![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Origin of the white shark Carcharodon (Lamniformes: Lamnidae) based on recalibration of the Upper Neogene Pisco Formation of Peru, DANA J. EHRET,*, BRUCE J. MACFADDEN, DOUGLAS S. JONES, THOMAS J. DEVRIES, DAVID A. FOSTER, RODOLFO SALAS-GISMONDI, Paleontology, Volume 55, Issue 6, pages 1139–1153, November 2012 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2012.01201.x/abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.136.254 ( talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/megalodon_as_sandtiger.htm Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 14:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
In the information-bar, it lists the genus as carcharodon. Is this a reflection of Agassiz's classification, or should it be changed to carcharocles; the more accepted genus?--THobern 11:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern ( talk • contribs)
complete skeleton of megalodon has never been found, only its teeth, so its impossible to estimate its size Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
i hope you know that sharks are
cartilaginous and not bony fish and therfore do not fossilize at all
Metamorphosed Fossil (
talk)
16:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
the only fossil remains of any shark for that matter are mostly its teeth only, and some few scattered vertebra and that is all. Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 10:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312174733.htm Please read and see what you all think. Enlil Ninlil ( talk) 00:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
yes sharks are cartilaginous and therefore do not fossilize at all, the reason why their teeth fossilize is because its covered in enamel Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 10:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I know very little about this shark and shark research, so bare with me. I have some problems with this passage,
Based on what I have briefly read of Megalodon, Hunting the Hunter it seems like a popular book. Has any of this book been discussed or critiqued in a published journal by other researchers? I have searched google scholar for 'Jeremiah megalodon' and the only hit is this book and possibly Incremental growth and diagenesis of skeletal parts of the lamnoid shark Otodus but I don't have access to it. Is this book considered a reliable source to shark researchers?
..his method is considered to be among the most reliable. I have searched via google books for the word reliable and there are no hits in this book. I have read various passages and I have found only one comment so far as to how reliable the estimate is. There is a line in the book were a guy called David Ward apparently said This is a sound principle that works well with most sharks. Is this persons opinion the basis for this line. Based on a google search he does seem like a shark researcher, but is this one opinon anough to justifly that line which implies a consensus in the feild. That said I don't have full access to the book. And like above, google scholar says nothing about this estimate.
Many scientists acknowledge this conclusion. Does three cites equal most? One of them is the above book that reports the estimate, the second article I only have access to the beggining part and it says 17 metres or more and the third article just says 60 feet. The last two as far as I'm aware don't acknowledge Jeremiah or were the estimate came from. I don't have access to the full article but does the New Scientist article say in it 'many scientists acknowledge this estimate by Jeremiah or is the author of the article, James Riordon, being considered as a 'scientist'? Is Steven A. Alter, the author of the third article, actually a shark researcher or a fossil collector/seller? I stress I know very little about this field. I have no problem with the size estimate being in the article but the above paragraph seems potentially misleading to me. It implies that 60ft is the most widely accepted, reliable estimate. Is it? If it is then why aren’t proper peer reviewed articles cited? Steveoc 86 ( talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyway thanks for your time. Steveoc 86 ( talk) 11:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason for reassessment is inaccuracy regarding one possible cause of extinctions, linked to the extinction of basilosaurus: the later is believed to have become extinct 34 million years ago while megalodon's oldest remains are about 18 million years.
