|
|
Post by elosha11 on Feb 17, 2021 21:14:49 GMT 5
This is really fascinating. It actually dovetails with and supports Leder at al's research suggesting that CH of a single anterior tooth is a poor way to measure Megalodon size and significantly underestimates its length. Here, CH equations suggested a shark of only 13.87 meters, but when doing the body sizing using the computational modeling and incorporating partial vertebral column and the teeth, it is 15.93 M. The crown height of the A2 tooth used was only 114.45 mm, 4.51 inches. That is nowhere near the largest Meg crown heights. Yet this the shark is still predicted to be 15.93 M long. I think this study, combined with Leder's upcoming one will demonstrate that Megalodons could comfortably exceed 18 M. |
|
otodus
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 20
|
Post by otodus on Feb 18, 2021 7:57:41 GMT 5
This is really fascinating. It actually dovetails with and supports Leder at al's research suggesting that CH of a single anterior tooth is a poor way to measure Megalodon size and significantly underestimates its length. Here, CH equations suggested a shark of only 13.87 meters, but when doing the body sizing using the computational modeling and incorporating partial vertebral column and the teeth, it is 15.93 M. The crown height of the A2 tooth used was only 114.45 mm, 4.51 inches. That is nowhere near the largest Meg crown heights. Yet this the shark is still predicted to be 15.93 M long. I think this study, combined with Leder's upcoming one will demonstrate that Megalodons could comfortably exceed 18 M. When will the new Leder article be released？ |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Feb 20, 2021 1:13:31 GMT 5
@otudus - My understanding is it is under review. Hopefully at some point this year or early next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Feb 27, 2021 5:36:24 GMT 5
When will the new Leder article be released？ FYI This article is accepted for publication.  |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Mar 6, 2021 13:09:09 GMT 5
When will the new Leder article be released？ FYI This article is accepted for publication. Link pls? |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 7, 2021 5:05:51 GMT 5
IIRC it still takes a bit more time for the paper to be published even after they've been accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Mar 7, 2021 6:09:56 GMT 5
IIRC it still takes a bit more time for the paper to be published even after they've been accepted. Aye, but is there an abstract out or anything? |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 7, 2021 10:16:04 GMT 5
That I do not know.
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Mar 7, 2021 14:21:27 GMT 5
I think we just have to continue to be patient. I can tell you the final publication it will be a very interesting and different analysis as to the size potential of Megalodon, but I can't share any more details than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Mar 10, 2021 22:59:07 GMT 5
|
|
otodus
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 20
|
Post by otodus on Mar 11, 2021 9:41:30 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Mar 11, 2021 10:46:12 GMT 5
|
|
hypezephyr
Junior Member Rank 1
“Tetrapod superiority!”
Posts: 5
|
Post by hypezephyr on May 27, 2021 22:31:11 GMT 5
Interesting, can you scale to the proposed size of the Yorktown meg (~370 cm) ? Here you go. View AttachmentI decided to do some slight changes to both btw. Most reconstructions of the Livyatan I’ve seen had the jaw gape sitting at a 45 or 50 degree angle. May be inaccurate or not though. Particularly this one:  Just wondering Sam1, how did you find the 75 degree jaw gape for the Livyatan and why does it differ with the 45 degree reconstruction model most people show the livyatan to have. |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 9, 2021 22:06:38 GMT 5
|
|
hypezephyr
Junior Member Rank 1
“Tetrapod superiority!”
Posts: 5
|
Post by hypezephyr on Jun 12, 2021 13:43:50 GMT 5
How would the jaw gape comparison look now that the yorktown meg is at 65 feet long? |
|
