Question: How is Megalodon a cryptid?

[village_idiot]

Good point Drago...By all technicality, the Megalodon did exist at one point in time so it can't technically be considered a cryptid. I would just throw it in with 'em, though, because they really shouldn't exist any more, thereby defeating scientific proof they wnet extinct...

[Agent. Mulder]

drago, hence my - sooo, techincally there have been some "sightings"

Edited September 24, 2009 by Agent. Mulder

[Cynical Sounds]

drago, hence my - sooo, techincally there have been some "sightings"

I think the argument was their was a sighting of a large marine animal

NOT a megladon it just doesn't fit the description (too big for starters) except for the use of the word shark and white (altho their is no proof megs were white its just assumed) so why call it a megladon

[Drago]

Scientists assume Megalodon would have the same color scheme as large sharks today - dark on the top, white on the bottom. It's ocean camouflage meant to break up the shark's profile when viewed from above or below.

[Meg_Man]

Megalodon wasn't a 'deep down' kind of fish. Shallow warm water, remember?

Shallow water environments cannot support a huge predator. Megalodon required very large roaming space and preferably deep water environments to flourish in. A major reason is that in the shallow waters, a very large predator can be easily spotted. This can hamper it's hunting efforts.

If a coastal region is like Sea of Cortez, than things can work well for a huge predatory shark there. Whale Sharks have also been spotted in the Sea of Cortez. In such waters, Megalodon would get ample opportunities to stalk and hunt large potential prey from the deep. Though, it does not needs to be a "deep water species" for the said purporse.

Megalodon teeth have been found in regions far away from the continental lands. These monster sharks were generally drawn to "prey items" through upwellings in various regions. During the upwellings, the food chain works in this manner:

Phytoplankton <- Zooplankton <- Predatory zooplankton <- Filter feeders <- Predators

Deep water coastal environments would also have served as breeding grounds for the Megalodon.

However, most of your other points are very good. You seem to have a reasonable understanding of this animal.

I think the argument was their was a sighting of a large marine animal

NOT a megladon it just doesn't fit the description (too big for starters) except for the use of the word shark and white (altho their is no proof megs were white its just assumed) so why call it a megladon

No marine animal actually fits that description. 300 feet length is too much for even the Blue Whale. The Megalodon was a giant animal due to it's "immense body mass" and not just "length." The same also holds true for the Blue Whale.

It sounds like a concocted story to justify a mishap.

Megalodon is however often dubbed as the "Giant Great White." It seems to be a reasonable assumption, since it is anatomically more closer to the great white shark than any other extant shark, so it also assumed to have similar coloration (darker from above and lighter from below).

I think the original point (a point I agree with) is that the only reason people are equating "really big shark" with "surviving Megaladon" is the books/movies.

Such rumors first began to surface when a Megalodon tooth was uncovered from the Challenger Deep region, lacking any evidence of proper fossilization. It was reported to be around 10,000 years old only.

The (Anti-MEG surivival proponents) typically claimed that this tooth would be also much older and possibly got re-deposited in the holocene strata, as they generally do so in the cases of other records reported from the Pliestocene strata.

However, the claims of (Anti-MEG surivival proponents) has been debunked in this particular case, because that tooth is in such a form that it's actual age cannot be determined through any kind of age testing method. So it is still a mystery as to when the Megalodon actually became extinct. No clear answers are available.

The discovery of the prehistoric animals: Coelacanth, and Frill Shark, along with some new animals: Megamouth shark in the 20th century, also have helped in fueling such rumors. They are not good enough examples though but open the gates for "possibilities" for MEG survival proponents.

Some people often attribute the citing of "huge bite marks" on the floating carcasses of large marine mammals to Megalodon survival.

Books and Novels have only helped in spreading MEG survival rumors at global level.

The only think that matters is that we have yet to see one in this modern age, which is unlikely after extinction.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Meg_Man

[zach28]

Shallow water environments cannot support a huge predator. Megalodon required very large roaming space and preferably deep water environments to flourish in. A major reason is that in the shallow waters, a very large predator can be easily spotted. This can hamper it's hunting efforts.

If a coastal region is like Sea of Cortez, than things can work well for a huge predatory shark there. Whale Sharks have also been spotted in the Sea of Cortez. In such waters, Megalodon would get ample opportunities to stalk and hunt large potential prey from the deep. Though, it does not needs to be a "deep water species" for the said purpors

It's funny that you mention the sea of cortez, I happened to catch an episode of monsterquest a while back where the investigated megladon sightings by local fisherman. After they did a few dives they gathered that the megladon sightings were more than likely just whale sharks since. But the marine biologist on hand said that there is something else out there and big, Because something was spooking the sea lions. We haven't explored our oceans thouroughly so i think it could be possible for an animal of that size to elude us.

[Mattshark]

Shallow water environments cannot support a huge predator. Megalodon required very large roaming space and preferably deep water environments to flourish in. A major reason is that in the shallow waters, a very large predator can be easily spotted. This can hamper it's hunting efforts.

Lamniformes for the most part are not found at great depth and certainly not Lamna, Carcharodon or Isurus spp. I see it as unlikely that megalodon would. Even such a large predator could easily hunt in 200-300m of water and most evidence puts it coastal and reasonably shallow (well under 1km depth)

[Mattshark]

It's funny that you mention the sea of cortez, I happened to catch an episode of monsterquest a while back where the investigated megladon sightings by local fisherman. After they did a few dives they gathered that the megladon sightings were more than likely just whale sharks since. But the marine biologist on hand said that there is something else out there and big, Because something was spooking the sea lions. We haven't explored our oceans thouroughly so i think it could be possible for an animal of that size to elude us.

Yeah MQ, is a bad source. They tried to claim something that was blatantly a West Indian manatee, was a reptilian sea monster. No one in shark biology thinks the Sea of Cortez holds a giant shark.

White sharks are in those waters and would spook sea lions, MQ just likes to leave people ignorant of such facts.