I've done a few GA reviews and written a few GAs, both including zoology and paleontology topics. I would not pass Megalodon as a GA in its current state, but think the faults can be fixed by a determined editor within 2 weeks:
Hi, LeGenD, I see you're doing some serious work here. Pl leave a message here or at my Talk page when you think it's time for me to do a more detailed review. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The article covers all the topics I'd expect an article about a fossil genus or species, and all the points that I was aware of from previous casual reading. I have not surveyed the scientifc literature to see if there are any other major issues that need to be covered, but I'm fairly confident that the article meets the GA criteria's requirement for "broad" coverage. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the structure is almost completely backwards. I think it makes much more sense to start with the evidence (the fossils) or perhaps the history of discovery, and that classification should be last, as it depends on the fossil evidence and on conclusion drawn from that evidence, e.g. reconstructions. For examples see Kimberella and Opabinia. So I'd go for the order: history of discovery; description of the fossils, including the time range ; reconstruction; lifestyle, behaviour & ecology; extinction (in this case the hypotheses depend on views of its ecological role, prey & hunting behaviour); classification. Since fixing this will very probably involve major changes, the rest of my comments are provisional and detailed review of the (new) sections will have to wait until the structure issue is resolved. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent findings from japan (almost complete natural set) shows that megalodon dental formula doesn't include intermediate tooth at the upper jaws, so the correct formula for upper jaw on this species is 3.0.7.4, that discovery directly links megalodon to the otodus lineage, putting on the Carcharocles genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxy75 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Since there have been major revisions, I'll approach this as a new GA nomination. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.
When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it
Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and
strike it out
BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. -- Philcha ( talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.
There have been attempts to insert a picture of a low quality tooth. The picture is taken at an odd angle and is completely redundant considering that there is a picture of a better quality tooth right above it. The other picture above is also better angled - pictures should be clear and not dramatically angled - and has a better scale. There seems to be no good reason to fill the article with inappropriate pictures of low-quality teeth.---THobern 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern ( talk • contribs)
I suggest to use a picture showing a megalodon tooth in a more common color--dark gray or black. Meg tooth like the one in the current photograph(light tan in color)is just a small proportion. VicLin ( talk) 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)VicLin
Steve's article is not a reliable source; it is an article for an amateur paleontological newsletter, and is hosted on a commercial site. Furthermore, it is incorrectly used to support the claim that 59' is a widely accepted length; the source simply says that this is the maximum accepted length; it doesn't comment on the level of support given to this claim.--THobern 05:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sources here, as many are at best "popular science" and few are by recognised academics. Here are some I'd feel confident I'd be confident using, based on Google Scholar (some probably are already used) - there seems little academic literature on megalodon:
I have corrected several idiocies (the word is deserved, even considering WP politeness guidelines), e.g. repeated use of "shows" for "claims". Generally, the lack of thought displayed by (at least) one previous editor is worthy of high schooler---and not one particularly bright at that. 188.100.205.226 ( talk) 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It has been pointed out in some sources that earliest remains of C. megalodon date back to late Oligocene epoch. Paleontologist David Ward has confirmed that he has an Oligocene age C. megalodon tooth in his possession (information from the book: Megalodon: Hunting the hunter). Some other scientists, M. D. Gottfried and R. Fordyce, have also confirmed the occurrance of C. megalodon fossils from Oligocene sediments (information from the research paper titled: An associated specimen of Carcharodon Angustidens (Chondrichthyes, Lamnidae) from the Late Oligocene of New Zealand, with comments on Carcharodon interrelationships). Some 2nd grade sources have also provided similar revelations. Hence, I believe that these confirmations should not be ignored and thus I have made relevant modifications in the article accordingly. Though, I am keeping the earliest date at 25 MYA for now, and Oligocene epoch ends at 23 MYA. However, I would appreciate some additional input in this regard.
LeGenD ( talk) 09:30, 02 November 2009 (UTC)
The picture of the tooth with the ruler is a little off; comparing the tooth in the picture against the ruler, it appears to be 17cm long. I have a larger tooth in much better condition (see the lead image in Shark tooth). I could take photos of the front and the back, with a ruler or scalebar that isn't misleadingly sloped and placed. I thought I'd check here first though, so as not to step on any toes.--THobern 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern ( talk • contribs)
People should keep in mind that scientists have yet to reach a consensus on the genus for the Megalodon and the dispute continues to date. So we cannot just out-rightly declare that it is Carcharodon megalodon or Carcharocles megalodon. Until the controversy is resolved, we need to adopt a cautious tone. The Oligocene age records of Megalodon contradict with the suggestions of "Carcharocles proponents." These findings indicate that Megalodon actually co-existed with the Carcharocles angustidens and expose the flaws in the theory proposed by the "Carcharocles proponents."
