Thegreatsilence Posted May 2, 2012 #51 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Or at least more whales found swimming around with big bites taken out of them. That's quite unlikely because Meg targeted principally the flippers of its preys. So that would not be a good point for disregarding a giant shark's existence. I think there is still a chance for a new predatory 43 feet (13 m) shark to exist. And there won't be any shortage of whales if those are Minke whales and beaked whales because they are quite common and this shark might be very rare as a top predator. Moreover Its hunting strategy may be different from that of the GWS's and that would explain why it is so rarely seen and at last it lives in the middle of the Ocean. Edited May 2, 2012 by Kouprey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vitruvian12 Posted May 2, 2012 #52 Share Posted May 2, 2012 That's quite unlikely because Meg targeted principally the flippers of its preys. So that would not be a good point for disregarding a giant shark's existence. I think there is still a chance for a new predatory 43 feet (13 m) shark to exist. And there won't be any shortage of whales if those are Minke whales and beaked whales because they are quite common and this shark might be very rare as a top predator. Moreover Its hunting strategy may be different from that of the GWS's and that would explain why it is so rarely seen and at last it lives in the middle of the Ocean. How could you possibly know what area of a whale a long extinct shark targeted? You seem to be stating that the lack of evidence of its existence is due to its rarity and unknown behavior instead of its actual non existence. As far as living in the middle of the ocean goes, werent they a coastal fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockabyeBillie Posted May 2, 2012 #53 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I'll file this sighting in the "Wouldn't it be cool if it were true?" cabinet. Agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Clough Posted May 2, 2012 #54 Share Posted May 2, 2012 As far as living in the middle of the ocean goes, werent they a coastal fish? Megaladon was, yes... although it is a bit confusing I believe Kouprey is indicating that there is a chance that there is a different giant shark that lives in mid ocean. I gather this from this quote:I think there is still a chance for a new predatory 43 feet (13 m) shark to exist. As for the flipper targeting thing, it might be the case that we find whale fossils that have bite damage to the fluppers but not other places (I do not know if this is true, I do not know a lot about cetacean paleontology) however even if this is the case, there are other possible explanations besides they were targeting only flippers. On most larger whales a bite from even a creature of melagadon size would not hit bone unless the bite was to a flipper, for isntance. Also given that sharks have a relativly weak bite force for thier size, it might be that megalodon would not have been able to bite through larger whale bones (spine and ribs) and thus avioded biting them when feeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thegreatsilence Posted May 2, 2012 #55 Share Posted May 2, 2012 How could you possibly know what area of a whale a long extinct shark targeted? You seem to be stating that the lack of evidence of its existence is due to its rarity and unknown behavior instead of its actual non existence. As far as living in the middle of the ocean goes, werent they a coastal fish? Blocky head, robust teeth and jaws = Whale eater, bone-crusher and ripper, immobilize its prey by severing its tail or flippers and thus letting it almost no chance to survive especially if it's a smaller whale. Longfins=Pelagic, not coastal. There is a very good detailed Wikipedian article on Megalodon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Clough Posted May 2, 2012 #56 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Dude, even if you are getting your information from wikipedia, never admit that... Since all we ever find of megalodon are teeth (and occasionaly jaws) how can fin length (or even head shape) be known? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thegreatsilence Posted May 2, 2012 #57 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Lord of the deep, that's how the Polynesians call It. Zane grey had seen one of them at Rangiroa, a green and yellow shark whith immense pectoral fins. Megalodon's descendant or a close relative, a whale-eater for sure. Not a fish tale. Longfin mako are said to be close relative of Megalodon, by extrapolating they would look alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRYSiiSx2 Posted May 2, 2012 #58 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Dude, even if you are getting your information from wikipedia, never admit that... Since all we ever find of megalodon are teeth (and occasionaly jaws) how can fin length (or even head shape) be known? Please show me a link to any jaw ever being found? I'm sick of your "know-it-all" attitude... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted May 2, 2012 #59 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Yes. Just like coyotes started to replace the void left by wolves in Yellowstone and grew bigger and stronger. Meg went extinct about 1,5 million years ago, so there was enough time span for an other shark to evolve to somewhat fill this empty niche. Beaked whales and giant squids would make good and sizeable preys for it. The issue is, the meg probably died out due to it's niche disappearing. So there didn;'t have to be something to fill it. Even it it did, this niche doesn't require it to be filled by a creature of equal or similar size. Further, in the case of beaked whales and giant squid, we already know of creatures that feed on them successfully. There's no seeming niche that needs to be filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Clough Posted May 2, 2012 #60 Share Posted May 2, 2012 'jaws' persae are not found, hwne I speak of finding jaws I am speaking of large nubers of teeth found in close enough asssociation that it is possible to determine the number of teeth in each row of teeth in a megalodons mouth (thus allowing accurate jaw reconstructions). I'm sick of your "know-it-all" attitude... Like I give a crap about what you think of my attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRYSiiSx2 Posted May 2, 2012 #61 Share