it has been done...just not well.  i think a jaws sequal, one of those shark attack movies that are always on the scifi channel, something like that.

PLUS, look at my last post.  *happy dance*    
[right][snapback]605071[/snapback][/right]

what's a Zeugladon?

[right][snapback]604956[/snapback][/right]

Welcome to UM.

I do believe in the possibility of megladon still being alive, but that picture you put looks very fake.
[right][snapback]605350[/snapback][/right]

What picture are you commenting on?  That one I posted is an artist rendering of a Zeuglodon that I posted simply to show what they were.....
[right][snapback]605721[/snapback][/right]

Man: The Other White Meat

In recent years it came into vogue to place megalodon in the genus Carcharocles. This has lead to many dialogues (usually two-sided monologues) through the mail, via the internet or over a beer.

The propensity for "splitting" in selachian paleontology has left a vast array of teeth, all carrying unique specific names and searching for their real genus and dentition-mates. As an individual interested in fossil batoids, I often wonder why most paleontologists were permitted to ascribe an isolated ray or skate tooth to a species. Looking at the designs and numbers assigned to Myliobatis, most should have stuck to an order.

In any event, attempting to determine relationships between various fish on the basis of isolated fossil teeth or the rare dentition allows room for mis-interpretation. Root design can normally allow a tooth to be ascribed to the proper order, and the crown can usually narrow that search to the family. The majority of fossil selachian teeth can be ascribed to a genus with confidence. At that point the science of paleontology starts merging with the art of paleontology.



C. megalodon
Lee Creek Fauna, North Carolina - 124 mm slant height


The reassignment from Carcharodon was not universally accepted, but higher profile individuals -- particularly those that published material during this period, ascribed the fossil teeth to Carcharocles megalodon. Had this been any other shark tooth, the move would have been broadly accepted and greeted with little fanfare. But there is a "sacred cow" property associated with this poster child for selachian horrors. It would appear that those who disagreed with the reassignment decided to muster their collective expertise to challenge this new interpretation. (I would hope that these new studies were not conducted to prove a point, but rather to further study the issue, then draw conclusions.)

In any event, in 1996, Great White Sharks was published. In the evolutionary section, papers were presented by the proponents of Carcharodon. The arguments were good, generally bringing science to the art form. Not all parties were convinced by this new research, largely because many of the Carcharocles arguments were not addressed or definitively disproved.

The below linked pages present discussions regarding this issue. They will appear one-sided, largely because they have been culled from e-mail conversations in which the Carcharodon advocates did not participate. Reading the enclosed opinions with those presented in the Great White Sharks will present both sides of the story. I have attempted to view this argument from a detached perspective and found valid elements in the positions of both sides.

The argument concerning root design looks particularly promising for the Carcharocles advocates. A second, so far insufficiently researched, avenue is the serrated Isurus teeth and the Japanese material being studied by Hideo Yabe. It is unlikely that this issue will be fully resolved during my lifetime.

When this webpage was first uploaded, I had concluded that there was insufficient basis, at the time, for the reassignment of Carcharodon to Carcharocles. Since that time (1998), I had the opportunity to inspect a 5 million year old specimen from Peru (see Sacaco - Great White Mako?). For me, this specimen broke the bond between the genus Carcharodon and the species megalodon. This specimen provided a link to Carcharodon carcharias' past - it was the sharks then known as Isurus escheri/hastalis, the broad-toothed makos, not the megatoothed sharks. By accepting this evolutionary relationship, I was not only accepting Carcharocles megalodon, but also hastalis as being a great white and not a mako. During 1999 and 2000, I decided to follow Siverson & Ward's lead by slowly incorporating Cosmopolitodus into the website for extinct great whites. Each reader must form their own opinion, but it is the fossil record that provides the answers - not credentials or friendships.