[Meg_Man]

Lamniformes for the most part are not found at great depth and certainly not Lamna, Carcharodon or Isurus spp. I see it as unlikely that megalodon would. Even such a large predator could easily hunt in 200-300m of water and most evidence puts it coastal and reasonably shallow (well under 1km depth)

I am not claiming that the Megalodon lived at great depths. It however required a deep water setting to do it's job. Even the great white sharks are known to lurk at depths of 2000 feet. At such depths, we actually enter in to the realm of deep water species. Look at the case of sperm whales as well. Megalodon is known to have hunted Sperm Whales as well. Now do the math.

Keep in mind that the shallow water regions in current age were once deep water regions millions of years ago. The water level was so high that even the Isthmus of Panama was deep down in the waters. A Miocene era Meg Nursery site has been discovered in the Panama, which vanished during the Pliocene as water levels significantly dropped.

Look at the size of current age predatory sharks. They reach a maximum length of 20 feet. The Megalodon was far larger in comparison and even from young age, started hunted whales, which modern sharks usually don't do. Hunting a whale is different from hunting a seal. Marine animals usually have very good eye-sight. A predator the size and reputation of Megalodon can be easily spotted in a shallow water environments. The result would be that the prey items would become alert and in response would attempt to escape or scatter and hide at the presence of a Megalodon. This is a drawback of being a GIANT.

Megalodon at young age could have hunted in shallow water environments or reef settings, but once it got bigger, it would have needed to look for large prey in deeper water environments (coastal or non-coastal), where such animals are generally more abundant. Being a deep water coastal species is not an issue, but being terming a Mega-shark as a "shallow water species" does not makes any sense. Meg teeth have been found at great depths far away from continental lands.

Try to understand the difference between the two settings. The Sea of Cortez is a good example of a "deep water coastal environment" in modern age. Large sharks do lurk there.

Yeah MQ, is a bad source. They tried to claim something that was blatantly a West Indian manatee, was a reptilian sea monster. No one in shark biology thinks the Sea of Cortez holds a giant shark.

White sharks are in those waters and would spook sea lions, MQ just likes to leave people ignorant of such facts.

MQ was not ignorant. The MQ team attempted to find the "monster shark" that some people claimed to have encountered in the Sea of Cortez. After thorough investigation, it turned out that the whale sharks might have been the culprit, often slamming in to the boats. However, one thing was clear that the Sea of Cortez technically does holds large sharks. It does not requires some one in the shark biology to figure this out.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Meg_Man

[Mattshark]

I am not claiming that Megalodon lived at great depths. It required deep water environments to do its job. Even Great White Sharks are known to lurk at depths of 2000 feet. At such depths, we actually enter in to the realm of deep water species.

Keep in mind that the shallow water regions in current age were once deep regions millions of years ago. The water level was so high that even the Isthmus of Panama was deep down in the waters. A Miocene era Meg Nursery site has been discovered in the Panama, which vanished during the Pliocene as water levels greatly reduced.

Look at the size of current age predatory sharks. They reach a maximum length of 20 feet. The Megalodon was far larger in comparison and even from young age, started hunted whales, which modern sharks usually don't do. Hunting a whale is different from hunting a seal. Marine animals usually have very good eye-sight. A predator the size and reputation of Megalodon can be easily spotted in a shallow water environments. The result would be that the prey items would become alert and in response would attempt to escape or scatter and hide. This is a drawback of being a giant.

Megalodon at young age could have hunted in shallow water environments or reef settings, but once it got bigger, it would have needed to look for large prey in deeper water environments, where they would be more abundant. Being a deep water coastal species is not an issue, but being termed as a "shallow water species" for a Mega-shark does not makes any sense. This is why we often find Meg teeth at great depths far away from continental lands.

Try to understand the difference between the two settings. The Sea of Cortez is a good example of a "deep water coastal environment" in modern age. Giant sharks do lurk there.

Yes white may get to near 2km down, they spend 90% of their time in water under 100m though. 2000ft is not really truly deep water species, 2km yes, 2000ft, not so much.

During the Miocene central America was fragmented yes, but it was all shallow sea's.

Many sharks hunt dolphin, I formerly worked in Sarasota where bull sharks picked off bottlenose's, tigers and white both actively hunt dolphin. White sharks take juvenile whales and are suspected of attacking larger individuals. Think you'll find seals and sea lions are still marine mammals though.

Far away like beeches in Florida? That area was also shallow, not quite as shallow as it is at present but it was never deep. Whales are more numerous at coastal waters that are under 500m deep. Deep water species implies it lived at depth, which is extremely unlikely, megalodon teeth are most common in areas where water is shallow, coastal areas in tropical to sub tropical regions.

It is highly unlikely to have been a reef hunter, even smallish sharks like Carcharhinus perezi prefer the edges of the reef. However shallow waters like the Gulf of Mexico hold large whales and certainly whale sharks, occasional white shark and a fair population of tiger sharks. South Africa waters at Table Bay, False Bay and along the south coast are very shallow, around Dyer island, where there are plenty of hunting whites, the water is not deep at all. Shallow water makes a lot of sense since that is where the food is.

I understand marine ecology very well thank you. While the Sea of Cortez maybe be relatively deep, the Caribbean the Gulf of Mexico are certainly not.

[Mattshark]

MQ was not ignorant. The MQ team attempted to find the "monster shark" that some people claimed to have encountered in the Sea of Cortez. After thorough investigation, it turned out that the whale sharks might have been the culprit, often slamming in to the boats. However, one thing was clear that the Sea of Cortez technically does holds large sharks. It does not requires some one in the shark biology to figure this out.

MQ is, it has absolutely no scientific value what so ever. It is sensationalist junk programming.

No it may not require some one in shark biology to figure this out, it doesn't even require a TV show. It simply requires more teeth than brain cells.

[Drago]

Meg_Man: I gave up on getting trustworthy info out of MQ when they did two things:

In one Sasquatch episode, they received a return on DNA that it was human. They then ordered another test, and then another, until they received an anomalous result, which the show then ran with as the conclusive one.

Then, when they did the DNA test on the tiny mummified creature, the scientist said "We could obtain no DNA from the sample suitable for identification," which the show then BLATANTLY twisted into, "We could not identify the DNA from the sample."

At these points I realized if the show was willing to do stuff like this, they were not trustworthy as a source of information for pretty much anything.

[Meg_Man]

@ Mattshark

First see this:

Now towards the discussion;

Yes white may get to near 2km down, they spend 90% of their time in water under 100m though. 2000ft is not really truly deep water species, 2km yes, 2000ft, not so much.

