village_idiot Posted April 17, 2009 #101 Share Posted April 17, 2009 70's actually, but it is not comparable because of habitat and lifestyle, it is a deeper water shark and hunts very different prey (though they are both lamniformes). Also diving is not exactly new. Thanks for the correction on the year... 1976? And no, diving is NOT new...but some species prefer iscolation and with 3/4 of the planet covered in water, some species may rem/ain hidden for years to come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted April 17, 2009 #102 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Thanks for the correction on the year... 1976? And no, diving is NOT new...but some species prefer iscolation and with 3/4 of the planet covered in water, some species may rem/ain hidden for years to come... Isolation only works when the ecology of an area supports it ie it is self sufficient so to speak. I'm not sure how any isolated area could support a meg, especially considering their wide range before their extinction, they were literally a worldwide species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted April 17, 2009 #103 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Thanks for the correction on the year... 1976? And no, diving is NOT new...but some species prefer iscolation and with 3/4 of the planet covered in water, some species may rem/ain hidden for years to come... Diving was not very common through the first half of the 20th century, I would say it IS a recent development. Isolation in the ocean means no food, especially for an animal that eats whales. Most deep water species are very small and sparse and certainly could not sustain a megalodon. Marine ecology is fair more stringent that terrestrial ecology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poleflux Posted April 18, 2009 #104 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Erm, no it was actually neither the opposite sex or a sub species, it was a completely different species. Why do you think it would be there? The coast of Florida, Bermuda and the Bahamas? Three huge tourist regions in the Bermuda (its not real) triangle. well there we go again, using our monkey brain, I am related to the neanderthal he was human you can be related to the chimp if you prefer to believe that personall I have yet to see a monkey get dressed to go to work and build his own house and make tools. the large brow ridge and robust body frame of neanderthal is a man, maybe that is why it is hard for you to accept, however you look more like a chump if your ancestor is a chimp! male and female humans appeared to be different species only because you wouldnt populate the earth with your sister. we eventually blended into our now modern homosapien, adam and eve, had two sons, was eve their mother and their mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiMbob32292 Posted April 18, 2009 #105 Share Posted April 18, 2009 (edited) Poleflux, dude are you serious... Ok back to the main topic, all of Mattsharks arguments make sense but the only thing I disagree with is how there is an abundance of food in the shallow waters. I mean look at the giant squid its around 30-40 feet in length and it eats small animals. You never know we could find a sepecies that is very SIMILAR to the Megalodon but.. it would have to live in the shallow water and the shark would have to have adapted to eating smaller creatures down there, plus they would have to sustain the pressure underneath there which is always possible. I dont believe the ACUTAL Megalodon exhists but there could always be a SIMILAR speicies that we do not know about. Edited April 18, 2009 by JiMbob32292 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capoeiranger Posted April 18, 2009 #106 Share Posted April 18, 2009 ^Trust Mattshark, 3 years in this forum and I never won any arguments about sharks... and he's right, Megalodon, unlike Giant Squid, needs bigger meal and sports bigger appetite in order to survive the size, let alone dwell in deep parts of the sea, the food there is not abundance, it is in a way scarce, due to lack of sunlight, if the food aren't scarce, then some strange physical improvements on deep sea creatures aren't necessary, like the angler's fish "fishing stick" or some creatures' bioluminescence. It simply proves that the deeper you go, the fiercer the competition for food. And don't forget that no matter what the size of the squid, they have no bones, as in Megalodon's case, with body that big and sporitng many huge cartilages and jawbone, the odds are they're getting smaller in size to fits in, and thus losing the title "Megalodon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiMbob32292 Posted April 18, 2009 #107 Share Posted April 18, 2009 (edited) Yea he does seem to know an abundance of information about all sharks. The one thing im wondering is what could really pose a threat to that thing. You think that in todays times the Great White is a large preditor back then it must have dominated the sea. Edited April 18, 2009 by JiMbob32292 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted April 18, 2009 #108 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Poleflux, dude are you serious... Ok back to the main topic, all of Mattsharks arguments make sense but the only thing I disagree with is how there is an abundance of food in the shallow waters. I mean look at the giant squid its around 30-40 feet in length and it eats small animals. You never know we could find a sepecies that is very SIMILAR to the Megalodon but.. it would have to live in the shallow water and the shark would have to have adapted to eating smaller creatures down there, plus they would have to sustain the pressure underneath there which is always possible. I dont believe the ACUTAL Megalodon exhists but there could always be a SIMILAR speicies that we do not know about. That niche is already taken by the sleeper shark, hence I'd see it as extremely unlikely that this could occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted April 18, 2009 #109 Share Posted April 18, 2009 well there we go again, using our monkey brain, I am related to the neanderthal he was human you can be related to the chimp if you prefer to believe that personall I have yet to see a monkey get dressed to go to work and build his own house and make tools. the large brow ridge and robust body frame of neanderthal is a man, maybe that is why it is hard for you to accept, however you look more like a chump if your ancestor is a chimp! male and female humans appeared to be different species only because you wouldnt populate the earth with your sister. we eventually blended into our now modern homosapien, adam and eve, had two sons, was eve their mother and their mate? Right................. Did you actually ever attend