One Christmas I bought a fun import gift for my sister. It was called "Expedition," and it required you to chisel through a small clay slab, being paleontologist for a day, and uncover a replica fossil tooth of a very amazing fish which once fearlessly roamed the oceans. You have probably seen it yourself if you've scanned through a book on sharks: It's the really big one. Its scientific name literally means "great tooth," and according to our amatuer excavation, Megalodon certainly had those. But while the fossil shark Carcharodon megalodon probably looked a lot like its relative, Carcharodon carcharias (the great white shark), it could no doubt create a larger stir in the local sea-lion populations...or does it still?

According to the hundreds of Megalodon teeth that have been pulled from the oceans and rock beds of the world (which look much like the great white's teeth, except measure approximately 6 inches in length), the monstrous fish may have reached lengths close to 80 feet.(1) Next to the sperm whale, that would make Megalodon possibly the largest predator that has ever lived, including the land dinosaurs. The giant shark is sometimes depicted as having been able to totally swallow a small car, although this is probably exaggeration. Still, Jaws has nothing on this guy. But is cryptozoology (or the recent horror novel Meg by Steve Alten) going too far by saying that this spine-tingling creature could still exist?(2) Perhaps not.

Great white shark expert Great white shark experts Richard Ellis and John McCosker included a rather compelling chapter on Megalodon in his definitive 1991 volume, Great White Shark. Ellis (who authored the chapter on Megalodon), notes that although all the fossilized Megalodon teeth found so far indicate that the shark is extinct, we should really get concerned about the welfare of our divers if someone ever dredges up a white Megalodon tooth. Because if we did, "we would know that the giant shark became extinct quite recently," writes Ellis, "or is flourishing somewhere in the vastness of the oceans and has simply lost a tooth."

As frightening as a notion like that may seem for anyone who doesn't live in central Nebraska, could it ever happen? Almost all who have investigated the possible existence of the great Megalodon realize that if it is extinct, it has only recently occured in the geological record. The creature lived as long ago as 50 million years (Middle and Late Tertiary Period), but Ellis confirms that scientists have concluded Megalodon probably "just" became extinct, in the late Pleistocene or early Holocene epochs. In other words, as close as 10,000 years ago! Pretty scary stuff, Mr. Cousteau.

Zoological history has proven that very large animals can remain hidden from modern science, especially in our planet's under-explored ocean depths. So if the famous coelacanth can remain undisturbed for 60 million years, why not push our giant white shark up a mere 10,000? Apparently Ellis sees no major problem with that when he writes, "Except that we have not found one, there appears to be no reason why Megalodon should not be flourishing today." Granted, Ellis feels that no concrete evidence has been found for Megalodon's current existence. "But there will always be those who keep hoping that one will appear. Let us hope we are not in the water when it does."

Or has one already appeared? Contained in Ellis's chapter on Megalodon is quite an amazing sighting report from Australia. It is taken from David G. Stead's Sharks and Rays of Australian Seas, published in 1963. Here is the now-classic monster encounter, in Stead's words:

In the year 1918 I recorded the sensation that had been caused among the "outside" crayfish men at Port Stephens, when, for several days, they refused to go to sea to their regular fishing grounds in the vicinity of Broughton Island. The men had been at work on the fishing grounds--which lie in deep water--when an immense shark of almost unbelievable proportions put in an appearance, lifting pot after pot containing many crayfishes, and taking, as the men said, "pots, mooring lines and all." These crayfish pots, it should be mentioned, were about 3 feet 6 inches in diameter and frequently contained from two to three dozen good-sized crayfish each weighing several pounds. The men were all unanimous that this shark was something the like of which they had never dreamed of. In company with the local Fisheries Inspector I questioned many of the men very closely and they all agreed as to the gigantic stature of the beast. But the lengths they gave were, on the whole, absurd. I mention them, however, as an indication of the state of mind which this unusual giant had thrown them into. And bear in mind that these were men who were used to the sea and all sorts of weather, and all sorts of sharks as well. One of the crew said the shark was "three hundred feet long at least"! Others said it was as long as the wharf on which we stood--about 115 feet! They affirmed that the water "boiled" over a large space when the fish swam past. They were all familiar with whales, which they had often seen passing at sea, but this was a vast shark. They had seen its terrible head which was "at least as long as the roof on the wharf shed at Nelson's Bay." Impossible, of course! But these were prosaic and rather stolid men, not given to 'fish stories' nor even to talking about their catches. Further, they knew that the person they were talking to (myself) had heard all the fish stories years before! One of the things that impressed me was that they all agreed as to the ghostly whitish color of the vast fish."(3)

In this popular account, we apparently have credible witnesses, and a knowledgeable investigator, Stead, who believed the fishermen were telling the truth (and that they may have witnessed a living Megalodon). I believe the "fact" that they did not return to sea for days could be added to their credibility, and to their loss in wages after the apparently traumatic experience (unless they were hoaxing the entire event, of course.) We also have some rather strange features in this report, including the tremendous lengths the fishermen reported, if we cannot attribute these to exaggeration due to intense fear. If we cannot, then it seems if Megalodon has survived, it may have grown bigger, and I am not sure which idea is scarier.

In his 1989 book There Are Giants in the Sea, BBC film producer and wildlife author Michael Bright concludes his sea-monster volume with mention of the giant fish:

Imagine, then, the shock when scientists dredging the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, earlier this century, discovered two 10 cm. (4 in.) long megalodon teeth that were what can only be described as geologically "fresh." One was estimated to be 24,000 years old--roughly the time of the Lascaux cave paintings. The other was just 11,000 years old and therefore belonged to a gigantic shark that swam in the Pacific Ocean at the same time as man was migrating from Asia into North America. Could this enormous predator still be lurking in the ocean depths?(4)

I suppose we'll have to see what the oceans of the world turn up for the monster hunters to hold triumphantly over the heads of skeptics. But how exciting it would be if a 70-foot shark was deposited on the shores of California, surrounded by excited vacationers with video cameras in tow. Putting child-like dreaming aside, however, leaves us with the fact that whether or not the huge Megalodon is alive today is debatable only on theoretical grounds. Despite thousands of giant, still fossilized teeth, no matter how "fresh" they might be, and the amazing (perhaps exaggerated) report from Stead, there is not much to go on.(5) However, if some shark experts can agree not to completely write off "Meg" into extinction, then we might want to ponder the possibility that Peter Benchley's imagination is not as wild as we thought it was. And we will never go deep-sea fishing in anything smaller than an aircraft carrier ever again.

Actually, you can think about all that. I'll keep chiseling for more replica teeth.

i heard somewhere that Meg was a relatively shallow-water critter and if its moved into deeper oceans and changed its diet, its no longer meg.  if it stayed in the shallows...well, we've all heard the, "We havent found one yet, so it must not exist" argument on everything else discussed on this board...
[right][snapback]607971[/snapback][/right]

i wanna find these books lol
[right][snapback]608860[/snapback][/right]

great whites need bigger tanks and more in them to give some sort look of their real home if they want to kept them in captivity for longer then a few days to a few months
[right][snapback]609247[/snapback][/right]

That was only with one shark because their ampullae of lorenzini went off ( and that's also why some sharks have been known to attack boats) and marduk their are lots of animals that are ocean swimmers such as orcas, but then again their not held in captivity or taught to do tricks are they and they usually hunt and travel in pods while in captivity their is only 1 or 2.  Changes can be made, after everthing we have achieved on this planet you think a small thing like GW's need their own personal space would stop us and don't say anything like orcas aren't predators becuase they have been known to KILL GWs.  Also most GWs travel about a few hundred miles everyday but , so yeah yeah i know know nothing on GWS aye   you should be an expert on them
[right][snapback]610397[/snapback][/right]

like you are a complete idiot that thinks he knows something ?