Poll: Who wins?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Livyatan melvillei
52.17%
12 52.17%
Carcharocles megalodon
47.83%
11 47.83%
Total 23 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Livyatan melvillei v Carcharocles megalodon
#46
(09-21-2018, 07:54 AM)Ausar Wrote:
Quote:I don't recall Marty Becker using sub-adults to help calculate an average.

Marty Becker didn't didn't come up with those sizes (to my knowledge, at least), Catalina Pimiento did (Pimiento 2015). And regarding that ~10m figure, the results section of that paper says "Total Length (TL) estimates for Carcharocles megalodon range from 2.20 to 17.90 m (mean=10.02 m, mode=10.54 m) (Table 1)". By doing the math it's clear that the ~10 meter figure (specifically 10.02 m) comes from the simple method of obtaining the mean that everyone knows. Id est, 2.20+17.90=20.1/2=10.05 meters, which is very close to 10.02 m (I assume that very tiny difference is a discrepancy between incorporating all the individuals of that sample vs. just using the minimum and maximum). In other words, the calculation that got ~10m animals used individuals estimated to be as small as 2.2 meters long (i.e. clearly not anywhere close to being adults). ~10 meters may be a fine average for all of the individuals in that particular sample, and probably even for all of the individuals in - at least some - populations of the species at certain points in/throughout time, but not so much if you only want to focus on adults (which is what we want to do in interspecific conflict matches for obvious reasons).

Quote:A Megalodon likely had more in common morphologically with a whale shark or basking shark than it did with a great white.
Based on? Not saying it's a perfect great white analogue in terms of morphology, but a whale shark or basking shark?

It wasn't just certain points in time...it was throughout Megalodon's existence...14 to 15 millions years.  A total of 544 examples,  the majority of them were large individuals.  114 samples from the Middle Miocene (11-16 Million Years ago),  170 examples from the Late Miocene (5-11 Million Years Ago), 260 examples from the Pliocene (2.5 - 5 Million Years Ago).   It was to calculate the average size of the Meg throughout its existence.   It was a different approach than previous estimate methods.    So its 10 meters on average and maximum would be 17 meters or so.   M Gottfried who made his own calculations about the shark a few years before, (he gave much larger average estimates) was part of this project.   

Ofcourse again this is just one method.  I guess it is up to you who to believe is more accurate.  Seems right now at current times that Perez and Leder are sticking to the larger estimates of the shark.  If we take the method done by Leder and Perez, the shark average is 16.6 meters...so maximum might be 20 meters or more. Thats a huge shark!    Though I think the best shark size would be the average of 17/18 meters for the fight...a giant one would be less agile/slower/stamina and could be taken advantage of.   That is what I see when smaller birds harass much larger birds and also how Orcas wear down much larger prey due to exhaustion.
Reply
#47
Quote:It wasn't just certain points in time...it was throughout Megalodon's existence...14 to 15 millions years. A total of 544 examples, the majority of them were large individuals. 114 samples from the Middle Miocene (11-16 Million Years ago), 170 examples from the Late Miocene (5-11 Million Years Ago), 260 examples from the Pliocene (2.5 - 5 Million Years Ago). It was to calculate the average size of the Meg throughout its existence. It was a different approach than previous estimate methods. So its 10 meters on average and maximum would be 17 meters or so. M Gottfried who made his own calculations about the shark a few years before, (he gave much larger average estimates) was part of this project.

Hence why I also said (at certain points in)/throughout time. It doesn't really matter which it is, though, because either way, Pimiento's calculations clearly more show the average sizes of populations, considering their included sample included individuals as little as 2.20 meters long (not even hitting 3 meters long whether you're looking at their sample for the middle Miocene, late Miocene, or Pliocene). I guess it's useful if you want to know how big all O. megalodon individuals typically got, but for the reason I've already explained you can't take that and claim that adult O. megalodon only averaged this size and use it to argue who would win here. That's my point.
[Image: 9wf8nho.png]
Reply
#48
(09-21-2018, 04:07 AM)Maxilla Wrote:
(09-21-2018, 04:05 AM)Jinfengopteryx Wrote: They based it on the great white shark due to the ecological similarities and the fact that there are no extant otodontids.

That ignores a lot of factors. Simply scaling an animal up as is so often done for a Megalodon isn't going to give you an accurate result. A Megalodon likely had more in common morphologically with a whale shark or basking shark than it did with a great white.
The estimates are based on dentition and Megalodon surely had a different dentition (and especially tooth to body ratios) than whale sharks due to the different diet.
Reply
#49
This is best example of length vs width (skull) battle .

Megalodon has shorter but far wider skull .

[Image: article-0-0B2E533500000578-17_634x528.jpg]
Livyatan has narrower but longer skull .

[Image: 57d5468202191afff7a9040db4e8879b.jpg]
Also Livyatan has a few larger teeth but Megalodon's teeth more serrated . Has more slicing bite .

For me, slicing and very wide bite more horrible and better .
[Image: Male-African-golden-cat.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)