ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 28, 2011 2:13:47 GMT
This is better... light blue: opthalmosaurus 3.5m dark blue: aramberri predator 18m red: shonisaurus 21m pink: mosasaurus 13m grey: tylosaurus 13m orange: kronosaurus 9m black: liopleurodon 8m purple: elasmosaurus 14m green: megalodon 18m black: human 1.4m tall ;D ;D ;D
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 28, 2011 2:48:56 GMT
I highly doubt they had 175 'types' of lamnids, unless that term is really stretched to include megamouths, threshers, goblins, basking sharks, etc. If instead you mean 'individuals', that really doesn't impress me, unless one of them has similar dentition-size. It has been routinely demonstrated that tooth design does not correlate well with feeding behaviour; and that sharks are very non-linear in their growth patterns, so simple, or even complex, scaling from only teeth--the only evidence we have--is at best a well-reasoned guess. What we need is a few in situ vertebrae+mouth. Now about the body mass factor: A giant, rather recently extinct (late Pliocene) member of the white shark genus (the megatooth shark, Carcharodon megalodon, often placed in other genera or even families by some modern palaeontologists) attained an estimated length when adult of about 11 to 20 m (Gottfried, Compagno and Bowman, 1996). It was one of the largest and most powerful predatory vertebrates ever to live. From the book titled "Sharks of the world." The '20 m giant individuals' would have a body mass of around 100 tons according to the method of Body Mass-Body Length relationship proposed by Gottfried et al., in 1996. Not surprisingly! This method provides accurate body mass figures for the modern age sharks. A shark scaled to the size range of the 'whale shark' would weigh as much as the latter (e.g. An 11 m Megalodon would have a body mass of around 18 tons according to the proposed method). So the figures provided by this method for the sharks with respect to size factor make sense.
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Apr 28, 2011 3:35:30 GMT
That can't be a liopleurodon what is the one at the top
|
|
|
Post by eutheria on Apr 28, 2011 6:25:40 GMT
the diagram states "size range of C. Megalodon" so i don't know, perhaps, C. megalodon?
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 28, 2011 12:09:32 GMT
That can't be a liopleurodon what is the one at the top This represents a 15 m long pliosaur so possibly what is Predator X or Aramberri. Same here : And here the Weymouth Bay pliosaur with orca, great white and C.megalodon : Got my point ?
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 28, 2011 16:21:06 GMT
Ted: what's the carnosaur at the bottom right of the above diagram? Allosaurus? Arms look a bit peculiar, although I'm squinting...
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Apr 28, 2011 17:15:15 GMT
Perhaps a Giganotosaurus?
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on Apr 28, 2011 17:59:10 GMT
Originally Carcharodontosaurus.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on May 1, 2011 20:40:46 GMT
You can expect a major breakthrough about Megalodon at the end of 2011.
The debatte about its lenght will be over.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 1, 2011 20:47:03 GMT
You can expect a major breakthrough about Megalodon at the end of 2011. The debatte about its lenght will be over. So they found a skeleton? Either way, we will continue to treat this as science and not dogma; there is no such thing as a 'last word'. Evidence has a funny way of coming up when we think we have all of the answers.
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on May 1, 2011 20:56:50 GMT
I have already some precise informations about it, at first its size.
This is the end of one century of debatte about this.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 1, 2011 21:17:04 GMT
Do you do anything but Fantasize about Marine Animal Size?
|
|
ted
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ted on May 1, 2011 22:07:42 GMT
Behavorial hunting, livingstyle are also importants to me. This is a thread about giants predators, the first data is the size.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 1, 2011 22:36:56 GMT
Behavorial hunting, livingstyle are also importants to me. This is a thread about giants predators, the first data is the size. No this is a thread about Pliosaur size! The first data is the size? Really what your most concerned about is size. Megalodon isn't a Pliosaur. Size in Megalodon is usually determined by teeth size, which makes it questionable at best.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 2, 2011 0:04:21 GMT
I have already some precise informations about it, at first its size. This is the end of one century of debatte about this. There are no 'ends' to debates in science--that is the height of arrogance and nonprofessionalism. Unless an in-tact skeleton, or at least a reasonably complete vertebrae series, is recovered, there will always be rational debate about the conclusions reached by any researcher.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on May 2, 2011 3:29:34 GMT
I'm sorry. I have been reading for a while, and kept silent. But i just don't see this fascination with "biggest", "best", and "top", when talking about these animals. Liop was not THE "top predator". If you skimmed it out of the ocean, and plopped it down in the middle of a land mass, not so top a predator. More like top snack of the day. If you took a Tyrannosaur, and plopped it into the ocean...shark bait. Just saying. These animals are all supremely suited to their environments, none are "better" than the others.
As far as size, like in megalodon, all we can go by are the remains of whatever animal we find. Usually, just the one specimen. So, how big was it.? Well THIS one happened to be this size. That's all we KNOW. We can guess, we can conjecture. Well if the teeth as such a size, proportionally it would be this size. Yea. But even if we had a complete intact skeleton, that is just the one. We can never really KNOW, as our evidence and knowledge are always in flux. Just my opinion and rant....
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on May 5, 2011 0:29:37 GMT
You can expect a major breakthrough about Megalodon at the end of 2011. The debatte about its lenght will be over. So they found a skeleton? I'm hoping they caught a live one! ;D On a more serious note, how would a cartilage skeleton that big even get preserved? One giant slab of rock?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 5, 2011 5:33:56 GMT
So they found a skeleton? I'm hoping they caught a live one! ;D On a more serious note, how would a cartilage skeleton that big even get preserved? One giant slab of rock? What else could end the debate about size? I did not mean that they actually had found one; and yes, cartilage skeletons (usually impressions) have been found (a Cretoxyrhina, or maybe Squalicorax, was found in southern Manitoba).
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on May 5, 2011 5:55:46 GMT
the Aramberri was 18m long !!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on May 5, 2011 14:48:13 GMT
I'm sorry. I have been reading for a while, and kept silent. But i just don't see this fascination with "biggest", "best", and "top", when talking about these animals. Liop was not THE "top predator". If you skimmed it out of the ocean, and plopped it down in the middle of a land mass, not so top a predator. More like top snack of the day. If you took a Tyrannosaur, and plopped it into the ocean...shark bait. Just saying. These animals are all supremely suited to their environments, none are "better" than the others. As far as size, like in megalodon, all we can go by are the remains of whatever animal we find. Usually, just the one specimen. So, how big was it.? Well THIS one happened to be this size. That's all we KNOW. We can guess, we can conjecture. Well if the teeth as such a size, proportionally it would be this size. Yea. But even if we had a complete intact skeleton, that is just the one. We can never really KNOW, as our evidence and knowledge are always in flux. Just my opinion and rant.... Hahhahahahahahaha...ha. I was waiting for someone to say this. Literally every time there is a "WHO WOULD WIN IN A FIGHT" or "WHO IS BESTEST" or what not thread its a promise that someone at some point will say something along the lines of "Everything is adapted for doing what it did so its not fair to compare them" kinda line. Trust me. We all know this already. Its still fun to dabble in possibilities though. As for who is biggest...I really don't care to be honest with you. The fact that this discussion has been going on as long as it has just proves that the hard conclusive evidence for the real sizes of some of these guys is not known yet. So I'm happy to leave it at they were all big.
|
|