Actually it can go far deeper than 2000 ft. Maximum depth recorded for the great white shark is 1280 m (~4200 ft). Why does it goes down so deep? Probably exploring new niches.

As far as it's life-style is concerned, it visits coastal areas, lurks in off-shore regions, migrates a lot, and is also a frequent visitor of the deep water environments. Strictly coastal species are not so adventurous.

Here are some interesting findings.

However, why do the great white sharks are commonly found in the coastal regions? Their are two major reasons:

1. Abundance of pinnipeds (an important prey item) in coastal regions.

2. Potential Nursery Sites. (even though we have yet to see great white sharks mating)

The Megalodon also did the same but predominantly ventured in to high-use cetacean areas (ranging from the shallow water environments to the deep waters environments around the world). Now the point is that some cetaceans are strictly coastal and some are not. The Megalodon could have adapted to the open ocean life-style, as it's prey items lurked every where. Megalodon remains have been found in the regions far away from the continental lands.

I am sure that more than 90% of the ocean floors are yet to be explored for fossil records, which can be a very tedious and costly venture.

During the Miocene central America was fragmented yes, but it was all shallow sea's.

A probable Nursery site was found there. These regions were ideal for young C. megalodon but the adults were among the "frequent visitors." The abundance of small Megalodon teeth in these regions confirms this. However, these regions could also be potential killing zones for the young Megs. So there are no clear answers.

And during Miocene, Central America wasn't as much shallow as you assume:

As, the Pliocene approached, the region became shallower due to obvious drop in the water levels around the world.

Many sharks hunt dolphin, I formerly worked in Sarasota where bull sharks picked off bottlenose's, tigers and white both actively hunt dolphin. White sharks take juvenile whales and are suspected of attacking larger individuals. Think you'll find seals and sea lions are still marine mammals though.

Dolphins also have a wide-scale distribution.

"Delphinids are found in all oceans of the world. Some species are found exclusively in tropical waters, others in temperate regions, and a rare few in subpolar waters. Some species are found exclusively in one small area of the ocean, such as the endangered Hector's dolphin, which is found only in the waters around New Zealand. Some live in coastal habitats, while others inhabit the open ocean. Still others are considered "cosmopolitan" in distribution, meaning they may be found virtually anywhere. Orcas fall into this category; they can be seen in Arctic and Antarctic waters, as well as in the tropics and temperate zones, near the shore and in the open sea."

Source: Dolphins and Other Small Cetaceans

Far away like beeches in Florida? That area was also shallow, not quite as shallow as it is at present but it was never deep.

I used the term "far away from continental lands." Apparently you ignored the complete sentence.

I meant the regions (i.e. Pacific Trenches and Hawaii). Even with relatively few fossil hunting expeditions in to deep waters, it was learned that the Megalodon was venturing in to regions far away from the "continental lands." It wasn't restricted to shallow water environments.

Here is an example of a Meg tooth from the Pacific Trenches:

Whales are more numerous at coastal waters that are under 500m deep. Deep water species implies it lived at depth, which is extremely unlikely, megalodon teeth are most common in areas where water is shallow, coastal areas in tropical to sub tropical regions.

Some people have an habit to consider every species that would frequent in to coastal waters as a strictly coastal species. As stated above, some whales are numerous in coastal waters but some are not (i.e. Sperm Whales, and Blue Whales). Some have adapted to both coastal and open-ocean life-styles. For Megalodon, any whale was a potential prey item. It would have followed its prey where ever possible. There were no restrictions. Upon reaching maturity, once it would start hunting large whales, it would get accustomed to open ocean life-style in the process.

It is highly unlikely to have been a reef hunter, even smallish sharks like Carcharhinus perezi prefer the edges of the reef. However shallow waters like the Gulf of Mexico hold large whales and certainly whale sharks, occasional white shark and a fair population of tiger sharks. South Africa waters at Table Bay, False Bay and along the south coast are very shallow, around Dyer island, where there are plenty of hunting whites, the water is not deep at all. Shallow water makes a lot of sense since that is where the food is.

Again! You will find great white sharks in these regions due to presence of pinnipeds. These regions serve as the potential killing grounds for the great white shark. It however does not means that the great white shark is restricted to coastal environments. In the similar fashion, Meg remains are generally found in those regions where fossil cetaceans are also abundant. Such regions might have been the potential killing grounds of the Megalodon in the coastal environments. However, Megalodon would also go after open ocean dwelling whales (i.e. Sperm Whales) and those hunting expeditions would have generally taken place in the open oceans.

In the wider scheme of things, most amount of the food is present in the epi-pelagic and meso-pelagic layers but not restricted to the shallow coastal waters.

I understand marine ecology very well thank you. While the Sea of Cortez maybe be relatively deep, the Caribbean the Gulf of Mexico are certainly not.

Unfortunately you don't. Your perceptions of the marine eco-systems end on the coastal boundaries.

MQ is, it has absolutely no scientific value what so ever. It is sensationalist junk programming.

No it may not require some one in shark biology to figure this out, it doesn't even require a TV show. It simply requires more teeth than brain cells.

I am not concerned with all the exploits of MQ teams. I am referring to the show's episode titled "MEGA JAWS" and it was very well done. The tooth shown in that video is indeed untestable for age, but it was excavated from the 10,000 year old strata.

More details are here.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Meg_Man

[Drago]

Meg_Man: Random and off-topic in a sense, but: Concerning your sig, wasn't one of the later Jaws movies supposed to have as a big reveal that the monster sharks plaguing the Brody family weren't actually great whites, but Megalodons? I think they were just looking for an excuse to have giant sharks, and I don't recall it ever actually happening in the movies, but hey.

[Mattshark]

@ Mattshark

First see this:

Now towards the discussion;

Actually it can go far deeper than 2000 ft. Maximum depth recorded for the great white shark is 1280 m (~4200 ft). Why does it goes down so deep? Probably exploring new niches.

Yes that is why I said 2Km first (deeper than recorded but most of the telemetry going on with whites is not great). Thanks for the picture, but I know all that very well.

According to Weng et al. (2007) whites are very rarely below 50m most of the year.

