Meg_Man Posted May 4, 2009 #126 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I thought that was still disputed? Has it now been decided that megalodon were of the genus Carcharocles? This is a very complex issue. However, I will simplify the details for you. Even though Megalodon was anatomically very similar to the Great White Shark, it was still a different shark. Great White Shark actually has close ancestral ties with an ancient Mako shark, I. Hastalis. Take a look at this picture: The only difference one can see in this comparison is that the fossil shark lacks the serrations. The Great White Shark is simply a more evolved ancient Mako. In comparison, a Megalodon tooth will possess larger root structure and more regular serrations. Hence, the similarities are superficial. Now check this illustration by a paleontologist: Evolution of Megalodon What do you notice in this evolutionary progression? An ancient giant shark, Otodus Obliquus, is gradually evolving with passage of time. This is an example of a chronospecies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 4, 2009 #127 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Hi Meg Man Can you take a guess at these ones, I can pick the Meg Tooth But I would appreciate your opinion on the other two. Thank you. Hi Seax There is that Meg tooth I was talking about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted May 4, 2009 #128 Share Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) This is a very complex issue. However, I will simplify the details for you. And the condescending begins. I'm sure I could have kept up with the undiluted explanation, but anyway, thank you for the information. Edited May 4, 2009 by Libby_The_Batfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meg_Man Posted May 4, 2009 #129 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Hi Meg Man Can you take a guess at these ones, I can pick the Meg Tooth But I would appreciate your opinion on the other two. Thank you. The upper pic is of a tooth of an ancestor of Megalodon: Probably Otodus Obliquss (if not serrated) or Carcharocles Aksuaticus (if slightly serrated). The lower pic is of a Megalodon tooth. Additionally, the yellowish tooth is also of a Megalodon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 4, 2009 #130 Share Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) The upper pic is of a tooth of an ancestor of Megalodon: Probably Otodus Obliquss (if not serrated) or Carcharocles Aksuaticus (if slightly serrated). The lower pic is of a Megalodon tooth. Additionally, the yellowish tooth is also of a Megalodon. Thank you very much Meg Man. I would have to go with Otodus Obliquus as there seems no serration's at all, it is very smooth. The base of the tooth is distinctly larger than the apex, it seems to taper of quite quickly, I would assume that is wear and tear. The small cusps seem to line up nicely. And the black one is a Meg huh! It is very small by comparison to the yellow one, do you think it more likely a juvenile specimen or a new tooth gone before it's time? I thought perhaps the gum line may be a clue there? This seems a good comparison, the second from the end looks quite like the one I have. I would say you have picked it, thanks again. Edited May 4, 2009 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meg_Man Posted May 5, 2009 #131 Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) Thank you very much Meg Man. You're welcome! And the black one is a Meg huh! It is very small by comparison to the yellow one, do you think it more likely a juvenile specimen or a new tooth gone before it's time? I thought perhaps the gum line may be a clue there? It is likely a Lateral tooth. With respect to the size of fingers holding it, it seems to belong to a very young Meg. Its root seems to be almost properly developed, however the tip of its blade seems to be damaged. If the tip is indeed damaged, than the tooth came from the front row and was fully developed. But if the tip of its blade is undeveloped than their is a possibility that this tooth was from the inner rows. Edited May 5, 2009 by Meg_Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 5, 2009 #132 Share Posted May 5, 2009 You're welcome! It is likely a Lateral tooth. With respect to the size of fingers holding it, it seems to belong to a very young Meg. Its root seems to be almost properly developed, however the tip of its blade seems to be damaged. If the tip is indeed damaged, than the tooth came from the front row and was fully developed. But if the tip of its blade is undeveloped than their is a possibility that this tooth was from the inner rows. Yes you are right on the money, the tip is indeed chipped. I did not realise it was another Meg, that is an excellent analysis. I was guessing the larger yellowish tooth as an upper anterior, would you agree? Thank you once again Meg Man. Great stuff there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentc Posted May 7, 2009 #133 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm just gonna play devils advocate, as I believe MattShark is 100% spot on. It's science, let's face it. BUUUUUUT....massive creatures could possibly evade detection (not at those depths), i.e. the giant squid and the colossal squid. Now I get that these have not exactly "evaded" detection, but they are still reclusive. I guess the best evidence would be another myth (which is folly from the beginning) - the Bloop, a sound frequency picked up by a government listening devices on the ocean floor. Scientists have stated it is within the frequency range for life, albeit an animal no one has ever seen. Supposedly it would be the largest animal on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordstanley Posted May 7, 2009 #134 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Maybe somewhere, you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 8, 2009 #135 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Maybe somewhere, you never know. Actually, we do know, and not anywhere. Where you gonna hide the thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratology Posted May 8, 2009 #136 Share Posted May 8, 2009 if its alive, i wanna see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abnpfinder Posted May 8, 2009 #137 Share Posted May 8, 2009 National Geographic channel had a show on the other night about megs. Prehistoric predators I think was the name of it. A very educational one, they talked about which classification megs should fall under amongst other things. Definitely should watch it next time it comes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+HerNibs Posted May 8, 2009 #138 Share Posted May 8, 2009 if its alive, i wanna see one. If it's alive, I don't want to see one. HN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick roll fan Posted May 8, 2009 #139 Share Posted May 8, 2009 i vote yes, remember folks, we have only explored about 5% of our oceans. there could be thousands upon thousands of new species out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteryMike Posted May 8, 2009 #140 Share Posted May 8, 2009 i vote yes, remember folks, we have only explored about 5% of our oceans. there could be thousands upon thousands of new species out there! Yeah except that 5% is the deepest depths of the ocean where only to small to medium size creatures live. And for a creature the size of Megalodon. Water pressure would crush it don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenik Posted May 13, 2009 #141 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I vote no. But I would love to see evidence of otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesspy Posted May 16, 2009 #142 Share Posted May 16, 2009 How can something that big not be noticed and what would it feed on in the seas of today? Whales? Where would breed? The sea is explored so little and we find something new all the time but something that big? I dont know its possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadaver Posted May 16, 2009 #143 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Yeah except that 5% is the deepest depths of the ocean where only to small to medium size creatures live. And for a creature the size of Megalodon. Water pressure would crush it don't you think? There is no proof that the water pressure would crush it is there? We never got to study Megalodons, so what if they could withstand that pressure, hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadaver Posted May 16, 2009 #144 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Plus, the Megalodon wouldn't be spotted if it stayed near the artic or antarctic, and it would have seals, whales, squids, etc. etc. etc. to eat. Just because it stayed near the shores in the past doesn't mean it can't change to survive. Adaptation people.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted May 16, 2009 #145 Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) Just because it stayed near the shores in the past doesn't mean it can't change to survive. Adaptation people.. As far as I am aware (and someone else will correct me if I'm wrong) the larger the animal is, the harder it is for it to adapt to surroundings (especially if changes happen quickly.) Megaladon was obviously huge, so I think it would have been very difficult for it to just 'adapt'. Edited May 16, 2009 by _Libby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadaver Posted May 16, 2009 #146 Share Posted May 16, 2009 As far as I am aware (and someone else will correct me if I'm wrong) the larger the animal is, the harder it is for it to adapt to surroundings (especially if changes happen quickly.) Megaladon was obviously huge, so I think it would have been very difficult for it to just 'adapt'. I never said it wouldn't be difficult. They could've migrated there, slowly over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 16, 2009 #147 Share Posted May 16, 2009 There is no proof that the water pressure would crush it is there? We never got to study Megalodons, so what if they could withstand that pressure, hmm? It is called physics the pressures are too great at that depth to for a cartilaginous skeleton to not collapse. So yes there is. Plus, the Megalodon wouldn't be spotted if it stayed near the artic or antarctic, and it would have seals, whales, squids, etc. etc. etc. to eat. Just because it stayed near the shores in the past doesn't mean it can't change to survive. Adaptation people.. It is far too cold there and it would be spotted easily enough still. The Antarctic is so cold it can not support any shark species, it is the only region of the world with out any sharks. The Arctic would require south migrations and even extant locally endothermic species can not survive there. Sleeper sharks can but it results in a very slow sluggish animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted May 16, 2009 #148 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I never said it wouldn't be difficult. They could've migrated there, slowly over time. That depends on the reason they (supposedly, and probably) became extinct... and I don't know how they did, so I can't answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 16, 2009 #149 Share Posted May 16, 2009 That depends on the reason they (supposedly, and probably) became extinct... and I don't know how they did, so I can't answer. I believe it was climate change leading to an ice age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted May 16, 2009 #150 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I believe it was climate change leading to an ice age. Which makes it very unlikely that they migrated 'slowly over time' to Arctic or Antarctic waters... Everything else aside, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts