the most fascinating conflicts that we know about. Hence, the length of the threads here, on carnivora, and elsewhere.