|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2013 0:37:13 GMT 5
Regarding the ramming ability, it sounds like both were potent. Brett Kent also suggests megalodon to have been a masive ramming agressor at 7.14.
Now, the ramming potency is also correlated to the body mass, and since megalodon, the larger individuals, was more likely larger than Livyatan, I thint that this is no advantage for the physeteroid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2013 0:40:24 GMT 5
The jaws of Livyatan were not made to extract chunks of meat. however if one considers robust teeth and strong bite force necessarily indicative of quicker killing, that would likely mean Livyatan has the edge. Of course that isn't true in this way, since animals kill in different ways. Thinking about it, the thicker teeth are at least partly allometric (counteracting the square/cube law). You may have forgotten the indications by De Muizon there at 4.55. It seems to have had the ability to cut and extract chunks, even though there are no direct evidences of its feeding style. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on May 30, 2013 0:48:18 GMT 5
Grey And Creature, I know well and all of the volume of megs jaws and that it targeted bony parts (I read the info from the debate on CF). I was just simply asking a question that came to mind. Although now that brings up another question. wouldn't megalodon have to get around the livyatans head to attack the bony parts like the ribs? Is there any evidence for the shark attacking the facial region like whales and livyatan most likely did? If not then I don't see this fight playing out from advantages as mot think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2013 0:58:09 GMT 5
There are evidences for the shark attacking cranial region, just in the first video I've linked, the case of a decapitated cetothere. I've seen others evidences of Miocene-Pliocene whales bitten in the head region. The Santa Barbara rorqual in NG Prehistoric Predators was also bitten to the skull. But I think that against a big whale like Livyatan, megalodon would target the propulsive systems the most. Regarding the advantages, the probably bigger mouth and the probably bigger body belongs to megalodon so... There's also another explanation by Mike Siversson : 
The physeteroidÂ’s challenge of C. megalodon was not particularly long-lived as they soon evolved towards the deep diving habit of the modern sperm whales. At an adult length approaching 20 m C. megalodon could probably hunt anything it wanted. Like most modern macro-predatory sharks feeding on animals unable to crawl up on dry land during the darker hours it was most likely stalking its prey at night and this might have given it the upper hand against Livyatan. Dolphins, exceptionally fast moving animals, are commonly found as stomach content in large white sharks and they are most likely taken at night. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on May 30, 2013 0:58:11 GMT 5
Let it be known that I agree with everyone the Giant Shark would most likely take this, im just curious about some stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2013 1:00:18 GMT 5
Let it be known that I agree with everyone the Giant Shark would most likely take this, im just curious about some stuff. No problem, I'm regularly also question my opinion about this famous match, and nothing is never certain, especially in this case. But I think the outcome I favor is really the most probable. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on May 30, 2013 1:02:37 GMT 5
OMG I just tried to enter my input from your quote but it wont go though -_- I quit lol
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 30, 2013 1:03:04 GMT 5
Conical gripping/crushing teeth do not cut, suggested or not. The tooth function among these two animals is very different.
Other slicers could too target the torso of prey one way or another, or otherwise killed quickly (eg. sabre toothed cats, carnosaurs). The thick and broad dentition in C. megalodon simply constitutes an adaption to attack these parts in particularly bulky creatures. The purpose hopwever is slicing, simply through bony regions.