school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrina11 Posted April 18, 2009 #110 Share Posted April 18, 2009 I agree with lots of people who said that ocean is way too big to be explored inch by inch. They could easily be hiding somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted April 18, 2009 #111 Share Posted April 18, 2009 I agree with lots of people who said that ocean is way too big to be explored inch by inch. They could easily be hiding somewhere. No, they couldn't. Animals are limited to certain habitats, even in the ocean (stick a reef fish in the middle of the ocean for example and it won't survive for example). This is a massive over simplification and in no way makes a difference. C. megalodon needs a specific environment, it cannot simply move to another part of the ocean. It also needs a viable breeding population, it certainly has not got one. We do not need to search the entire ocean. They are simply not in there viable habitat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clobhair-cean Posted April 18, 2009 #112 Share Posted April 18, 2009 No, they couldn't. Animals are limited to certain habitats, even in the ocean (stick a reef fish in the middle of the ocean for example and it won't survive for example). This is a massive over simplification and in no way makes a difference. C. megalodon needs a specific environment, it cannot simply move to another part of the ocean. It also needs a viable breeding population, it certainly has not got one. We do not need to search the entire ocean. They are simply not in there viable habitat. But they could have evolved invisibility and photosynthesis, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted April 18, 2009 #113 Share Posted April 18, 2009 But they could have evolved invisibility and photosynthesis, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrina11 Posted April 18, 2009 #114 Share Posted April 18, 2009 No, they couldn't. Animals are limited to certain habitats, even in the ocean (stick a reef fish in the middle of the ocean for example and it won't survive for example). This is a massive over simplification and in no way makes a difference. C. megalodon needs a specific environment, it cannot simply move to another part of the ocean. It also needs a viable breeding population, it certainly has not got one. We do not need to search the entire ocean. They are simply not in there viable habitat. Fair enough but what about other sharks that were thought to be extinct? And this one??? ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted April 18, 2009 #115 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Fair enough but what about other sharks that were thought to be extinct? And this one??? ?????? Neither was though to be extinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meg_Man Posted May 3, 2009 #116 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Megalodon is most likely extinct. The Great White Shark is the replacement of the Megalodon as we know it today. Megalodon wasn't replaced by any shark. It descended from the giant toothed Carcharocles line. The Great White Shark descended from the small toothed Carcharodon line. It was the most amazing shark though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrina11 Posted May 3, 2009 #117 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I can't wait to see what Mattshark is going to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meg_Man Posted May 3, 2009 #118 Share Posted May 3, 2009 The one thing im wondering is what could really pose a threat to that thing. Huge predators don't have any enemies and are mostly safe from predation. Megalodon was at the top of the food chain during its time. Large marine mammals were its food. In-fact any living organism was a potential prey. The climatic shifts at the time of the End-Pliocene however proved to be devastating. You think that in todays times the Great White is a large preditor back then it must have dominated the sea. To the Megalodon, a Great White was just a snack. A shark which could actively predate on whales, would be un-rivalled in the oceans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted May 3, 2009 #119 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I can't wait to see what Mattshark is going to say about that. *makes popcorn sits down to watch* I could answer, but I'd rather wait for Matt, he has this sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 3, 2009 #120 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I can't wait to see what Mattshark is going to say about that. He is right, white sharks are believed to evolved from mako's and megalodon's line is now just an extinct one, most likely through climate change. The white shark has taken up much of the what niche was left by megalodon, but it is not its descendent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted May 3, 2009 #121 Share Posted May 3, 2009 He is right, white sharks are believed to evolved from mako's and megalodon's line is now just an extinct one, most likely through climate change. The white shark has taken up much of the what niche was left by megalodon, but it is not its descendent. I thought that was still disputed? Has it now been decided that megalodon were of the genus Carcharocles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 3, 2009 #122 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I thought that was still disputed? Has it now been decided that megalodon were of the genus Carcharocles? It is still disputed but the majority of the evidence suggests that the mako are the whites ancestor and it is convergent evolution in terms of the teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted May 3, 2009 #123 Share Posted May 3, 2009 It is still disputed but the majority of the evidence suggests that the mako are the whites ancestor and it is convergent evolution in terms of the teeth. Ahh, I see. Google has failed me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 3, 2009 #124 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Ahh, I see. Google has failed me. Pretty much every paper post 2006 says Carcharocles but obviously that does not always filter through to other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted May 3, 2009 #125 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Pretty much every paper post 2006 says Carcharocles but obviously that does not always filter through to other sources. The Wikipedia page on megaladon has more information under the heading "Megaladon within Carcharocles" than it does under the heading "Megaladon within Carcharodon", but that's pretty much the most I've seen which sways towards the Carcharocles classification. Other sites just say that it is disputed. Hmm, I need new sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts