Size comparisons

[GuateGojira]

(01-23-2022, 05:48 PM)LoveAnimals Wrote: Very nice work lad! Nice scaling and information as always but I'm pretty sure the Megalodon model wasn't based just on a scaled up version of the Great white shark,
The silhouette of the giant shark is mostly based on this study here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nstruction

On which I based my latest size comparison, comparing the largest dimensions of Megalodon (20 meters) and Livyatan (17.5 meters) 

Additional note, the Livyatan model is an edited version made by Smilodon Maximus of the model used in the very beautiful miniseries on YouTube that represent realistic interpretations of prehistoric animals

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
Also regarding the mass estimate, I'm pretty sure a 27-59 tons is a bit too low for a megalodon that large shown in your size chart, because a latest study gives a much bulkier bauplan for Megalodon
https://www.palass.org/sites/default/files/media/progressive_palaeontology/2021/ProgPal2021%20Abstract%20Booklet.pdf



Page 19 contains the dimensions and discussion where they conclude the mass of 61 tonnes for 15.93 metres. 
Now, isometric scaling to 20 meters would give over 120 tons and that's the reason why I don't always buy isometric scaling as it can give very inflated and exaggerated sizes and I also doubt a megalodon of max size grew anywhere close or over 100 tons, perhaps 70-80 tons shouldn't be that inaccurate but that's just guess estimate. 

Here's a Screenshots from the study of the estimated body mass of megalodon, what do you think about it? It'd be nice to know your opinion :) 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

I read the study of Cooper et al. (2020) and is based mainly in sharks related with the great white, so there is no surprise that the results showed an oversized white shark, then that "new" image of Megalodon is again, unreliable. I saw even a video about this from Paleontologist Roberto Diaz Sibaja ("Palaeos" in FB and Youtube) where he mention this error. This is like if this people is trying to reconstruct a puma using for model a lion! Definitelly not the correct form and again we are runing in circles with these estimations.

About the unpublished document of Cooper et al., if they continue using that overlarge white shark model, I am not surprised that they will get that big body mass. I will like to ask, why they don't use other body plan models if we already know that the white shark is not the correct one? Reply