How Megalodon possibly looked like

[Semyon]

(06-22-2022, 05:49 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(06-22-2022, 01:10 AM)Semyon Wrote: If you are not interested in this animal at all, don't reply and don't post erroneous claims.

Erroneous claims? Yeah right, I have talked with people that actually investigated this animal and they shared they opinions with me, that is why all the information that I shared is correct and had an backup.

BUT, like I say before, this animal is not important for me, so good luck, I will not waist time in an animal which not even the experts had a consensus on its size/weight (based only in teeth and vertebraes and a lot of assumption), I am not interested at all.

Bye.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you ?

Which people investigating this do you refer ? Pimiento ? Shimada ? Cooper ? Kent ? Godfrey ? Ferrón ? Perez ? Greenfield ? Siversson ?...


Because those are the people actually actively working as academics on this genus since two decades, and none of them are claiming about a new body plan. The sculpture at the Smithsonian is based on mako (following Brett Kent and Hans Sue suggestions) but is still cruisiform very much like a great white shark. From what I've seen, the people you refer are deviant users, comments sections and tweets filled with wishful thinking, no data, no review, no actual work.

You don't even check the links and data provided so you're clearly not serious nor an academic and certainly less interesting to talk with than investigating about this fascinating genus.

You can't even properly list the actual updated status about phylogeny (Greenfield 2022), body size (Perez 2021), metabolism (Ferrón 2017)... so please either you check the actual data or don't argue there is a new form to be accepted because this is simply wrong. Reply