As far as it's life-style is concerned, it visits coastal areas, lurks in off-shore regions, migrates a lot, and is also a frequent visitor of the deep water environments. Strictly coastal species are not so adventurous.

Yes it migrates so what? Nothing unusual about that, especially for and animal primarily living in temperate waters. Off shore and coastal regions are not can be considered part of a coastal marine environment

Here are some interesting findings.

However, why do the great white sharks are commonly found in the coastal regions? Their are two major reasons:

1. Abundance of pinnipeds (an important prey item) in coastal regions.

2. Potential Nursery Sites. (even though we have yet to see great white sharks mating)

And that is why we are developing exciting new tag for biotelemetry.

The Megalodon also did the same but predominantly ventured in to high-use cetacean areas (ranging from the shallow water environments to the deep waters environments around the world). Now the point is that some cetaceans are strictly coastal and some are not. The Megalodon could have adapted to the open ocean life-style, as it's prey items lurked every where. Megalodon remains have been found in the regions far away from the continental lands.

Actually most cetaceans are coastal, my girlfriend studies them.

I am sure that more than 90% of the ocean floors are yet to be explored for fossil records, which can be a very tedious and costly venture.

Yes it also areas of great subduction so a lot of them with be destroyed before ever being found and there very few vehicles that can go there and they can't reach everywhere.

A probable Nursery site was found there. These regions were ideal for young C. megalodon but the adults were among the "frequent visitors." The abundance of small Megalodon teeth in these regions confirms this. However, these regions could also be potential killing zones for the young Megs. So there are no clear answers.

And during Miocene, Central America wasn't as much shallow as you assume:

As, the Pliocene approached, the region became shallower due to obvious drop in the water levels around the world.

Clearly, but the region is also very volcanic and there were island where central America now runs

Dolphins also have a wide-scale distribution.

"Delphinids are found in all oceans of the world. Some species are found exclusively in tropical waters, others in temperate regions, and a rare few in subpolar waters. Some species are found exclusively in one small area of the ocean, such as the endangered Hector's dolphin, which is found only in the waters around New Zealand. Some live in coastal habitats, while others inhabit the open ocean. Still others are considered "cosmopolitan" in distribution, meaning they may be found virtually anywhere. Orcas fall into this category; they can be seen in Arctic and Antarctic waters, as well as in the tropics and temperate zones, near the shore and in the open sea."

Source: Dolphins and Other Small Cetaceans

Well that depends on which dolphin, some have extremely narrow distribution. Bottlenose dolphin have a wide distribution, tucuxi not so much.

I used the term "far away from continental lands." Apparently you ignored the complete sentence.

I meant the regions (i.e. Pacific Trenches and Hawaii). Even with relatively few fossil hunting expeditions in to deep waters, it was learned that the Megalodon was venturing in to regions far away from the "continental lands." It wasn't restricted to shallow water environments.

Here is an example of a Meg tooth from the Pacific Trenches:

Yes, it is still by land though, being next to islands is not the same as being in the middle of the ocean away from all land. I never said it was restricted to shallow waters did I?

Some people have an habit to consider every species that would frequent in to coastal waters as a strictly coastal species. As stated above, some whales are numerous in coastal waters but some are not (i.e. Sperm Whales, and Blue Whales). Some have adapted to both coastal and open-ocean life-styles. For Megalodon, any whale was a potential prey item. It would have followed its prey where ever possible. There were no restrictions. Upon reaching maturity, once it would start hunting large whales, it would get accustomed to open ocean life-style in the process.

Yes I know that, tigers sharks are considered a coastal species and have been found off both the UK and Iceland after following the gulf stream, leatherback turtles do the same. They are still primarily coastal animals though.

Again! You will find great white sharks in these regions due to presence of pinnipeds. These regions serve as the potential killing grounds for the great white shark. It however does not means that the great white shark is restricted to coastal environments. In the similar fashion, Meg remains are generally found in those regions where fossil cetaceans are also abundant. Such regions might have been the potential killing grounds of the Megalodon in the coastal environments. However, Megalodon would also go after open ocean dwelling whales (i.e. Sperm Whales) and those hunting expeditions would have generally taken place in the open oceans.

Yeah and food is generally a reason for an animal to be in any habitat. No one said restricted, however these animals spend most of their time in coastal regions. It may have, it is a far less reliable hunting method though than most reliable hunting for coastal dwelling species and Aguilera & Aguilera (2004) point to the animal (as well as other large tooth sharks) being associated with shallow water coastal environs.

In the wider scheme of things, most amount of the food is present in the epi-pelagic and meso-pelagic layers but not restricted to the shallow coastal waters.

No it is not restricted to the coastal regions. However, they are generally the most productive.

Unfortunately you don't. Your perceptions of the marine eco-systems end on the coastal boundaries.

If you like.

I am not concerned with all the exploits of MQ teams. I am referring to the show's episode titled "MEGA JAWS" and it was very well done. The tooth shown in that video is indeed untestable for age, but it was excavated from the 10,000 year old strata.

Yes but the point the people at MQ have no problem being less than honest because it is for entertainment and not for science.

Aguilera, O. & Aguilera, D.R. (2004) Giant-toothed White Sharks and Wide-toothed Mako (Lamnidae) from the Venezuela Neogene: Their Role in the Caribbean, Shallow-water Fish Assemblage. Caribbean Journal of Science. 40(3):368-382

Weng, K.C., Boustany, A.M., Pyle, P., Anderson, S.D., Brown, A. & Block, B.A. (2007) Migration and habitat of white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias)in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Mar. Biol. 152(4):877-894

[Meg_Man]

Yes that is why I said 2Km first (deeper than recorded but most of the telemetry going on with whites is not great). Thanks for the picture, but I know all that very well.

According to Weng et al. (2007) whites are very rarely below 50m most of the year.

Not necessarily. It depends upon what the sharks are doing in a certain area. Also, the original contention was that whether the great white shark is a strictly shallow water coastal species or not. With advancement in science, we have probably found the answer:

"A new study is shattering old beliefs about the great white shark--one of the largest, most awe-inspiring predators in the sea.

Scientists have long believed that these powerful carnivores spend most of their lives relatively close to shore, pursuing seals and sea lions. But a study in the January 3 issue of the journal Nature reveals that white sharks can range hundreds of miles across the open ocean. In fact, one male tagged along the Central California coast migrated thousands of miles to the warm waters of Hawaii and remained there for nearly four months.

The Nature study involved six marine scientists from three California institutions: Burney Le Boeuf and Scott Davis of the Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz; Peter Pyle and Scot Anderson of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) in Stinson Beach, Calif.; and Barbara Block and Andre Boustany of the Tuna Research and Conservation Center, a joint project of Stanford University and the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Le Boeuf, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCSC, said he was shocked by the results.

"Going into this, what we expected was that white sharks were just coastal animals that breed in Southern California, then migrate a few hundred miles north to feed on seals," Le Boeuf said. "But it turns out they've got a life at sea, and when they're in the open ocean, they're diving very deep at times."

Source: White Sharks Migrate Thousands of Miles Across the Sea

Yes it migrates so what? Nothing unusual about that, especially for and animal primarily living in temperate waters. Off shore and coastal regions are not can be considered part of a coastal marine environment

It is not just about migration but also about exploring new niches. Animals which have the endurance to travel thousands of miles do explore new environments and with repeated practices, become accustomed to an adventurous life-style. New studies reveal that the great white shark has a life of its own in the open oceans and not just in the coastal regions. Some coastal sites are preferred nursery areas, where most youngs individuals lurk but as they grow larger, they also start to explore new regions and dimensions. The life-style of the great white shark is like that of an "adventurous tourist." It is not a strictly shallow water coastal species as was once believed to be. Th great white shark achieved the cosmopolitan status due to it's more exploratory life-style. The case of the Megalodon is also similar.

And that is why we are developing exciting new tag for biotelemetry.

Good.

Actually most cetaceans are coastal, my girlfriend studies them.

Wrong!

Almost every marine species pays a visit to the coastal waters. It does not means that most of them are predominanetly coastal. Ask your girlfriend about the range and habitat of the Sperm Whales, Pilot Whales, and also the Blue Whales. Even some species of dolphins are not strictly coastal.

Sperm Whales were likely among the chief targets of the Megalodon and interactions between the two species were a common phenomenon.

An example below:

From Fossil Farm Museum Of The Finger Lakes

There are many more examples.

Here is some insight in to life-style of the Sperm Whale:

"Habitat

Sperm whales tend to inhabit areas with a water depth of 1968 feet (600 m) or more, and are uncommon in waters less than 984 feet (300 m) deep. Female sperm whales are generally found in deep waters (at least 3280 feet, or 1000 m) of low latitudes (less than 40°, except in the North Pacific where they are found as high as 50°). These conditions generally correspond to sea surface temperatures greater than 15°C, and while female sperm whales are sometimes seen near oceanic islands, they are typically far from land."

Source: Sperm Whales (Physeter macrocephalus)

Range of the Sperm Whales:

Now where the "prey items" lurk, predators are usually nearby following them. Due to such dietary preferences, Megalodon's hunting range automatically expanded in to the open waters, far away from the coastal lands.

Yes it also areas of great subduction so a lot of them with be destroyed before ever being found and there very few vehicles that can go there and they can't reach everywhere.

And that means that our knowledge of the Megalodon's habitat will remain limited until technology permits us to take fossil hunting expeditions to a new level in the open waters.

Clearly, but the region is also very volcanic and there were island where central America now runs

When ocean waters were much higher there to provide an open water sanctuary during the Miocene, a Meg nursery site existed there. As the waters became shallower and the Isthumus of Panama began to form, the Meg nursery site vanished from the area. Mostly neonate and small juvenile Megs lurked in the Panama. The large adults were not restricted to these environments (The adults were not abundant in the shallow waters, in comparison to the neonates or small juveniles).

"In both Panama and South Carolina, Megalodon lived in areas flooded by much higher ocean waters, which provided warm, shallow shelters for the ferocious beasts to spawn."

Source: Prehistoric Shark Nursery Spawned Giants

Well that depends on which dolphin, some have extremely narrow distribution. Bottlenose dolphin have a wide distribution, tucuxi not so much.

In the same manner, it depends upon which shark and its distribution. Megalodon had a global distribution and was cosmopolitan unlike tucuxi, and was comparatively far larger and needed much more open space for roaming.

The largest of all dolphins, Orcas, are also cosmopolitan and not a "shallow water coastal species."

Hence, the problem lies with the terms like "shallow water coastal species," when describing the habitat of the Megalodon. It was not restricted to shallow waters or coastal regions.

Yes, it is still by land though, being next to islands is not the same as being in the middle of the ocean away from all land. I never said it was restricted to shallow waters did I?

Guam is still hundreds of miles away from the deepest trenches. It is also far away from the continental lands and is surrounded by the open deep waters of the Pacific. Another indication that Megalodon preferred open water areas.

"MAURICE Lariche1 states that the teeth of the gigantic extinct shark, Carcharodon megalodon, found on the bottom of modern oceans belong to the Pleistocene period. The report of the Challenger Expedition2 states that some shark teeth from the same station were covered with a layer of manganese dioxide—one slightly, another deeply. Among them at Station 281, depth 2,385 fathoms, South Pacific, were found teeth of Carcharodon megalodon. Knowing even approximately the thickness and rate of growth of the manganese dioxide layer, we should be able to establish the geological age of embedded teeth much more exactly than before. According to Hans Pettersson3 the growth-rate is 0.15 mm.-1.4 mm. every 1,000 years and on the upper surface of manganese dioxide nodules it is about 1½ times greater than on the lower."

Link: Age of Carcharodon megalodon?.

Yes I know that, tigers sharks are considered a coastal species and have been found off both the UK and Iceland after following the gulf stream, leatherback turtles do the same. They are still primarily coastal animals though.

And are these animals related to the Megalodon in any way or form and represent its lineage?

The great white shark is the closest living analogue to the Megalodon and not these animals. The dietary preferences of a species can influence it's range and habitat. None of these animals are active predators of the deep water whales (i.e Sperm Whales). Still the largest extant predatory shark has a much higher expanded range than Tiger sharks and Turtles. Megalodon would had even more so, due to obvious scaling factors and dietary preferences.