Posted May 2, 2012 'jaws' persae are not found, hwne I speak of finding jaws I am speaking of large nubers of teeth found in close enough asssociation that it is possible to determine the number of teeth in each row of teeth in a megalodons mouth (thus allowing accurate jaw reconstructions). Like I give a crap about what you think of my attitude. lol.. just lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thegreatsilence Posted May 2, 2012 #62 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Further, in the case of beaked whales and giant squid, we already know of creatures that feed on them successfully. There's no seeming niche that needs to be filled. And what about Sperm whales, Bryde's whale and Minke Whale ? They all live in Tropics. Orcas don't really live there. What kind of predators would keep their population in check then ? And look at dino history, a large theropod always evolved right after an other one disappeared. Why wouldn't be the same for sharks ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted May 2, 2012 #63 Share Posted May 2, 2012 And what about Sperm whales, Bryde's whale and Minke Whale ? They all live in Tropics. Orcas don't really live there. What kind of predators would keep their population in check then ? And look at dino history, a large theropod always evolved right after an other one disappeared. Why wouldn't be the same for sharks ? Large theropods evolved to keep pace with large herbivores, but the evolution of dinosaurs is not relvant. Sperm whales have low birth rates and take a long time to mature. This keeps their population in check. Brydes whale is much the same, with a year long pregnancy and a maturation rate of 13 or so years. Their population is kept in check by this slow birthrate. Further, the sperm whale spend s much of it's time in cooler north waters, and orcas have been found in every major oceanic body. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thegreatsilence Posted May 6, 2012 #64 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Blocky head, robust teeth and jaws = Whale eater, bone-crusher and ripper, immobilize its prey by severing its tail or flippers and thus letting it almost no chance to survive especially if it's a smaller whale. Longfins=Pelagic, not coastal. There is a very good detailed Wikipedian article on Megalodon. There was also that huge shark called "Black demon" in the sea of Cortez. It was accused by fishermen to dismember seals, sea lions and whales and to leave huge bite marks on them. Of course opponents of this idea will advance boat collisions or orcas as the most probable answer, so the debate may possibly be never settled down. Edited May 6, 2012 by Kouprey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted May 6, 2012 #65 Share Posted May 6, 2012 A viable population of megalodon could not hide, that is the long and short of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangepeaceful79 Posted May 8, 2012 #66 Share Posted May 8, 2012 This is one of those debates where the truth will be the answer to the question "which is more likely?" Which is more likely - that a breeding population of 60-100ft ultra carnivorous sharks are trolling the ocean at depths where they don't belong, filling a biological niche which no longer exists, and leaving no physical trace whatsoever as they do so? OR that known large species such as Orcas, Whale Sharks, and Sperm whales have been repeatedly misidentified by people with less than opportune visual conditions? Come on folks, its not that hard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac525 Posted August 12, 2014 #67 Share Posted August 12, 2014 There is this article but I can't find any follow up as to the tooth they say they have www.sagenews.ca/article.asp?id=3052 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted August 12, 2014 #68 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Well, since you revived this, I'd like to add something. 1) Sharks have vertical tail fins; whales have horizontal. 2) Barnacles cannot attach themselves to shark skin due to the rough denticles that cover the body. Not to raise the point too strongly, but an unknown shark species markedly different from known sharks might have a smooth skin. There's a 99% chance you're right, but it's not dead certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted August 13, 2014 #69 Share Posted August 13, 2014 There is this article but I can't find any follow up as to the tooth they say they have www.sagenews.ca/article.asp?id=3052 DISCLAIMER: The above article is provided for entertainment purposes only and the article, image or photograph held out as news is a parody or satirical and therefore faux in nature and does not reflect the actions, statements or events of real persons. The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the authors of The Sage Satire and forum participants on this web site do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the The Sage News Network or the official policies of the The Sage News. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Ford Posted August 13, 2014 #70 Share Posted August 13, 2014 This is one of those debates where the truth will be the answer to the question "which is more likely?" Which is more likely - that a breeding population of 60-100ft ultra carnivorous sharks are trolling the ocean at depths where they don't belong, filling a biological niche which no longer exists, and leaving no physical trace whatsoever as they do so? OR that known large species such as Orcas, Whale Sharks, and Sperm whales have been repeatedly misidentified by people with less than opportune visual conditions? Come on folks, its not that hard. I guess we will only know for sure when a tornado sucks them up out of the water and forms a Megalodonado! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Clough Posted August 13, 2014 #71 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I guess we will only know for sure when a tornado sucks them up out of the water and forms a Megalodonado! Somewhere out there a SyFy producer just had an orgasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyverna Posted August 14, 2014 #72 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Huh, that's pretty interesting! :0 I've never seen this video before. I wonder what that creature to the right of the camera is...I'm not an expert on deep water creatures. A whale shark, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now