|
|
Top Dog
Jan 19, 2015 19:22:36 GMT 5
via mobile
Post by theropod on Jan 19, 2015 19:22:36 GMT 5
The average size for such species automatically equals the size of the single specimen known, for lack of other individuals in the sample. Of course if more are known, more individuals figure into the average size, so these are inherently more reliable.
That seems to be Livyatan, but of course there's a range of estimates that have to be considered.
Maximum size is definitely skewed and cannot be compared based on what varying numbers of specimens we have, but depending on population dynamics the largest on average is not necessarily the largest at maximum.
|
|
|
|
Top Dog
Jan 19, 2015 20:26:44 GMT 5
Post by creature386 on Jan 19, 2015 20:26:44 GMT 5
Sorry for overlooking that. BTW, it is interesting how much the variation differs. The 24 m specimen comes from the population with the lowest average size. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 20, 2015 3:15:52 GMT 5
Forrest told me there's indeed a giant pliosaur tooth at the NHM, much larger than any pliosaur tooth described.
But it's rather fragile (incomplete ?) and he didn't measure it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jan 28, 2015 3:25:31 GMT 5
Forrest told me there's indeed a giant pliosaur tooth at the NHM, much larger than any pliosaur tooth described. But it's rather fragile (incomplete ?) and he didn't measure it yet. Hope that is real  |
|
|
|
Top Dog
Jan 28, 2015 11:08:47 GMT 5
Post by Grey on Jan 28, 2015 11:08:47 GMT 5
It must be, that's the same tooth Martill referred and thinks it could certainly suggest a ~20 m animal. It seems not all paleontologists are aware of that tooth existence.
Also, Forrest said, with little embarassment, that the bite force he put for P. kevani on the website was because he misplaced a decimal while reading the preliminary results.
|
|
|
|
Top Dog
Jan 28, 2015 18:27:11 GMT 5
Post by theropod on Jan 28, 2015 18:27:11 GMT 5
That’s not really a surprise, it pretty much had to be a conversion or decimal error.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Feb 2, 2015 10:38:35 GMT 5
In my opinion, no animal, extant or extinct, would best an adult Megalodon in more than 50% of all encounters. Just IMO.
|
|
|
|
Top Dog
Feb 2, 2015 11:03:49 GMT 5
via mobile
Post by mechafire on Feb 2, 2015 11:03:49 GMT 5
In my opinion, no animal, extant or extinct, would best an adult Megalodon in more than 50% of all encounters. Just IMO. agreed. It's size and bite are too potent. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 2, 2015 11:34:47 GMT 5
But I' need somehow to determine if Meg maximum size would have been enough to deal with these few others gigantic macro-predators.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 2, 2015 17:58:41 GMT 5
In my opinion, no animal, extant or extinct, would best an adult Megalodon in more than 50% of all encounters. Just IMO. Well, the 24 m sperm whale is a candidate for this, assuming we take maximum vs maximum. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 2, 2015 21:29:02 GMT 5
I had a communication with David Martill recently, it seems like that Liopleurodon-like pliosaurs easily in the 18-20 m range cruising Tethys in the Late Jurassic is still plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Feb 4, 2015 4:50:31 GMT 5
In my opinion, no animal, extant or extinct, would best an adult Megalodon in more than 50% of all encounters. Just IMO. Well, the 24 m sperm whale is a candidate for this, assuming we take maximum vs maximum. IMO Pliosaurs > Sharks > Whales when all three animals are equal or close to each other in size, but I'm sure there will be some points of contention against that. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 4, 2015 17:00:07 GMT 5
Your ranking assumed that the size is equal which won't be the case with a sperm whale of that size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Feb 6, 2015 21:53:03 GMT 5
Size is important but not the only factor that determines the power and effectiveness of a macro-predator in real life. Thus far, Megalodon represents the epitome of evolutionary progression in the matters of (solo) macro-predatory adaptations and potential in animals. Megalodon seems to have impressive resume in all of its (known) biological characteristics but its capabilities will never be fully realized from its fossilized records.
As for the sperm whale (P. macrocephalus), its sheer size is an impressive anti-predator adaptation but people tend to take Moby Dick related depictions in the movies too seriously. Sperm whales (P. macrocephalus) aren't mindless animals with total disregard of their safety, they are intelligent and social animals like other whales and they care for their young. Adults assume protective roles during times of danger because they are more likely to survive attacks then the younger ones, should a pod run into macro-predators. However, it is absolutely foolish to assume that an adult Sperm whale (P. macrocephalus) or any animal can endure attacks of a Megalodon for long.
Their is not a single animal which an adult Megalodon cannot kill with a few bites. Very large whales might take some minutes to die but they will eventually from major loss of blood. Their is evidence of Megalodon being very aggressive in its attacking strategies, but this shark was smart (intelligent) enough to modify its hunting tactics in accordance with the nature of prey.
An 18-20m Megalodon would intimidate any animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 7, 2015 20:30:07 GMT 5
While aggressiveness is an advantage, a sperm whale of that size will be dangerous once it starts attacking. I don't exactly how hard it can ram, but coherentsheaf mentioned that the ram of a that large sperm whale would be enough to finish a Megalodon without problems. |
|
