Cryptozoology forums > Animals > Prehistoric Life > view thread

Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Sun, Mar 27 2005, 2:36pm  I think the jaws of most ichthyosaurs, including shastasaururs, were not very strong, Cymbosponylus was an absolute exception, with jaws more resembling those of a mosaurus. Most modern whales feed on animals which are much smaller than themselves, many dolphins eat mainly small fish, even the giant beaked whales like the 12m long Baird´s whale feed mainly on smaller squid and fish, most beaked whales don´t even use their teeth for the hunt, they suck squid and fish like a vacuum cleaner. The snouts of many ichthyosaurs are very similar to those of some dolphins and beaked whales, even the sperm-whales jaws are compared to its size only tweezers-like. The only whales which kill larger prey are orcas and some of their closer relatives like the false orca kill large prey, and their snouts are short, the teeth large and the jaws broad. If you compare the skull of a Liopleurodon with those of an Orca or a Mosaursaur, you will see many similarities, because all killed larger prey. I could imagine even the largest ichthyosaurs feed on smaller squid and fishes, in a similar way sperm-whales do. The ability of sperm-whales to feed on smaller, but more frequent prey, allows them to grow so large. I know they kill even large prey like architeuthis, but even the largest giant squid weighs only some hundred pounds, and are very rare. I still don´t believe in a size of more than 16m for megalodon. All new information about meg says it was much smaller than the once estimated 20, with a maximum size of probably 16m. Just take the teeth, if you assume that megs and the great white had similar proportions(meg was bulkier, probably even its teeth were a bit larger compared to its size), you have to realize that they are only about the double size, but a 25m long meg would have teeth more than 30cm, nearly twice the size of the largest known tooth. P.S. English isn´t my mother-tongue too (I´m sure you allready recocgnized it). Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Sun, Mar 27 2005, 6:17pm  Well, majority os specialist say Meg have an average size of 15 m long but it's just sure larger individual have been larger. And my source indicate, from fragments of huge teeth, some Megs were arounn 70 feet long, even it there were really the largest. The most of ichthyosaurs were probably not half the predators the pliosaurs were but Cymbispondylus was exception and it seems be a relative to Metashastasaurus, even it should be authentificated. But the image representing Metashastasaurus seems to me appears to a large macropredator, don't you ? His form isn't like the shonisaur's. It's more look like the pliosaur form. And it's jaw seem very strong. But maybe I'm wrong, no more reports have been presented about that creature. For the moment, all of that is supposition. P.S. No, I thinked you were some english guy. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Mon, Mar 28 2005, 6:12am  If the metashastasaurus was really similar to shastasaurus, its jaws were long and beaklike, probably able to catch bigger fish and squid or smaller marine reptiles, but not able to kill very large prey. There are several controversies about the size of megalodon, some say they were only 11-14m long, some others say it reached 18m or more. But if I compare the size of the teeth from a great white with those of a megalodon, you see they are only a little bit more than two times longer, and the average size of white sharks is about 5m. I can´t understand how scientists estimated once a size of more than 30m for the meg, six times longer than a great white(Ok they thougth 12m were not uncommon for a great white), and still 18m would be much too large. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Mon, Mar 28 2005, 6:42am  You underestimate the size of Meg, my friend. All the scientists I have interrogate say the largest Megs were beteween 60 and 70 feet long, because for one inch tooth upper anterior tooth, you have a 2,5 m shark, so imagine with a 7 inches tooth. Okay for the early estimate of size but no doubt Meg was often 60 feet long. Studies indicate that shark have a bite with a power about 45 000 ibs per square inch. For survive, it should have ate 1,25 tons of flesh by day. Imagine the beast... For Metashastasaurus, the similarities are limited to the shape of the skull, no information have been presented about the jaws of the creature. But one thing sure, no pliosaur known was 100 tons. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: levthan posted Mon, Mar 28 2005, 1:47pm  Ok, ok...I think we've heard enough about the size of megs. While I agree that they were not generally as big as originally thought, a 40-50 foot long member of the Carcharodon genus is plenty big enough to be reckoned with. I hold the same for large pliosaurs like Liepleurodon or Kronosaurus; the average size was probably close to 60 feet long. Now, along with phemonenal bite pressure, Megs were also fairly maneuverable, thus quick to dodge danger. In all fairness, we totally sure how lithe and quick a large pliosaur, unless any of you have observed any firsthand. While I'm sure a giant icthyosaur was just as maneaverable as a Meg, and had large teeth, it's jaw structure wasn't made for huge, incapacitating chomps. Therefor, a bite from one of these guys, even if they were enormous, probably wouldn't take a large pliosaur or Meg out of the game. Of course, I feel if the roles were reversed, the icthyosaur would be forced to throw in the towel. So I think we could rule one of those guys out. I still think it would be 50/50 chance between a Meg and a pliosaur. However, since I also think the Meg would be a tad quicker, and fossil evidence shows they've been around a lot later than the marine reptiles, Carcharodon megalodon is the baddest boy under the waves.....if it's still around. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Mon, Mar 28 2005, 2:14pm  There is no indication showing jaws of the new Metashastasaurus. No reports have been presented yet about that but it would be coming soon... But the reprsentation of the creature http://www.rolexawards.com/special-feature/secrets/nicholls-summary. html seemshave huge jaws. Perhaps it would be a "pre-pliosaur". But for the moment I thnik Meg is more powerful and fearsome than any pliosaur. Some large teeth indicate female around 60 to 70 feet and 40 tons. Scientist thnik that predator was able to reach a speed of 25m/second. And his jaws were very powerful. A pliosaur wouldn't be a easy ennemy but it was not as fast as the Meg. Awaiting the reports about the Metashastasaurus, I stay on my opinion, Megalodon being the apex predator of all time. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: levthan posted Mon, Mar 28 2005, 9:09pm  I honestly did not think this thread would have carried on as long as it has. You certainly were really pushing the Metashastasaurus angle, Ted. My only complain is that it seemed like no one had read my initial post and kept bringing up blue whales. I mean, duh, they eat animal matter, but a carnivore and a predator is not the same thing. Blue whales are not predators and wouldn't stand a chance against anything else we've discussed, unless the antagonist in question willingly allowed itself to be gummed to death. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Mon, Mar 28 2005, 11:44pm  About Metashastasaurus...you indicate it was a microphag ? A filter feeder... But scientist I have consultate said me a new theory saying the largest marine reptiles like it can't, for anatomical reasons, fed on micro-prey. And the discoverer of the Meteshastasaurus, Elizabeth Nicchols, dead in 2004, said that creature was an ambush predator and I don't know filter feeder which hunt in ambush... But if that creature, was really a predator of small crature, what I don't believe, for the title of apex predator of all time, I'll take my money on Meg. 18 m long, 3 m jaws incredibly powerful, very fast, manoeuvrable, terribly fierce, with the most evolated brain of all fish. A Blue whale is the biggest animal ever bit a Meg, even if the whale would be a dangerous prey, would be able to stalk an kill the giant. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Cthulhu posted Mon, Mar 28 2005, 9:13pm  What scientists? Charcaroles megalodon got dropped to about 10 meters the last I heard. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Mon, Mar 28 2005, 11:36pm  What ?? 10 m? Come on...Largest Great Whites are about that lenght... What scientists, all scientitst, Mike Gottfried, Bertucci...all experts about Meg indicate a lenght between 16 and 21 m long; so... Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Tue, Mar 29 2005, 4:20am  Ted you allways repeat you story of "giant marine reptiles can´t be filter-feeders", but you don´t give any proof or reason for that. When I say a giant Ichthyosaur could have feed on small prey, I don´t say it was a filter-feeder. Sperm-whales are no filter-feeders, but their main-menu consists of squid and fish which are not longer than 2 or 3 feet. Why sould a giant reptile with a long narrow snout not be able to feed on smaller, but swarm-living prey? About the Megalodon-size: Sorry, now I understand your problems: You still believe in false sizes for the Great white. The absolute world-record for a Great White was a little bit longer than 7m, and this was a giant freakish female of very unusaul size, the average is much smaller, about 4,5 and 5m, 6m is allready gigantic and very rare. In old and even some newer books you can read of giant white sharks with lengths of 10 or even 12m. In fact not one of these lenghts was proofen, all were false or misinterpretations of basking sharks. Over the last hundred years, thousands of white sharks were killed, and none of them was nearly as big as 10. The jaws of Megalodon were not 3m, more about 1,8 for a big one and still huge. Even the very new BBC-documentation about seamonsters(and the BBC tends to make creatures bigger than they really are or were) quote a maximum lenght of 16m for the largest megalodons. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Tue, Mar 29 2005, 5:07am  Sorry, I´ve made a mistake, the average length for great whites is even smaller, 43-4,6m. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Tue, Mar 29 2005, 9:45am  There is no problem with my estimate of Meg size. When I say Great whites are 10 m, I suspect just that size because it's very probable the largest specimen have reached that lenght. Experts estimate now Meg size to 16 m, I agree, but they say also some very very large teeth, about 7,5 inches, indicate some mature female between 60 and 70 feet. I'm not saying it's an average, just the very big female. Even at 16 m long, a Meg is frightening impressive predatorn weighing between 35 and 45 tons, depending the estimations. I've studie Meg for several years from the teeth, my friend, I know what I'm saying. In the BBC doc, the Meg was a 16 m male and female are far larger, so... Megs are appeared 20 millions years ago. At this time, there were yet small, just around 25 feet long, because very close yet to carcharodon Chubutensis, the Meg ancetor. At 2 million years ago, the largest Meg lived at this time, with some female over than 60 feet. These monsters have probably reached that mass for hunt the modern whales, larger and swifter than the early whales Cethoters. For Metashatsaurus, I've contacted David Martill, expert about marine reptiles and advisor for the BBC doc. He said me Meta was able to eat anything in the seas, his shape do not indicate a predator of small prey, even if it was able to prey some small creatures. So, Meta is the largest predator and carnivore that ever lived, and probably one of the baddest, even if some Pliosaurs, Mosasaurs and giants shark were probably a bit badder. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Tue, Mar 29 2005, 10:57am  Even the guiness book of world-records gives a size of only 13,7m for the megalodon. It is completely impossible that any great white reached a lenght of 10m. If 5m is even large for a great white, a 10m long specimen would again weigh eight times of the 5m one. Do you know any animal which overgrows its biological maximum size for more than 30%? The 7m specimen was much larger than any other known white shark, 4times the weight of a normal shark. And we know not even one specimen of only 8m. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Tue, Mar 29 2005, 11:10am  Why do you read the guiness book ? It's not a sure source. Remember one thing, nobody know exactly the maximal lenght of the GW because one the shark is very rare. And the actual specimens are not very large because fishers have destroyed their source of food. There are many accounts of Ron and Valery Taylor who said they've seen 8 m specimen. The websites I've consult for the Meg lenght are very sure, you know. And I repeat, even a 16 m Meg would be the largest predatory fish, and in my opinion, the baddest of all predator. However, David Martill indicate me that's almost sure that some Pliosaurs Liopleurodon-like have reached 25 m in lenght, but certainly not 100 tons. This weight is just ridiculous... 50-60 tons are far more accurate and that's yet 7 times the weight of T-rex, so Lips were also very powerful predator. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Tue, Mar 29 2005, 4:24pm  Yes, the guinnes book is not the best source, but not the baddest. I informed me in several new books about sharks, and there were several longer articles about the megalodon, and all mentioned a size of only 12-15m for the megalodon. And the Great white seems to be even smaller. The longest ever corectly measured specimen was 6,4m, and a bigger one, which was not proofed was 6,6m, and one unproofed specimen was said to be 7m. There is no undoubtable proof for any white shark longer than 7m. The white shark was nearly hunted to extinction, so it is sure many record-specimen like the 6,4m(it was catched in the tweentys or thiertys) long were catched. There are many sightings of many animals which are much larger than every known specimen, but it is strange that such specimen were never proofed. It is often extremly difficult to estimate the size of a living and moving animal, especially in the water, and you can take it for granted most sightings of white sharks are overestimated. I agree the weight of the liopleurodon was overestimated too. The record weight for the blue whale is 190tons, but the longest (longer than the 190tons-specimen) with a length of 33m was only about 150tons. The highest possible proofed weight for sperm-whales was 57tons, but the next proofed weight was only 45 tons. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Wed, Mar 30 2005, 5:12am  I'm just sure that some individual of GW were around 8 m, Ron and Valery Tailor ae not fraud. This is not because the largest specimen caught were around 6-7 m that is the maximal lenght. Sightings, marks on whales body, teeth isloated in flesh of seals, are the proof that, at least before today, that huge specimen have existed. But today they're certainly very very rare. The largest authentificated sperm whale caught was around 68 tons but like GW ancient specimen were a bit larger. The whale ship Essex has been destroyed by a large bull sperm whale, estimated at 24 m long and 80 tons. A jaw ina museum of England belonged to an 25 m bull but it was possibly a freak, like some humans are 2,30 m. But the sperm whale, except possibly Metashastasaurus, is undoubatably the heaviest predator that ever lived. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Wed, Mar 30 2005, 7:52am  The size of sightings can´t be taken for absolut, they are often false. Even experts assume how difficult it is to estimate the size of living animals, especially when they are already very big, because they look even bigger, often more than a third more than the actual size. Here is a great link about the megalodon, with the best information about this creature I´ve ever seen, which states the maximum length of the largest know specimen with 15,7m, and an average of about 12m. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Wed, Mar 30 2005, 8:12am  You didn't have given the link but I know certainly it... The best info for Meg is MegMawl. Gottfried said me also the lenght of a large Meg was 16 m but there are have been certainly larger individual. Teeth of 2 million years belonged to a mature female between 60 and 70 feet long, sure source. For the size of the GW, I would say the largest individual of that species were larger but nobody can know that that for sure. But the largest specimen aren't the largest caught... Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Wed, Mar 30 2005, 9:01am  Damned...forgot the link...www.elasmo-research.org/education/ evolution/reconstruct_megalodon.htm - Yes it´s true that the largest caught great whites were not the largest ever living, but it is still very prabable that maximum biologial size is not much over the 7m. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Wed, Mar 30 2005, 10:42am  I don't think that. Mark teeth on body of whales killed in the Acores indicate very large specimen, GW don't have that limited size. I know this website, excellent, and I've contacted one of the experts who have made this website, Mike Gottfried. He told me there was probably larger individual, over than 18 m long for an estimated weight to over than 50 tons. other source indicate a bit larger size. In every case, Meg was between 16 and 21 m. Evene at 16 m, a Meg seems more fearsome than a large pliosaur. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Thu, Mar 31 2005, 4:27am  If the largest known teeth belonged to a nearly 16m long specimen, and the average was much smaller, 17m, or even 18m for the biggest female Megalodon of an unsual large megalodon-race could have existed, but 21m is too large. The facts are: We know no teeth from a specimen which reached more than 16m, that means even this was very very large, and much larger than the average. A 21m-specimen would be again three times larger than this record-specimen, and this is impossible. You say meg was in every case between 16 and 21m, but that´s not true, megalodon was between 11 and 14m, with a maximum lenght of about 16m. And 12m is the average, you should not forget this. We have very few specimens of pliosaurs, and how can we know there were not much larger ones? Dependent from the average lenght of an adult Pliosaurus of the species the 25m-Specimen belonged, you could estimate a maximum size. Same thing with metashastasaurus, it is very probalbe some specimen grew larger than 30. But it makes not much sense to speak about record specimens, the more important factor is the average size. In many books about animals, the stated sizes are those of the biggest ever seen(or not seen) specimen, but that makes no sense. When I read: Pike: lenght 1,5, weight 35kg, I could vomit, it seems like this were normal sizes, but they are absolutley not. If a standard female megalodon was about 12m, and a standard sized metashastasaurus was for example 25m( and if it was a superpredator), it is hard to imagine that the megalodon was able to kill the metashastasaurus. Some time ago, a szene was caught on film which shows a female orca(perhaps about 4m-4,5m) which killed a 3m long great white with ease, only to show its young how to eat. Even the GW is no unchallengable superpredator, sometimes it is only prey for bigger predators. And if an orca is able to kill a GW of about 70% of its own lenght just for fun, without being injured, it is not impossible that a pliosaurus could kill a meg too. Even the very aggressive and dangerous bullshark gets sometimes killed by crocodiles when it swims up in the rivers. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Thu, Mar 31 2005, 4:57am  Consult that site, Megmawl, you'll see I'm right about the Meg size. I thnik just ridiculous the average size was 12 m, okay for an adolescent male, but a female... An orca kill a GW 70 % as long, okay. But pliosaurs were not as intelligent, as fast as a Meg, whereas a killer whale is faster and smarter than a gret white. THERE ARE the factors for win that battle. And, there's no doubt that Meg was easly over than 16 m. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Thu, Mar 31 2005, 8:20am  So why is the estimation for the largest specimen only 15,7m? Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Thu, Mar 31 2005, 9:21am  I've contacted one of the experts which you telling me. He wrote me it was a total lenght but there were no doubt larger specimen, about 18 m long and 52 tons. And other experts, as much as experimented, indicate 70 feet long. Yoy don't know Vito Bertucci. This guy have realised the largest Meg jaw in the world, around 3 m high and wide, it belonged to a large female about 75 feet long. he made it from the largest teeth of the Meg and believe me this guy known perfectly Megalodons (he's dead drowned inf october 2004). MegMawl experts are also very good experts about giants shark and they indicate, for the specimen living there is 2 million years ago, size around 60 to 70 feet for the largest individual. I'm just talking about female, males didn't exceeded 14 m long. His largest size doesn't matter. A 12 m Meg would have been around 25 tons and yet a formidable predator. According to Richard Forrest, a 15 m long pliosaur was just 20 tons, so... There are good reasons to think that Liopleurodon was 25 m long but not the mass of 100 tons, I would say around 55 tons. Even it that's larger than the largest Meg, a Lip was not as fast, as intelligent than Megs. So, even it it was a dangerous ennemy, Meg coould kill it. But I would know what is your opinion about the weight of a 30 m Metashastasaurus ? Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Lovecraft posted Thu, Mar 31 2005, 4:58pm  According to your figure of 15 meters and 20 tons, it can be extrapolated that "Liopleurodon" weighed close to 100 tons. Here's how: Objects grow exponentially size, not linearly. So if object A is twice as long as object B; it won't weight twice as much, it will weigh eight times (2^3) as much. "Liopleurodon" is about 5/3 as big again as your figure, so it can be estimated that it weighs 125/27 (5/3^3) as much, or about 4.63 times as much. Therefore, according to your figure, a 25 meter animal proportioned the same would weigh 92.6 tons. Since body frames obviously vary, this isn't an exact figure. Presuming the animal is real (I am not convinced) I'd assume it could vary about 20 tons in either direction, still much more than 55 tons. For your 55 ton figure to work, the 15 meter pliosaur would only weigh 12 tons. On a different topic, some people have also contensted whether or not there are predatory sharks even bigger than Meg. Edestus giganteus is sometimes estimated as long as 55+, as big as Meg (I agree with Sordes as far as size goes). Parahelicoprion or Helicoprion may get even bigger, with estimates ranging from 50 feet to over 100 feet! All estimates go down with time, but both of these animals are concievable contenders. For a picture of these three fish, click here. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Fri, Apr 1 2005, 5:08am  David Martill himself said me a 25 Lip CAN'T be 100 tons. Look at this page and repeat what did you said. http://www.plesiosaur.com/liopleurodon.htm It's just ridiculous that Lip was as heavy as a blue whale, animal more massive, much more complex, and feeder filter, not like Lip, active predator. Meg, even if it was less longer than his relatives, was very much more massive. At 50 tons, Megalodon was too massive for that these creatures have been far powerful. And I repeat : even if a 55 Meg is a BIG MEG, no doubt that large female could have much larger, ask him to the experts ! Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Lovecraft posted Fri, Apr 1 2005, 6:49pm  Ted, I was well aware of that plesiosaur article before I wrote my last statement. That article merely discounts the reality of a pliosaur that large, it says little about the BBC's quote about the weight. I do find 150 tonnes, i.e. 165 tons, to be excessive though; somewhere under the 100 ton range seems more reasonable. And who is David Martill? As for a pliosaur matching the size of a size of a moderate blue whale, it's possible. The blue whale is actually not a very "massive" creature, it's rather elongated in shape, as these [LINK_1]photos[LINK_1] show. Also, what on earth do you mean by the blue whale being more "complex"? There is at least one "active" predator that meets or exceeded the theoretical size of the pliosaur. There is a 5 meter sperm whale jaw in the London Museum of Natural History belonging to a 25 meter individual. The sperm whale that sunk the Essex (a 240 ton ship) was probably also in the 25 meter range. Assuming normal body proportions, these whales may very well gotten into the 100 ton+ range. Sperm whales don't get this big anymore, but they show that a very large active predator can exist. Of course, a pliosaur that big could theoretically have been a scavenger or ambush predator as well. I'm surpised how you can judge the other sharks as being less formidable than a meg, seeing as how all of them are very fragmentary in nature. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Fri, Apr 1 2005, 8:22pm  Megalodon is much more massive than Helicoprion and Edestus. Edestus was a superpredator but only 6 m long. Helicoprion fed on small creatures. Meg was much a more powerful predator, no doubt about that, it was more evoluted (I'm french, sorry for eventual grammatical mistakes) I'm sure there were 100 tons predators. I'm aware about these large ancient sperm whales, truly monstruous, even if the bull which have destroyed the Essex was maybe a little exagerated... I always wanted believe to these 100 tons pliosaurs but all of my source, my serious sources, indicate there is no remains about a 100 tons pliosaur. David Martill is an advisor for the BBC documentary about marine reptiles, particulary Liopleurodon. He told me that there were good reasons to think that Lip was 25 m long but not in the 100 tons ranch. He thinks even a Liopleurodon wouldn' t be half the weight of a bull sperm whale. On this spanishlink http://marenostrum.org/paleontologia/liopleurodon/ , an estimation of a 25 m pliosaur, based on the 18 m, 25 tons Monster of aramberri, give a 50 metric tons. Liopleurodon wasn't built like a sperm whale, said me Martill. But I think personnaly that Metashastasaurus, the gigantic ichthyosaur found in canada, would be an active predator (his shape seems not belong to slow moving animal) and was at the top of the food chain (what Martill said me again). And a 29 m long Metashastasaurus would be larger than any other marine predator that I know. His jaws don't look like with the jaw of shonisaurus. http://www.rolexawards.com/special-feature/secrets/nicholls-summar y.html http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020824/bob10.asp Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Ted posted Fri, Apr 1 2005, 8:26pm  But, if you indicate me an evidence about a pliosaur that large, I will be very enthousiast. I've heard there are american reports about 120 long-100 tons Lip, so... Give me a proof and we'll see. For the moment, experts didn't said me anything about a possible 100 tons pliosaur, even if I thnik it's just possible that Metashastasaurus was that weight... Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: whalefan posted Wed, May 18 2005, 8:47pm  no, ppl only whales reach 100 tons, no pliosaurs or other reptiles, let's face reality, I know reports about 100 tons sperm whales I can give you the link if you can read russian, whalers mention these speciments and belive me whalers know how much animals weigh much better than scientists, they weighted every whale they caught, why there are 57 tons as max for sperm whales then? real answer is because scientists had chance to weigh only 2 sperm whales in 20 century, the only two whales that they found shored, it is laughable and according to this information sperm whales are 40(smaller one, length 15 meters) to 57(larger one length 17 meters) weight, scientists really know nothing of how much whales weigh, my father's friend was a whaler even he mentions 80 tons sperm whale they caught, he was some 25 meters long, how can we belive scientists after that? Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Jin posted Sat, May 21 2005, 10:33am  Why a reptile couldn't reach 100 tons ? Some dinosaurs were 100 tons and they were terrestrial reptile. We have done some calcul that prove that some large pliosaurs could have reach 100 tons, even more. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Megaselachus posted Tue, Apr 11 2006, 7:30pm  I've bought a prehistoric great white tooth recently:3.25 inches!And there was another one (hold) a little bit bigger... Someone said that GW can't reach a length over 7 meters but if I apply this formula "for one inch tooth upper anterior tooth, you have a 2,5 m shark",it gives 2.5*3.25= 8.12 meters. Is it exagerate? (Sorry, english is not my native language.) Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: dinosaur posted Sun, Nov 19 2006, 1:24pm  I would ike to think of a 55ft Edestus being as large as a 52ft Meg, but that is physically impossible. Here's the facts. 1: Edestus is shaped somewhat like an eel. A 52ft Meg would weigh 50 tonnes, a 55ft Edestus, or so my brother says, is 10tonnes! 2: Meg ate alot of fatty food(red meat), whikle Edestus ate fish(Not Leedsichthyss or Dunkleosteus size, of course). Dinosaur Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: Sordes posted Wed, Nov 22 2006, 7:46pm  In fact we have no idea how Edestus really looked, because there are only teeth of this animal, furthermore there is only ONE site which says that it actually reached this lengths, all other sources quote a much lower size. Subject: Re: largest aquatic predator? From: dinosaur posted Sun, Nov 19 2006, 1:44pm  I would ike to think of a 55ft Edestus being as large as a 52ft Meg, but that is physically impossible. Here's the facts. 1: Based on your picture, Edestus is shaped somewhat like an eel. A 52ft Meg would weigh 50 tonnes, a 55ft Edestus, or so my brother says, is 10tonnes!(Oh, look, guys, 5 times lighter!) 2: Meg ate alot of fatty food(red meat), whikle Edestus ate fish(Not Leedsichthyss or Dunkleosteus size, of course). All my sources(except a shark book which places Edestus at 12.5m and helicoprion at 30m.) state that Edestus is 6m,about 3 and a half times shorter than Ted's Meg, and I think Ted's '75ft' Meg would weigh 80tonnes, since a 14m whale shark is 40tonnes(and great whites are the heaviest sharks compared to body size). Sordes' 25m Lipleurodon would be 132tonnes. I think Meta is about 60tonnes, and the Essex destroyer is 150tonnes. The mosasaur is rather disappointing, at 40tonnes. Meta is not 100tonnes because it is shaped like cymbospondylus, even more eel-like than Edestus. Note: Though me my no longer be related to great white, it was built like one Lesson; Meg, sperm whale and liopleurodon knock out meta Dinosaur

Close Window