Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Blackwhite

The monster Tyranno-sea-rus

27 posts in this topic

The monster Tyranno-sea-rus

IPB Image\

Tyranno-sea-rus ... how extinct fish may have looked

By MICHAEL DAY

November 29, 2006

MEET history’s scariest fish — a four-ton monster with the bite of a T-Rex.

The 33ft terrifying Dunkleosteus terrelli roamed the oceans 400million years ago.

Scientists who found fossils say its huge jaws could snap sharks in two, delivering the strongest bite of any fish ever at a force of 11,000lb.

IPB Image\

Metal monster ... experts built model to see how huge jaws work and, inset, a shark

would be considered small fry to Dunkleosteus terrelli

And as it opened its mouth the suction was so great it drew in everything in its path.

University of Chicago researchers, who built a metal version based on the bones, told Royal Society journal Biology Letters it was the first "king of the beasts".

************************************************** **

A woman weighing ten stones can exert up to 1,800 pounds per square inch per stiletto - 45 such women would be equal to just one tooth of a Dunkleosteus.

thesun.co.uk

Edited by Blackwhite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amazing animal.

what's the bite force of a great white shark? just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty interesting. Thanks. This is a good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The monster Tyranno-sea-rus

IPB Image\

Tyranno-sea-rus ... how extinct fish may have looked

By MICHAEL DAY

November 29, 2006

MEET history’s scariest fish — a four-ton monster with the bite of a T-Rex.

The 33ft terrifying Dunkleosteus terrelli roamed the oceans 400million years ago.

Scientists who found fossils say its huge jaws could snap sharks in two, delivering the strongest bite of any fish ever at a force of 11,000lb.

IPB Image\

Metal monster ... experts built model to see how huge jaws work and, inset, a shark

would be considered small fry to Dunkleosteus terrelli

And as it opened its mouth the suction was so great it drew in everything in its path.

University of Chicago researchers, who built a metal version based on the bones, told Royal Society journal Biology Letters it was the first "king of the beasts".

************************************************** **

A woman weighing ten stones can exert up to 1,800 pounds per square inch per stiletto - 45 such women would be equal to just one tooth of a Dunkleosteus.

thesun.co.uk

wow thats a weird animal..im really interested in this kind of thing so if u have any more info on this or any others plz post them :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want real terror, check out Liopleurodon, Xiphactinus, and the other mosasaurs and pliosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yikes!! :unsure2:

eta: it's name sounds nerdy, tho.

Edited by evil_mika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not how ancient fish *MIGHT* have looked, it's how they did. That's a dunkleostes, and it's been known about for well over 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's my favorite ancient fish. Always loved her armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one has allways been may favorite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen this one before, looks cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, I wouldnt want to meet him in a dark alley. Or in a bright one for that matter.

They have a live size replica of that beastie hanging from in the Early Vertebrate room at the Natural History Museum in NYC. An awesome site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want real terror, check out Liopleurodon, Xiphactinus, and the other mosasaurs and pliosaurs.

Liopleurodon is so overrated...

There was that Walking with Dinosaurs show and suddenly everyone's thinking Lipleurodon was 75 feet long... I've seen some say over 120 feet. Haha. >.< There were other more awesome pliosaurs but everyone's hooked on Liopleurodon, sort of like people's attachment to Tyrannosaurus. ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There were other more awesome pliosaurs but everyone's hooked on Liopleurodon, sort of like people's attachment to Tyrannosaurus

Other than the fact that Liopleurodon is the largest of the Pliosaurs, larger than Kronosaurus and Tylosaurus....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other than the fact that Liopleurodon is the largest of the Pliosaurs, larger than Kronosaurus and Tylosaurus....

Liopleurodon wasn't more than 7-10 m (23-33 feet) or so; though fragments of larger pliosaurs exist but are not complete enough to determine their origin as coming from larger subspecies of Liopleurodon or some unrelated pliosaur. The giant find from Mexico was not a Liopleurodon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Monster of Aramberri'

The discovery of a huge and substantially complete pliosaur in Mexico hit the press on the 28th December 2002.

I've heard from Marie-Celine Buchy, and I can put to rest some of the more obvious exagerations and mistakes made by the media. The monster comes from the La Casita Fm (Kimmeridgian), a few km north-west of the village of Aramberri, Nuevo Leon. The first very tenatative estimate of size was of around 15 meters, based a pectoral vertebra 22cm in diameter and other large elements, such as a pterygoid and a partial femur. Obviously this will be revised as the specimen is prepared and we learn more about its morphology.