The bites are simply not comparable, otherwise Livyatan would have a law shape more simialr to sharks to optimize the bite volume. They kill differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on May 30, 2013 1:05:57 GMT 5
Conical/gripping teeth infact can disembowel. Hyenas and crocodile are a prime example. Also most carnivoran mammal don't have any obvious adaptations for disemboweling (mainly lack of serrated teeth) nevertheless they can gut an animal apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2013 1:08:25 GMT 5
Conical gripping/crushing teeth do not cut, suggested or not. The tooth function among these two animals is very different. Other slicers could too target the torso of prey one way or another, or otherwise killed quickly (eg. sabre toothed cats, carnosaurs). The thick and broad dentition in C. megalodon simply constitutes an adaption to attack these parts in particularly bulky creatures. The purpose hopwever is slicing, simply through bony regions. The bites are simply not comparable, otherwise Livyatan would have a law shape more simialr to sharks to optimize the bite volume. They kill differently. They kill differently that's certain, even though megalodon is sometimes described as a bone crusher. What I question is, do they are similar in devastation when attacking a large prey ? Both are clearly able to destroy bony parts, only megalodon can do this on a larger scale due to the more voluminous jaws. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on May 30, 2013 1:11:25 GMT 5
Judging from killing apparatus I infer Livyatan had a much smaller maximum prey size than Megalodon. Of course i'm basing this on jaws alone so I may be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2013 1:15:24 GMT 5
Judging from killing apparatus I infer Livyatan had a much smaller maximum prey size than Megalodon. Of course i'm basing this on jaws alone so I may be wrong. That's what I infer too. I've posted scientifical viewpoint on that manner. Christian De Muizon about Livyatan :
Let us be clear, it could not have tackled a 35 meters blue whale. But there was at that time a large number of small baleen whales specimens measuring between 5 and 7 meters and which were all chosen preys for such a sea monster. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/6/livyatan-melvilleiLeonardo Compagno about megalodon : Compagno (1990b:57) hypothesized that Carcharodon megalodon "may have been capable of preying on large baleen whales without the cooperative pack-hunting tactics that the smaller killer whale apparently needs to use to subdue difficult prey....Various reconstructions of the jaws of C. megalodon...suggest that this shark had a predatory apparatus capable of inflicting mortal injuries on even a fin whale or blue whale."
The Neogene Sharks, Rays, and Bony Fishes from Lee Creek Mine, Aurora, North Carolina Robert W. Purdy, Vincent P. Schneider, Shelton P. Applegate, Jack H. McLellan, Robert L. Meyer, and Bob H. Slaughter |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 30, 2013 1:20:42 GMT 5
Grey Runic: C. megalodon teeth were described as "razor sharp" in the very documentary Grey posted. These are not the teeth of a crusher, neither are the teeth of sharks in general. Mammalian carnivores are able to cut meat because they have incisors and carnassials which are sharp and made for that purpose. Crocodilians can disembowel (I saw that video of the zebra too, not very nice...) due to sheer force, they rip an animal open. That however is not the primary purpose of the jaws. I do not question the ability of Livyatan to take out chunks of flesh, how else could it have sustained itself? I doubt that the purposes and ways of killing of these two jaw apparata are in any way comparable, and hence doubt the importance of a comparison of bite volumes. This comparison can be misleading. If I remember right grey once himself drew the comparison; a large GWS might have a larger bite volume than an Orca, however it is pretty clear which one is the larger, more dominant predator that takes the larger prey. PS: "bite radius" is a funny term in this regard, since only one of these two animals has a bite approximately circular in shape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on May 30, 2013 1:28:30 GMT 5
^ what an interesting take Theropod (especially on the bite volume), my mind is starting to wonder again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2013 1:28:48 GMT 5
Runic Hu no, I don't think a great white has a larger bite volume than orca, not at all. The skull and jaws of the orca are wider than Livyatan at parity and the orca skull can be pretty large.  And this is no good analogy for the reasons explained before. Technically, megalodon is not a classic bone-crusher because the root are not as deep as in T. rex, pliosaurs or Livyatan. But you have to understand it had a bone-crushing dentition as a shark. Mike Siversson at 36.10 : Both are capable to inflict terrible damages to bones but megalodon seems clearly, to me, to have had the larger predatory apparatus, thus able to tackle the larger preys and thus the superior predator around. The quotes from the paleontologists describers of respective animals seem to go in this way.   Looking at this, I tend to think that they are not even in the same league but by pure cautiousness I avoid to be that hyperbolic. Not to mention that this mechanical reconstruction of Carcharocles jaws probably does not represent the pinacle of its dimensions.
|
|