Yeah and food is generally a reason for an animal to be in any habitat. No one said restricted, however these animals spend most of their time in coastal regions. It may have, it is a far less reliable hunting method though than most reliable hunting for coastal dwelling species and Aguilera & Aguilera (2004) point to the animal (as well as other large tooth sharks) being associated with shallow water coastal environs.

The shallow water animals do not mimic the behaviour of the Megalodon.

"New records of extinct giant-toothed white sharks Carcharodon megalodon (Agassiz), Carcharodon subarticulatus (Agassiz), and wide-toothed mako Isurus xiphodon (Agassiz) from coastal shallow waters, coastal upwelling, swampy, coastal lagoon, and sandy littorals of the Venezuela Neogene, suggest these species were large transient piscivores that may have had enough behavioral flexibility to occupy different environments. Giant-tooth shark species, that probably fed mainly on fish, turtles, cetaceans and sirenids, did not exhibit large population sizes."

Source: (Giant-toothed White Sharks and Wide-toothed Mako (Lamnidae) from the Venezuela Neogene: Their Role in the Caribbean, Shallow-water Fish Assemblage) by Augilera et al

More from this source:

"We can only speculate about the role of the large sharks in those ancient ecosystems. Although the topology of the Neogene food web in terms of trophic links FIG. 5. Urumaco Formation fish assemblage. 378 O. AGUILERA AND D. RODRIGUES DE AGUILERA among major taxa is different to that today, we cannot determine real changes in the food web due to extinction of large sharks. Despite the former high abundance of large predatory fishes (Jackson and Sala 2001), otoliths and teeth of large fishes are still less abundant in the fossil record than those of small fishes, because of obvious scale reasons."

As you can see, Megalodon was more transient in nature than smaller sharks and lurked in all kinds of environments. It even lurked in the deep water environments as proved by the challenger expeditions. Megalodon in comparison to the smaller sharks was less abundant in the shallow water regions (not exhibiting large population sizes there). This does not means that the Megalodon sharks were generally less in numbers; They were wide-spread. However, the larger ones were spending lives in both coastal waters and also in the offshore open waters. Hence, these findings also indicates a more migratory and adventurous open sea dwelling life-style, and lack of restriction to any particular shallow water environment for the Megalodon.

No it is not restricted to the coastal regions. However, they are generally the most productive.

It is a subjective opinion. Of-course small life-forms are much more abundant in the coastal regions than in the open waters. However, there is enough food in the open waters to sustain large animals (i.e. Whale Sharks, Sperm Whales, Pilot Whales, Blue Whales, Humpback whales, and even Orcas), and Megalodon would get ample opportunities with the prehistoric relatives of these species in the offshore environments.

If you like.

It restricts your vision and perceptions of the marine life-forms.

Yes but the point the people at MQ have no problem being less than honest because it is for entertainment and not for science.

And MQ was brought in to discussion by who in the first place? I only mentioned Sea of Cortez.

--- CONCLUSION ---

In short words, my only contention is that the Megalodon was not a strictly shallow water coastal species as some often suggest. It lurked in a wide range of marine environments. The adults were less abundant in the shallow waters.

Meg_Man: Random and off-topic in a sense, but: Concerning your sig, wasn't one of the later Jaws movies supposed to have as a big reveal that the monster sharks plaguing the Brody family weren't actually great whites, but Megalodons? I think they were just looking for an excuse to have giant sharks, and I don't recall it ever actually happening in the movies, but hey.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed. A major reason behind the rumors of MEG survival in modern age is due to it's remains being found in deep water environments and from Pliestocene sediments.

"P. megalodon was a cosmopolitan species for which Leriche (1936) provided a map of its geographic and stratographic distribution. The species appears in Miocene strata (around 25 million years ago) and disappears in the Pleistocene (one million years old or less according to estimates). The Pleistocene deposits are mostly offshore and have been exposed by the dredging of the Challenger and the Albatross off the coasts of the islands of Tubuai and Tahiti in the “polymetallic nodule” fields at depths over 4000 m."

Source: (Discovery of a fauna with Procarcharodon megalodon (Agassiz, 1835) in New Caledonia) by Bernard Seret

Edited October 11, 2009 by Meg_Man

[Mattshark]

Not necessarily. It depends upon what the sharks are doing in a certain area. Also, the original contention was that whether the great white shark is a strictly shallow water coastal species or not. With advancement in science, we have probably found the answer:

"A new study is shattering old beliefs about the great white shark--one of the largest, most awe-inspiring predators in the sea.

Scientists have long believed that these powerful carnivores spend most of their lives relatively close to shore, pursuing seals and sea lions. But a study in the January 3 issue of the journal Nature reveals that white sharks can range hundreds of miles across the open ocean. In fact, one male tagged along the Central California coast migrated thousands of miles to the warm waters of Hawaii and remained there for nearly four months.

The Nature study involved six marine scientists from three California institutions: Burney Le Boeuf and Scott Davis of the Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz; Peter Pyle and Scot Anderson of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) in Stinson Beach, Calif.; and Barbara Block and Andre Boustany of the Tuna Research and Conservation Center, a joint project of Stanford University and the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Le Boeuf, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCSC, said he was shocked by the results.

"Going into this, what we expected was that white sharks were just coastal animals that breed in Southern California, then migrate a few hundred miles north to feed on seals," Le Boeuf said. "But it turns out they've got a life at sea, and when they're in the open ocean, they're diving very deep at times."

Source: White Sharks Migrate Thousands of Miles Across the Sea

Yes, the results we have at present show them still spend a majority of there time in at depths under 50m

It is not just about migration but also about exploring new niches. Animals which have the endurance to travel thousands of miles do explore new environments and with repeated practices, become accustomed to an adventurous life-style. New studies reveal that the great white shark has a life of its own in the open oceans and not just in the coastal regions. Some coastal sites are preferred nursery areas, where most youngs individuals lurk but as they grow larger, they also start to explore new regions and dimensions. The life-style of the great white shark is like that of an "adventurous tourist." It is not a strictly shallow water coastal species as was once believed to be. These animals achieved cosmopolitan status because they can lurk in where ever possible.

Yes and that doesn't prevent them having primary habitats where the spend more time and have greater productivity. No one is claiming they are strictly limited to one environ.

Good.

Wrong.

Almost every species visits coastal waters. It does not means that most of them are predominanetly coastal. Ask your girlfried about Sperm Whales, Pilot Whales, and also the Blue Whales. Even some species of dolphins are not strictly coastal.

Sperm Whales were likely among the chief targets of the Megalodon and interactions between the two species were a common phenomenon.

An example below:

IMG]http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6940/megalodontoothspermwhal**********[/img]

From Fossil Farm Museum Of The Finger Lakes

And there are many more examples.

Here is some insight in to life-style of the Sperm Whale:

"Habitat

Sperm whales tend to inhabit areas with a water depth of 1968 feet (600 m) or more, and are uncommon in waters less than 984 feet (300 m) deep. Female sperm whales are generally found in deep waters (at least 3280 feet, or 1000 m) of low latitudes (less than 40°, except in the North Pacific where they are found as high as 50°). These conditions generally correspond to sea surface temperatures greater than 15°C, and while female sperm whales are sometimes seen near oceanic islands, they are typically far from land."

Source: Sperm Whales (Physeter macrocephalus)

Range of the Sperm Whales:

You listed 1 dolphin, 1 mysticete and 1 odonticete as cetaceans that are not coastal. Out of the roughly 34 species of dolphin how many are not primarily coastal? Even in large cetaceans the only group that is primarily not coastal are beaked whales. Most mysticete's still remain primarily coastal. That doesn't mean the stay there all the time.

Now where the "prey items" lurk, predators are usually nearby following them. Due to such dietary preferences, Megalodon's hunting range automatically expanded in to the open waters, far away from the coastal lands.

Yes but coastal regions would still had have more reliable prey.

And that means that our knowledge of the Megalodon's habitat will remain limited until technology permits us to take fossil hunting expeditions to a new level in the open waters.

It is still the unlikely that we'll be able to make a lot of new assertion due to other factors.

When ocean waters were much higher there to provide an open water sanctuary during the Miocene, a Meg nursery site existed there. As the waters became shallower and the Isthumus of Panama began to form, the Meg nursery site vanished from the area. Mostly neonates and small juveniled Megs lurked in the Panama. The adults were not restricted to these environments.

"In both Panama and South Carolina, Megalodon lived in areas flooded by much higher ocean waters, which provided warm, shallow shelters for the ferocious beasts to spawn."

Source: Prehistoric Shark Nursery Spawned Giants

No one said they where restricted to these environments.

In the same manner, it depends upon which shark and its distribution. Megalodon had a global distribution and was cosmopolitan unlike tucuxi, and was comparatively far larger and needed much more open space for roaming.

The largest of all dolphins, Orcas, are also cosmopolitan and not a "shallow water coastal species."

Hence, the problem lies with the terms like "shallow water coastal species," when describing the habitat of the Megalodon. It was not restricted to shallow waters or coastal regions.

Orca are more awkward because they have two distinct population types, resident orca do tend to remain at the coast. Describing a species as coastal does not mean they stay at the coast at all time. Describing a species as cosmopolitan can just mean they are in a wide range of water temperatures.

Guam is still hundreds of miles away from the deepest trenches. It is also far away from the continental lands and is surrounded by the open deep waters of the Pacific. Another indication that Megalodon preferred open water areas.

"MAURICE Lariche1 states that the teeth of the gigantic extinct shark, Carcharodon megalodon, found on the bottom of modern oceans belong to the Pleistocene period. The report of the Challenger Expedition2 states that some shark teeth from the same station were covered with a layer of manganese dioxide—one slightly, another deeply. Among them at Station 281, depth 2,385 fathoms, South Pacific, were found teeth of Carcharodon megalodon. Knowing even approximately the thickness and rate of growth of the manganese dioxide layer, we should be able to establish the geological age of embedded teeth much more exactly than before. According to Hans Pettersson3 the growth-rate is 0.15 mm.-1.4 mm. every 1,000 years and on the upper surface of manganese dioxide nodules it is about 1½ times greater than on the lower."

Link: Age of Carcharodon megalodon?.

It doesn't indicate that at all. If that was the case we would not see so many large teeth in coastal regions too.

And are these animals related to the Megalodon in any way or form and represent its lineage?

The great white shark is the closest living analogue to the Megalodon and not these animals. The dietary preferences of a species can influence it's range and habitat. None of these animals are active predators of the deep water whales (i.e Sperm Whales). Still the largest extant predatory shark has a much higher expanded range than Tiger sharks and Turtles. Megalodon would be even more so, due to obvious scaling factors and dietary preferences.

You're missing the point.

The shallow water animals do not mimic the behaviour of the Megalodon.

"New records of extinct giant-toothed white sharks Carcharodon megalodon (Agassiz), Carcharodon subarticulatus (Agassiz), and wide-toothed mako Isurus xiphodon (Agassiz) from coastal shallow waters, coastal upwelling, swampy, coastal lagoon, and sandy littorals of the Venezuela Neogene, suggest these species were large transient piscivores that may have had enough behavioral flexibility to occupy different environments. Giant-tooth shark species, that probably fed mainly on fish, turtles, cetaceans and sirenids, did not exhibit large population sizes."

Source: (Giant-toothed White Sharks and Wide-toothed Mako (Lamnidae) from the Venezuela Neogene: Their Role in the Caribbean, Shallow-water Fish Assemblage) by Augilera et al

More from the same source:

"We can only speculate about the role of the large sharks in those ancient ecosystems. Although the topology of the Neogene food web in terms of trophic links FIG. 5. Urumaco Formation fish assemblage. 378 O. AGUILERA AND D. RODRIGUES DE AGUILERA among major taxa is different to that today, we cannot determine real changes in the food web due to extinction of large sharks. Despite the former high abundance of large predatory fishes (Jackson and Sala 2001), otoliths and teeth of large fishes are still less abundant in the fossil record than those of small fishes, because of obvious scale reasons."

As you can see, Megalodon was highly transient in nature and lurked in all kinds of environments. It even lurked in the deep water environments as proved by the challenger expeditions. Megalodon in comparison to the smaller sharks was less abundant in all places (not exhibiting large population sizes). The Megalodon were not generally less in numbers. They were wide-spread, the large adults were spending lives in both coastal waters and also in the offshore open waters. Hence, these findings also indicates a more migratory and adventurous open sea dwelling life-style, and lack of restriction to any particular shallow water environment.