It is reported by the media as being Liopleurodon ferox, though this was never mentioned by Dino or Marie-Celine. Although Liopleurodon has been reported from the Kimmeridge Clay most of the specimens are series of vertebrae which cannot be identified unambiguously as Liopleurodon based on our current knowledge of its post-cranial anatomy (which is close to non-existent at the moment), or elements such as a lower jaw which, according to Leslie Noè, are definitely not Lipleurodon. Following WWD, it seems that L.ferox has taken the crown as the biggest and fiercest predator ever (move over T.rex) as as such the archetypical big pliosaur. More about Liopleurodon

It seems that the "small size" is even more inconsistent than the large 25 meter estimate.

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'Monster of Aramberri'

The discovery of a huge and substantially complete pliosaur in Mexico hit the press on the 28th December 2002.

It seems that the "small size" is even more inconsistent than the large 25 meter estimate.

linked-image

As I said, "The giant find from Mexico was not a Liopleurodon." Giant pliosaur, but not many scientists consider it to belong to the Liopleurodon genus, and even if it is indeed of the Liopleurodon genus, it's vast size suggests that it most likely was not an L. ferox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the site, they say it is hard to distinguish Liopleurodon vertebrae, as their knowledge is "next to nothing". So how come they are so sure that the new pliosaur is NOT a Liopleurodon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the site, they say it is hard to distinguish Liopleurodon vertebrae, as their knowledge is "next to nothing". So how come they are so sure that the new pliosaur is NOT a Liopleurodon.

They aren't that sure, but, since it's so vastly much larger than any previously found, it most likely is.

For example one site says:

It is hard to identify bones are being definitely those of Liopleurodon. Remains of top predators in general are rare - there aren't as many of them as there are of animals further down the food chain. Our knowledge of the pliosaurs of the Oxford Clay in general has recently been greatly refined by Leslie Noè's PhD thesis. His work has concentrated on skull morphology, so our knowledge of their postcranial anatomy is still rather limited. The largest skull definitely belonging to L.ferox are about 1.5 meters long, and if the head was about a seventh of the body length (as reconstructed by Tarlo) it would make the length a little over 10 meters. I have studied the bite marks left by Liopleurodon on the bones especially of Cryptocleidus, and by matching skull size to recognisable patterns of tooth marks would conclude that the normal size range was about 5 to 7 meters.

Continues;

The Monster of Aramberri

A preliminary report on an pliosaur from Mexico was made in June of 2002 and gained some media publicity in December 2002/January 2003. This specimen is estimated, possibly rather conservatively at 15 meters in length based on the diameter of a pectoral vertebra being rather larger than that of Kronosaurus. This specimen is substantially complete, and there is some expectation that it will be possible to prepare the post-cranial material as well as the skull. Reports of this animal were somewhat exaggerated - its length increased to 25 meters and its weight to 150 tons. Although widely designated as such it's pretty certain that it isn't Liopleurodon ferox. The reports, drawing on the BBC's Walking with Dinosaurs site, have simply repeated and reinforced Liopleurodon's semi-mythical status as biggest and fiercest.

Since it would be vastly much larger than the sizes commonly encountered (5-7 m), it is most likely belonging to a different creature altogether, since 15 meters would be more than twice the size.

Edited by Nena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But by knowing the "incompleteness" of the fossil record, Liopleurodon may have grown bigger. It is thought that the only known Seismosaurus remains are that of an adolescent...more than 100 feet long! The same has been true for Spinosaurus for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But by knowing the "incompleteness" of the fossil record, Liopleurodon may have grown bigger. It is thought that the only known Seismosaurus remains are that of an adolescent...more than 100 feet long! The same has been true for Spinosaurus for some time.

Except the measurement of those bitemarks left on Cryptoclidus remains suggests they did not attain such lenghts; we haven't had bitemarks of Spinosaurus to study, now have we? It's possible that some specimens were larger than others, 10, perhaps 11-12 m, but any Liopleurodon of some 15 m lenght would probably be, if Liopleurodon at all, a separate species (other than L. ferox). Since some have suggested the skull/lenght relation might have been exaggerated, the creatures might have have been smaller than has previously been assumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we haven't had bitemarks of Spinosaurus to study, now have we?

But we've had jaw bones, teeth, and vertebrae...Which I consider better than a bite mark.

Like I said, there's no way to distinuish whether a bite mark from a hatclhing or an adult...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a zoologist in the Jurrasic period would been an interesting experience wouldn't it. Your life expectancy would be in minutes. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be a walking meal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen bigger, but I would say that that is still one of the biggest (fishes, at least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.