|
Post by theropod on Jun 15, 2013 17:46:04 GMT 5
^that is exactly my point, Megalodon bite marks are no puncture or crushing bite marks, and by nature not too different from those left by carnosaurs, tough possibly deeper and more common. No, stegosaur plates are not very robust. Still, they're bones, and Stegosaurus is a pretty large animal for a normal Allosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 15, 2013 20:24:20 GMT 5
Sadly, I have found no description which said if Megalodon bite marks were puncture bite mark or something else.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 15, 2013 20:44:04 GMT 5
No, those fossils are mostly not properly described, often only in popular-scientific articles. A publication collecting and properly documenting (not just giving vague, simplified or sensationalistic claims) them would be good.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 15, 2013 20:50:19 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 15, 2013 21:45:13 GMT 5
Thanks for the paper! btw it mentions great white sharks too leave bite marks on their prey's bones.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 15, 2013 22:23:36 GMT 5
Remember that the crushing theories were not made because there are bite marks, but because of the position of the bite marks.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 15, 2013 23:10:42 GMT 5
There never was a crushing theory. Actually, there wasn't even a formally published theory on Megalodon attacks at all. There is a limited amount of bones it could bite, the most frequent are obviously posterior vertebrae and flipper bones, but I think there are bite marks in many different places.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 16, 2013 0:04:10 GMT 5
I didn't talk about published theories.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 16, 2013 0:58:37 GMT 5
There wasn't even an unpublished crushing theory. Obviously, regardless of how you view the bone damage we can see, it did not crush, at least by no means in a way comparable to the usual definition of crushing (a strong power applied onto the teeth by the opposition between mandibular and cranial toothrows and mainly powered by the adductor mandibularis muscle that drives the teeth straight into bone and crushes it).
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 16, 2013 1:06:52 GMT 5
Than, how would you define the ideas of the Hell's teeth article?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 16, 2013 1:26:55 GMT 5
oops, overlooked that. Dunno how much of that is just the writers aggrandizement tough. At least this is by no means indicated in large preys, tough BITING RIGHT THROUGH the ribcage would be no problem with a cetothere.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 16, 2013 1:55:49 GMT 5
Evidences are there, large vertebras whales are known deeply cut through, whatever you like it or not. There's no limitation known in megalodon at biting through bones.
The different attacking style with larger whales is determined by the size of the preys, the most efficient technic to subdue them, it is not limited by the size of the bones.
We don't talk about a bone-crusher, we talk about a shark that bitten through the robust bony parts in attempt to crush directly the internal organ.
You misinterpret everything in that matter bro.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 16, 2013 2:05:38 GMT 5
Or maybe you do, please consider that for a moment.
"large" can mean mor or less anything. Most media reports, unfortunately something we heavily rely on here, are vague and sensationalistic and do not give a concrete figure or assignment. Pictures of supposedly bitten through vertebrae lack scalebars. All I can see is that in reasonably sized whales, Carcharocles did not rely on biting through bones. And yes, bone size determines which attack strategy to use, if it is too difficult to target a bony region directly to slice the creature in half, other strategies will be used. Of course there are factors constraining the effectiveness of attacks in Carcharocles, it is not a supernatural creature. There is a limitation, there always is. Again, I have yet to see evidence for a large balaeonopterid's bones sliced through. What most articles already call "bitten through" often only are scratches.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 16, 2013 2:11:48 GMT 5
You have a poor opinion of me if you think I rely on "popular articles"...
Various discussions with paleontologists comfort this.
Your problem is that you misinterpret and you use unlikely or at best unverifiable assumptions that you take as facts.
There are numerous examples of large vertebras with deep gashes. A 3 inches cut in a large bone should highlight you.
And since this morning you did not check Mike Siversson talk in the "superpredatory sharks" thread.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 16, 2013 2:21:30 GMT 5
Superpredatory sharks-thread: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/34/rise-super-predatory-sharksExactly two posts, exactly two speeches by Mike Siversson, one is an audio file and one is a picture show. The sad truth is, the majority of the stuff you always advise me to read (eg. the Megalodon profile thread) is composed of popular articles, due to the surprising lack of scientific literature on these cases. The majority of descriptions of bite marks unfortunately are too. Deep gashes show it did NOT bite through, that is the point. If it killed by cutting through bones, it would also have to bite through them, leaving more than scratches. It did not do so with large preys, which shows its killing style is not what you think it is, not an animal effordlessly slicing through every bone and at the same time also easily cutting flesh. There is nothing unlikely or unverified here, just facts.
|
|