You cannot make that conclusion from that. Migration between areas does not indicate a more open sea life style at all. A lack of restriction yes, but that is all.

It is a subjective opinion. Of-course small life-forms are much more abundant in the coastal regions than in the open waters. However, there is enough food in the open waters to sustain large animals (i.e. Whale Sharks, Sperm Whales, Pilot Whales, Blue Whales, Humpback whales, and even Orcas), and Megalodon can get ample opportunities with these species in the offshore environments.

Humpbacks feeding grounds are primarily coastal, Whale sharks exploit the high productivity of coastal regions (Belize barrier reef and Ningaloo reef) They would find targeting these species in coastal regions far more reliable.

It restricts your vision and perceptions of the marine life-forms.

It really doesn't

And MQ was brought in to discussion by who in the first place? I only mentioned Sea of Cortez.

Yes, talking to someone else.

--- CONCLUSION ---

In short words, my only contention is that the Megalodon was not a strictly shallow water coastal species as some often suggest.

No one ever suggested it was strictly coastal or shallow.

[Meg_Man]

@ Mattshark

To cut long debate short, here is a reasonable answer, that also fits with my perceptions:

Where did Megalodon live?

Megalodon had a worldwide distribution which is often referred to as a "cosmopolitan species". The adults lived offshore (pelagic) while the nursery areas for the young were closer to shore.

Quick Facts about Megalodon

Please keep in mind that new discoveries tend to over-shadow old notions. We are not all knowing about extinct animals but we can adopt more rational thinking.

A species not being strictly coastal, is not a true coastal species by definition.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Meg_Man

[Mattshark]

@ Mattshark

To cut long debate short, here is a reasonable answer, that also fits with my perceptions:

Quick Facts about Megalodon

Please keep in mind that new discoveries tend to over-shadow old notions. We are not all knowing about extinct animals but we can adopt more rational thinking.

A species not being strictly coastal, is not a true coastal species by definition.

That is fine, it also fits with mine (offshore pelagic doesn't mean not in coastal environment).

Yes I know that, that the whole point of research.

That is not true, plenty of species considered coastal are limited to coastal environs, but are deemed such as it is their prominent habitat.

Truth of the matter is that we are never likely to know for sure though.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Mattshark

[Ell]

Second link and attached story: ...You do realize, if this mysterious something was between 150 and 300 feet, three foot crab pots with some crustaceans in them would be kind of beneath its notice. That's like a Great White trying to make a living off minnows. There isn't enough there to justify messing with it.

General consensus is that some crab fishermen had some of their pots broken into, they got p***ed and emotional and saw something in the water. probably a sperm whale off in the distance, and by the time they got back to shore they'd been attacked by a three hundred foot pure white shark that actually came up to the surface so they could see it, even though the fishing grounds were in very deep water and the pots were a long ways down.

And of course it went away and never returned, which just made the story easier to inflate.

The problems with the story are everywhere in it. Not the least of which is the white color. A lot of people yell "Well it was a Megalodon coming up to the surface for some reason, from way down deep, where they've all turned white because there's no light!"

The problem with this is that we have met sharks from down that deep. They're all dark. Some of them look almost black.

And some people go on to say "Well of course it wasn't really three hundred feet, the fishermen were just really freaked out and scared. It was probably more like sixty - which is Meg size!" First of all, the shark arbitrarily being Meg-sized is just that, arbitrary. If they were exaggerating out of fear it could have been any size between 0 and their estimation. That Megalodon supporters just choose Meg size is an indication of their reliability. Or lack of.

Secondly, I find it very ironic that these same people claim the fishermen can be trusted on their word and nothing else because of their stolid nature and their unwavering fortitude and no-nonsense 'seen everything' attitude. And yet in the next sentence we're both told these men saw something and FREAKED OUT SO MUCH SO FAST that they were giving size estimates of three hundred feet. Convenient, isn't it?

I'm getting sidetracked. Nobody has reported sighting fifty foot sharks swimming the seas. The fact that everyone who wants Meg to still be alive REFERENCES the Port Stephens thing kind of shows how slim pickings are.

Since I have identified the Beast of Hook Islands as not a sea serpent, but a school of fish, I have been wondering about this 1918 'Megalodon' interpretation. Can it be that this also was a school of fish? There are several indications that it was a school of fish: its large length and size, the boiling water, the white 'body', perhaps even the disappearance of the crayfish pots in which a large shark would not have been interested, but a large school of fish might have eaten such prey.

Or what about a school of squid? Is that possible? Does such a school make water 'boil'?

Edited October 21, 2009 by Ell

[MichaelW]

Remember those fishermen who dredged up that colecanth in the Indian Ocean 65 million years after they supposedly went extinct? I think it might exist, after all, our oceans are the last final place on Earth that haven't been fully explored.

Maybe it was the one that ate that Great White off the coast of Australia?

[Mattshark]

Remember those fishermen who dredged up that colecanth in the Indian Ocean 65 million years after they supposedly went extinct? I think it might exist, after all, our oceans are the last final place on Earth that haven't been fully explored.

Maybe it was the one that ate that Great White off the coast of Australia?

A great white ate the great white. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it a mystery.

Ceolocanths around now are not the same as the ones around 65mya, they don't even look the same. Please do a search and you'll find that extremely weak argument is baseless.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Mattshark

[Drunkenparrot]

Remember those fishermen who dredged up that colecanth in the Indian Ocean 65 million years after they supposedly went extinct? I think it might exist, after all, our oceans are the last final place on Earth that haven't been fully explored.

Maybe it was the one that ate that Great White off the coast of Australia?

I was browsing the wiki article on the Coelacanth to educate myself a bit when I came across this bit which seems relevant to your post..

Fossil record

Although now represented by only two known living species, as a group the coelacanths were once very successful with many genera and species that left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period, at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction. Before the living specimens were discovered, it was believed by evolutionists that the coelacanth was a "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods. It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years, but, in fact, the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.[citation needed] The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record.

Link.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth