65 replies to this topic

[Conrad Clough]

Rafterman, on 02 April 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Funny how we have extensive information on every other shark species in the world, but yet this giant shark seems to allude the efforts of scientists worldwide.

funny how I can see a claim that we have "extensive information on every other shark species in the world" when brand new shark species keep turning up (such as the new species of hammerhead that was 'discovered' just a few weeks ago or the new species of angel shark discovered in the Philippines last year).

[The Chez]

It wouldn't surprise me, we know less about what is under our water surfaces than we do what's out in space! We can see a good whack of the universe but we can't dive into the deepest parts of our waters! When it comes to sea cryptids, I always keep an open mind for this reason, and this reason alone.

[Nemo_]

Simbi Laveau, on 02 April 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

This premise was actually put forth in the book version of JAWS.
And dont many species have offspring before becoming full grown?
Full grown has nothing to do with sexually mature.
A 12 year old human can have a child,but is far from full grown.

This is mammals of course,but it's a consideration.
I recently saw a clip of a dinosaur expert,who totally blows former thought about dinosaurs out of the water.
He feels many dinosaur specimens,are not all different species.
He would cite maybe 4 dinosaurs,and show how they were all the same dinosaur,all at different stages of life development.

He did it with numerous different dinosaurs,and some have major changes structurally,as it went thru the developmental stages.
Size and bone structure both.
I forget the guys name....i will look for it.

But id say it's entirely possible,given sharks are ancient,that in todays world,maybe some do mature,but maybe the ones we see commonly,do not.
Another example of this is lobster.
The little 2 pounders we see on plates with butter sauce,are juveniles.
Full sized lobsters are super rare,because we fish them long before they get to be 40lbs.
There are records kept by the pilgrims I believe,who noted these creatures,and how huge they were,just back in the 1700s.
We fished adults into extinction for food.


I'd say this is a possibility .....no one has kept a great white in captivity (save Monterey ,for six mos)
So no one knows how big they might get,not exposed to the harshest elements they face day to day.

Sorry mate  but no it isnt a possibility. I saw your comments about being quite interested in sharks, so am i. I actually am a marine biologist and work with them.  I saw that talk on dinosaurs you refered to but this doesnt apply to sharks. As far as great whites growing further if undisturbed. well i wish it worked like that, but all animals display growth shaped in a very specific way. The most accurately growth model for elasmobranchs, the von Bertalanfy growth function platoes at a certain max size, which means that growth rates decrease exponentialy untill they reach a maximum theoretical lenght, so we are quite certain that great whites cannot grow to megalodon like sizes. Additionaly, new information on the taxonomy and phylogeny  of the megalodon show it as being coloser to long fin mackos than great whites, so it is likely tha morphologically this was true as well. Id like to think so, since that would be by far a more formidable shark, adapted as an oceanic pelagic hunter...

[Thegreatsilence]

Interesting topic,

Zane Grey's sighting is the most intriguing and probable. The shark was described to have a square head, which means it had a boxy head instead of the GWS pointed or Whale Shark's flat one's, the former's head being more suitable to attack whales.    There was also a 10 m  unknown and  very high-finned shark observed in Bay of Fundy in 1999 by a experienced diver and photographer which seems to looked like the one pictured here :
http://en.wikipedia....er_24,_1868.jpg
It was found in Maine and I  personnally doubt it was a basking shark.

Also, I have read that goblin shark could grow to a lenght of 6,2 m ! as big as GWS !

[Rafterman]

Conrad Clough, on 13 April 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

funny how I can see a claim that we have "extensive information on every other shark species in the world" when brand new shark species keep turning up (such as the new species of hammerhead that was 'discovered' just a few weeks ago or the new species of angel shark discovered in the Philippines last year).

New species of shark that are so simliar to known species that only genetic testing can tell the difference are hardly the same thing as having breeding populations of Megladons roaming the world's oceans.

[Conrad Clough]

:::Shrug::: new unique species of sea life are found fairly frequently as well, including sharks (in the last ten years over 200 new species of sharks and rays have been catalogued... not all of them).

[Rafterman]

Conrad Clough, on 29 April 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

:::Shrug::: new unique species of sea life are found fairly frequently as well, including sharks (in the last ten years over 200 new species of sharks and rays have been catalogued... not all of them).

Did any of them have the characteristics of a Megalodon type creature - basically a gigantic great white that primarily hunts and lives near the shores and in relatively shallow water?

Yours reminds me of the argument that because some biologist found a new type of caterpillar in the Amazon then therefore bigfoot must exist.

[Conrad Clough]

I am not arguing that megaldon still exists at all (it clearly is extinct, and if there were to be a giant shark swimming around out there it would certainly be a different species), I am railing at the sheer ignorance of people stating such things as "Funny how we have extensive information on every other shark species in the world..." and pointing out that such statements are not true... leading off an argument with such a statement basically makes anything else you want to add to the argument irrelevent, you are already an unreliable source.

Some research has also shown that Megaldon was likely not as closely  related to the great white as has long been thought.

Edited by Conrad Clough, 01 May 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[Thegreatsilence]

Conrad Clough, on 01 May 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

I am not arguing that megaldon still exists at all (it clearly is extinct, and if there were to be a giant shark swimming around out there it would certainly be a different species)

Yes. Just like coyotes  started to replace the void left  by wolves in Yellowstone and  grew bigger and stronger. Meg went extinct about 1,5 million years ago, so there was enough time span  for an other shark to evolve to somewhat fill this empty niche. Beaked whales and giant squids would make good and sizeable preys for it.

Zane Grey said the shark he had witnessed had immense pectoral fins and I found this on wikipedia :

Quote

Fins

The fins of C. megalodon would have been most likely proportionally larger and thicker in comparison to the fins of great white sharks because relatively larger fins are a necessity for propulsion and control of movements of a larger shark.^[7]

Edited by Kouprey, 01 May 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Rafterman]

Conrad Clough, on 01 May 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

I am not arguing that megaldon still exists at all (it clearly is extinct, and if there were to be a giant shark swimming around out there it would certainly be a different species), I am railing at the sheer ignorance of people stating such things as "Funny how we have extensive information on every other shark species in the world..." and pointing out that such statements are not true... leading off an argument with such a statement basically makes anything else you want to add to the argument irrelevent, you are already an unreliable source.

Some research has also shown that Megaldon was likely not as closely  related to the great white as has long been thought.

But yet my statement didn't preclude the discovery of new species, did it?  My point was simply that given the extensive knowledge we have of known sharks, that having an unknown species that was so far off the scale of known species would hardly go undetected.

[BorisIWantToKnow]

Pls have the time to elaborate this video, i am very interested in this subject, yet i don't know much about sharks. What kind of species is this? And in the future, would you be so kind when you're talking about dimensions(girth, length etsc..) talk in meters.We're not all from America, Great Britain and such. Thank you.

[Thegreatsilence]

BorisIWantToKnow, on 01 May 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

What kind of species is this?

Pacific sleeper shark. Eugenie Clark, an American ichthyologist, estimated it to be around 7 m long.

[Conrad Clough]

Rafterman, on 01 May 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

But yet my statement didn't preclude the discovery of new species, did it?  My point was simply that given the extensive knowledge we have of known sharks, that having an unknown species that was so far off the scale of known species would hardly go undetected.

uhmmm yes... 'extensive information on every other shark species in the world' does literally preclude the discovery of new species because 'every other' is an absolutre statement when used, as you did, with out any sort of qualifying statments to suggest otherwise, and in this case your argument would not have sounded nearly as strong had you said 'every other known shark species' considering the threads about a cryptozological shark.

[Rafterman]

Conrad Clough, on 01 May 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

uhmmm yes... 'extensive information on every other shark species in the world' does literally preclude the discovery of new species because 'every other' is an absolutre statement when used, as you did, with out any sort of qualifying statments to suggest otherwise, and in this case your argument would not have sounded nearly as strong had you said 'every other known shark species' considering the threads about a cryptozological shark.

In the future I'll choose my words more carefully so as not to offend your demand for accuracy.

Feel free to get the last word in.

[Conrad Clough]

Quote

Feel free to get the last word in.

Why thank you, that is very generous... my point is that unless you are running for public office overblown hyperbole doesn't actually help you form a strong argument, something to keep in mind if you ever really want to sway somebody to your view point (or away from thiers).