LeGenD ( talk) 08:05, 08 November 2009 (UTC)
Skimming the cited source, I couldn't find any mention of the claim that C. megalodon reached 20m. Could I get a direct quote from the book? Secondly, the part about the Bertucci reconstruction will have to go; his reconstruction is not reliable; it was an unpublished display piece.--THobern 08:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that we have two similar images, it's obviously pointless to keep them both; which one do people prefer?--THobern 15:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
leaving my oppinions surrounding the Meg's bite force aside, the section clearly says 5 times the power of T-Rex. It is of course talking about the bite force but Megalodon DOES NOT have a bite of AT LEAST 100t. Now 18t is pretty excessive for a shark but 100t!? It needs changed. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is the study that got the 20t bite for T-Rex. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-T-rex-Had-the-Strongest-Ever-Bite-of-a-Land-Animal-55140.shtml T-Rex's article also needs up-dating with this. So i will post it on the Rex talk page too. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I say it didnt have a 100t bite force as that is the truth. But the main page indirectly says that (though probally by accident). And i have never heard of a T Rex bite force as low as 3.6t. I dont see the problem with the study (though the link i gave isnt the best refference i know). Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling this is the ref you ment [2]. If so i can already see its flaws. Computers may estimate a GWS bite at 2t, but that doesnt compare to real life in the field bite tests which have never yielded more than 400 pounds. But then it goes and says that the GWS bite is the strongest of any mosern animal, but 2t isnt more than a Salty's bite of 3t. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay but Saltys still have a stronger bite (the one that yeilded over 3t was only 4.5m long, they too can excced 6m). And what i meant by 100t is that the article says meg has a bite 5 times more powerful than a T rex. Yet Meg has an 18t bite (i belive) but Rex has been found with 20t (ill dig the link up soon). Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
found it. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 18:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
shark teeth are NOT attached to their jaws: its not because of their jaws that they show a strong "bite force", but because of their very sharp teeth, which enables them to cut through Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The 20 ton (for T. Rex) estimate should be the one we use for this article. Meers's estimate for T. Rex bite is 183 kN to 235 kN, and he got that number by scaling up the bite force with weight, which is I think is how the Megalodon bite force estimates were found. (Big weight to small weight is 114 tons/65 tons, which is about 182201 newtons/108514 newtons) Estimates for all the animals listed vary a lot anyway, even that of the great white shark, so I think that we should just remove the section comparing the megaldon's bite force to the other animals'. Qwertzy ( talk) 03:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that some non-members of wikipedia have attempted to remove entire sections from the article (e.g. Hunting behavior and bite force sections were removed by an IP 206.226.143.4). These types of actions warrant attention from fellow wikipedians and some protection status shall be awarded to the main article. It requires lots of effort and time to make useful contributions to an article and acts like these can tarnish the hard work and should be discouraged. I have restored these sections now.
LeGenD ( talk) 10:46, 03 December 2009 (UTC)
While the appearance of Orcas during Pliocene may be perceived as one of the factors behind Megalodon's demise. The reasons cited are not very convincing to many experts. Megalodon was still better at killing whales. What Orcas could achieve with pack behaviour, Megalodon could achieve single-handedly. Also, this hypothesis has been questioned in a recent documentary on Megalodon by National Geographic due to lack of convincing evidence and the observation that the great white shark persists to the present time, despite being targeted by Killer Whales. A fight with pack predators from Miocene age has been demonstrated in the documentary. Megalodon kills one individual from the pack and drags the remaining pod members to greater depths, where the pod members are forced to abandon their pursuit to avoid any potential breathing issues. This should be kept in mind: Modern whales cannot fight so well against pack predators because they aren't as well armed, are surface breathers, and also have sometimes calves to protect. So criticism (opposing views) to this hypothesis should not be ignored but pointed out in the main article.
LeGenD ( talk) 08:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have merged content of interspecific competition section with range and habitat section and expanded information in several sections with new references. Their is better correlation between information presented in different sections now. LeGenD ( talk) 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
not a productive or even useful thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There have been theories that megalodon existed until 10,000 years ago, and even that it is still extant. Should this be in the article? - Richard Cavell ( talk) 12:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
megalodon was an Evolutionary failure, probably got wiped out by Killer Whales Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
|
I suppose most, if not all, scientists don't take the 'alleged' sighting of a giant white shark off the coast of Port Stephens, Australia in 1918 seriously. This giant shark was said to be about 80 feet long and swallowed crayfish (lobster) traps whole. I am only metioning it, because, if I don't write about it, someone who read about the story is going to ask about it. It is a very infamous "fish tale" about the ultimate fish which got away. A lot of books about sharks, and 'mysteries' of the ocean, do bring it up. 204.80.61.110 ( talk) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Bennett Turk
this giant shark did not survive unfortunately, and was hunted down by a pack of Killer Whales Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"over 28 times greater than that of Dunkleosteus at 6.3 kN (6,300 lbf), over 10 times greater than that of great white shark at 18 kN (4,100 lbf), over 5 times greater than that of T. rex at 31 kN (7,000 lbf), and also greater than that of Predator X at 150 kN (33,000 lbf)."
So 6.3 kN = 6,000 ibf. But 18 kN is only 4,100 kN? Also how and why do you suppose a GWS can exert that? They hunt fleshy things (like seals) not crustaceants (like the nurse shark does). A show measured many animal bite forces, the GWS and Nurse Shark were two of them. They excerted <400 and ~1000 pounds respectivly. So the mis types need fixed, and probally so do the forces them selves. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 14:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Leedsichthys is a larger predator than megalodon Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
complete fossil remains of Leedsichthys have been found, as this fish is made up of bone and not cartilage. Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 11:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Basilosaurus, Kronosaurus, Liopleurodon, Mosasaurus, Tylosaurus, Megalodon, Deinosuchus etc etc were all in similar dimensions and we should give up our immature ways as to whether whos larger. Evolution does not favour which class you belong whether you a fish, reptile or mammal Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 12:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The new infobox image is hardly better than the previous one, which contains actual teeth and was taken by a Wikipedia user, the new one seems to be all reconstruction and had some iffy license information (no confirmed OTRS), it is noisy, distorted by perspective, and badly cropped. I'd prefer the old one back. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this article, its overall tone and such, glorify the Megalodon a little too much. it also seems to make whales and other cetaceans seem inferior or incompetent. It should be changed so it sounds like it's describing an animal, and not an action hero. Star Hound ( talk) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the article a bit. I made it clear that Megalodon was not superior or better than any of the toothed whales that coexisted with it, and I removed the idea of it eating sperm whales, because I am unable to find any evidence of the animal eating sperm whales. Star Hound ( talk) 16:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a question regarding this at the bottom but personally I believe that Megalodon was only 12 metres long and weighed 20-30 tonnes (40 tonnes max), since to me the idea of +15 metre and +30 tonne predatory shark is just, no offence, ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.201.190 ( talk) 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
And it's in PLOS, so it's free, and we can use their images and text: http://www.ploscollections.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010552;jsessionid=98877ADBE526C9F39CB33DF115FE0694 FunkMonk ( talk) 06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The section quite clearly explains Megalodon's cannibalistic tendencies but only its inclusion into the Extinction section hints that cannibalism may have led to the extinction of the species. Can the section clearly say that that is a possibility with (of course) references to back it up? It might seem obvious that cannibalism was partly responsible for the extinction, but the number of successful cannibalistic fish that are alive today is quite large. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved the text from that section to the one that discusses its prey. I am afraid that keeping it in the Extinction section without a source saying that cannibalism caused the extinction would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If the Megalodon is a cryptid how come there are no undigested remains of both least concern and endangered cetacean species littering the ocean floor or attacks on ships due the classic case of mistaken identity so why is it in that catagory? in order to maintain such a monster of a shark would require a vast ammount of food meaning that the efforts of protecting marine life would have been wasted since a Megalodon female would have eaten every last species just to prepare for repoduction the notion of such a monster still living today is beyond insanity. So answer the riddle why this unstoppable killing machine a cryptid? remember this animal requires more food than any living fossil up to date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto457 ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
males may not eat as much meat but the females maybye the bigger problem and besides a species like that cant hide forever, think of it if they are still alive and have a population wouldn't the EPA and World Wildlife Foundation take notice that the poulations of modren marine life have disappeared but the fishing boats were not in the area where the species vanished just look at the behavior of the descendent the Great White if that species can do damage to humans just imagine a megalodon doing the same thing it would make Jaws look like Finding Nemo, where as the issue of the chupacabra is completly diffrent( Crypto457 ( talk) 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC))
Um are you suguesting that these extinct killing and eating machines might exist if thats the case wouldnt the marine life populations dwindle faster I mean really what kind of food scource that could keep up the needs of a population of these monsters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto457 ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Result: The consnsus is to not move the page. ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Megalodon →
C. megalodon — It appears that a bivalve with the genus name
Megalodon (bivalve) exists, so this article should probably be moved to C. megalodon, and the bivalve should be moved to Megalodon, as it would have priority.
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Megalodon could be stated as the largest and most powerful predator knwown, since current max size estimate for Dr Gottfried and Cliff Jeremiah, the most reliable today, indicate a shark heavier than a sperm whale (though not necessary longer), still bigger than the only specimen of Lyviatan melvillei, and both larger and heavier than the biggest jurassic pliosaurs (Predator X/Monster of Aramberri are estimated liberally at 45/50 tons).
Some would say that the Blue Whale is the largest predator ever since she eats krill, but currently, and even on some scientific or very serious papers, the Blue Whale isn't claimed as a predator or the largest predator, because the fact that many species of marine predators from the pasts have been stated sometimes as the largest predator that ever lived (giants piosaurs, shonisaurus sikanniensis, C.megalodon, lyviatan melvillei or modern sperm whales).
Also, in the light of the new largest teeth of the last years, Megalodon adults are widely regarded as reaching possiby currently 18 metres and 77 tons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.45.254 ( talk) 12:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Carcharocles currently redirects here, which is far from ideal. It should either have its own article or redirect to a higher level taxon where the Carcharocles vs. Carcharodon debate can be covered, possibly at Lamnidae or Otodontidae. As it stands, Carcharocles angustidens, Carcharocles auriculatus, and Carcharocles chubutensis are without a parent article. Thoughts? mgiganteus1 ( talk) 01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
while this is completely irrelevant to the content of the topic, i couldn't help but notice that the "in fiction" section states: "Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus (2009) and its sequel [...] are parodies of disaster films [...]". now i am not entirely convinced that they are really intended to be parodies, also i couldn't find any relevant sources to confirm this claim. (i'm curious now, i might actually watch them...) -- Phneutral ( talk) 18:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that Discovery Channel's new "documentary" entitled "Megalodon - The Monster Shark Lives" is another "fakeumentary" (I made up that word) written and produced by the same people that gave us "Mermaid - The Body Found"? I remember when Discovery had real science shows on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyhabenero ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the Discovery Channel show should be listed as "fiction". It is a competing and unorthodox hypothesis that theorizes that Megladon might not be extinct. Since scientists have, in the past, ultimately found living animals that were thought to be extinct, its a bit precocious to list the Discovery Channel Special as fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.26.139 ( talk) 15:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The references cited do not support the claim that the worldwide extinction is attributable to the closure. Bruner (1997) simply mentions the closure without discussion. Domning (2001) in a discussion of regional extinctions, mentions the (regional) extinction of C. megalodon without comment, citing Allmon et al. (1996). Allmon et al. (1996), again talking about a regional extinction, simply say "The reasons for the disappearance of C. megalodon from Florida waters in the early portion of the Late Pliocene is unknown, but a contributing factor may have been a decrease in the abindance and diversity of large marine vertebrates..." WolfmanSF ( talk) 08:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The proposed method is: mass in kilogram = 3.29E−06[TL in (meters)^3.174].[7] According to this model, a 15.9 metres (52 ft) long C. megalodon would have a body mass of about 47 metric tons (52 short tons). I read this as: m=3.29E-6*TL^3.174 m=3.29E-6*15.9^3.174 = 21.4g which is a tad bit off. Cannot check [7], which is also unlikely to contain the original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.138.132 ( talk) 12:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I'll just change the masses that claim to follow that model to the right numbers, and when someone has it figured out right, it can be changed later. Qwertzy ( talk) 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | No big issues, I have also requested a copyedit. |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | Some convert issues are not taken care of. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | all fixed. |
![]() |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | All reliable. |
![]() |
(c) (original research) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Covers em' well. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | To the point, except for the anatomy section. Branches off to far in that section. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Pretty good. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Pretty flat. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All fair. |
![]() |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | All fair. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
I have noted about GAR on major contributors' talk pages. Allowing 2 days and then it will reach a decision. |
Please add any related discussion here.
Please specify any convert issues that remain in Megalodon. Thanks, WolfmanSF ( talk) 19:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Discovery -> Identification, pls change "On the basis of this observation, Agassiz assigned the genus Carcharodon to the megalodon" to "On the basis of this observation, Agassiz assigned megalodon to the genus Carcharodon", the new object being assigned to the existing category, rather than the other way around. Thx. 124.169.82.178 ( talk) 03:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I am curious as to how vertebrae from this shark have been uncovered, when shark skeletons are made of cartilage and thus highly unlikely to fossilize. I'm not denying that such vertebrae have been found, but it must be a very unusual phenomenon indeed for cartilaginous matter to fossilize. -- 24.36.139.110 ( talk) 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The main article edit option is not working for me currently. New information for the subject is available but cannot be included in the article due to this reason. What is the issue? -- LeGenD ( talk) 05:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Research on Megalodon have further progressed in recent times; more scientific papers have emerged in 2013. Scientific paper from Diedrich, in particular, is excellent, addresses some misconceptions, and offers a beautiful explanation of shark evolution since Eocene. These new scientific papers are now part of the references of the main article. Their is an upcoming scientific paper which delves deeper into the subject of extinction of Megalodon (seems to be a new theory); gigantism was an asset for Megalodon during ecological/environmental ground realities of Miocene but a drawback during ecological/environmental ground realities of Pliocene, specially after formation of Isthmus of Panama which facilitated decline in global marine productivity and natural cooling trends (I have access to some information of this paper but I have not used it as a source yet because the paper is pending publication which would happen in 2014). Also, some scientists have recently made presentations about rise and fall of prehistoric large sharks (including Megalodon); one is from Dr. Mike Siversson while another is from Dr. Bretton Kent; Dr. Mike Siversson explicitly disagrees with the speculation that raptorial delphinids have anything to do with extinction of Megalodon, and Dr. Bretton kent also mentions other reasons. Both presentations have been added in the external links section. Furthermore, here is a documentary which investigates the impact of formation of Isthmus of Panama on wildlife of Pliocene epoch: [ Clash of the Americas]. I have implemented some changes in the main article on the basis of all of these updates. Input from fellow contributors is welcome.-- LeGenD ( talk) 07:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I have a question: does it be relevant and not insulting to add the Battlefield 4 easter egg into the "in fiction" section? I did checked the edit history and talk page and not seen it be mentioned at all, so here is a background: There is an easter egg in Battlefield 4 where you can make the Megalodon to jump out of the water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-WladmrdNQ It is pretty cool and the video has over 3.25 million viewcount, but if you think that it should be added then go ahead. (I myself can't edit :)) Vulpecular ( talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"Maximum size of 14-18 m ?"
14 m is not a figure provided in litterature, that's rather a guesswork from some wikiguy.
The appropriate statement, based on modern consensus and published data, should be stated as "maximum size up to 18 m".
Enough of these personnal guessworks while we have actual paper.
Update about the appearance and extinction dates are needed. An appearance 28 millions years ago is highly discutable and is only known from a New Zealand example. Presumably, the 28 M old dated tooth has been displaced in older deposits and was much more recent. See Pimiento 2014.
Pimiento 2014 has updated too the final extinction date at 2.6 millions years ago, not 1.5 millions.
Article needs updates on these points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Over there ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This article has a section for nearly every paragraph, which is rather ridiculous. Most of the headings should simply be removed. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Since there are several other species of Carcharocles, wouldn't it be prudent to eventually split it off as its own article?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
We should mention these as how the Megalodon has had influence on pop culture. The sharks in these films are specifically called Megalodons in the film, just not the title. These are the guys who made the 3 popular Sharknado films. 64.228.91.73 ( talk) 00:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is Megalodn's mass determined? The reason I ask is because some calculations I did seem to get different figures. Using the square cube law and comparing Megalodon to the largest Great White sharks, as most people do. The largest Great Whites were almost 7 metres and alomost 4 tonnes. Taking the 14 metre Megalodon estimates and using the square cube law, a 14 metre Meg would have been about 8 times as heavy as a 7 metre Great White. So about 30-35 tonnes. Of course a 15 metre Meg, which is the average estimation, would have been heavier. It also assumes Meg having similar proportions to Great Whites, when some think it slimmer and others the opposite. But I still find it hard to believe the weight exceeding 40 tonnes despite these allowances. Again huge estimates of 18 metres would be considerably higher, but for the more reliable 15 metres is this calculation correct or accurate? If not could someone explain the errors in it and how the weight of sharks are determined? 112.134.231.137 ( talk) 17:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Origin of the white shark Carcharodon (Lamniformes: Lamnidae) based on recalibration of the Upper Neogene Pisco Formation of Peru, DANA J. EHRET,*, BRUCE J. MACFADDEN, DOUGLAS S. JONES, THOMAS J. DEVRIES, DAVID A. FOSTER, RODOLFO SALAS-GISMONDI, Paleontology, Volume 55, Issue 6, pages 1139–1153, November 2012 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2012.01201.x/abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.136.254 ( talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/megalodon_as_sandtiger.htm Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 14:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
In the information-bar, it lists the genus as carcharodon. Is this a reflection of Agassiz's classification, or should it be changed to carcharocles; the more accepted genus?--THobern 11:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern ( talk • contribs)
complete skeleton of megalodon has never been found, only its teeth, so its impossible to estimate its size Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
i hope you know that sharks are
cartilaginous and not bony fish and therfore do not fossilize at all
Metamorphosed Fossil (
talk)
16:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
the only fossil remains of any shark for that matter are mostly its teeth only, and some few scattered vertebra and that is all. Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 10:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312174733.htm Please read and see what you all think. Enlil Ninlil ( talk) 00:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
yes sharks are cartilaginous and therefore do not fossilize at all, the reason why their teeth fossilize is because its covered in enamel Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 10:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I know very little about this shark and shark research, so bare with me. I have some problems with this passage,
Based on what I have briefly read of Megalodon, Hunting the Hunter it seems like a popular book. Has any of this book been discussed or critiqued in a published journal by other researchers? I have searched google scholar for 'Jeremiah megalodon' and the only hit is this book and possibly Incremental growth and diagenesis of skeletal parts of the lamnoid shark Otodus but I don't have access to it. Is this book considered a reliable source to shark researchers?
..his method is considered to be among the most reliable. I have searched via google books for the word reliable and there are no hits in this book. I have read various passages and I have found only one comment so far as to how reliable the estimate is. There is a line in the book were a guy called David Ward apparently said This is a sound principle that works well with most sharks. Is this persons opinion the basis for this line. Based on a google search he does seem like a shark researcher, but is this one opinon anough to justifly that line which implies a consensus in the feild. That said I don't have full access to the book. And like above, google scholar says nothing about this estimate.
Many scientists acknowledge this conclusion. Does three cites equal most? One of them is the above book that reports the estimate, the second article I only have access to the beggining part and it says 17 metres or more and the third article just says 60 feet. The last two as far as I'm aware don't acknowledge Jeremiah or were the estimate came from. I don't have access to the full article but does the New Scientist article say in it 'many scientists acknowledge this estimate by Jeremiah or is the author of the article, James Riordon, being considered as a 'scientist'? Is Steven A. Alter, the author of the third article, actually a shark researcher or a fossil collector/seller? I stress I know very little about this field. I have no problem with the size estimate being in the article but the above paragraph seems potentially misleading to me. It implies that 60ft is the most widely accepted, reliable estimate. Is it? If it is then why aren’t proper peer reviewed articles cited? Steveoc 86 ( talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyway thanks for your time. Steveoc 86 ( talk) 11:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason for reassessment is inaccuracy regarding one possible cause of extinctions, linked to the extinction of basilosaurus: the later is believed to have become extinct 34 million years ago while megalodon's oldest remains are about 18 million years.
I've done a few GA reviews and written a few GAs, both including zoology and paleontology topics. I would not pass Megalodon as a GA in its current state, but think the faults can be fixed by a determined editor within 2 weeks:
Hi, LeGenD, I see you're doing some serious work here. Pl leave a message here or at my Talk page when you think it's time for me to do a more detailed review. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The article covers all the topics I'd expect an article about a fossil genus or species, and all the points that I was aware of from previous casual reading. I have not surveyed the scientifc literature to see if there are any other major issues that need to be covered, but I'm fairly confident that the article meets the GA criteria's requirement for "broad" coverage. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the structure is almost completely backwards. I think it makes much more sense to start with the evidence (the fossils) or perhaps the history of discovery, and that classification should be last, as it depends on the fossil evidence and on conclusion drawn from that evidence, e.g. reconstructions. For examples see Kimberella and Opabinia. So I'd go for the order: history of discovery; description of the fossils, including the time range ; reconstruction; lifestyle, behaviour & ecology; extinction (in this case the hypotheses depend on views of its ecological role, prey & hunting behaviour); classification. Since fixing this will very probably involve major changes, the rest of my comments are provisional and detailed review of the (new) sections will have to wait until the structure issue is resolved. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent findings from japan (almost complete natural set) shows that megalodon dental formula doesn't include intermediate tooth at the upper jaws, so the correct formula for upper jaw on this species is 3.0.7.4, that discovery directly links megalodon to the otodus lineage, putting on the Carcharocles genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxy75 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Since there have been major revisions, I'll approach this as a new GA nomination. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.
When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it
Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and
strike it out
BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. -- Philcha ( talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.
There have been attempts to insert a picture of a low quality tooth. The picture is taken at an odd angle and is completely redundant considering that there is a picture of a better quality tooth right above it. The other picture above is also better angled - pictures should be clear and not dramatically angled - and has a better scale. There seems to be no good reason to fill the article with inappropriate pictures of low-quality teeth.---THobern 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern ( talk • contribs)
I suggest to use a picture showing a megalodon tooth in a more common color--dark gray or black. Meg tooth like the one in the current photograph(light tan in color)is just a small proportion. VicLin ( talk) 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)VicLin
Steve's article is not a reliable source; it is an article for an amateur paleontological newsletter, and is hosted on a commercial site. Furthermore, it is incorrectly used to support the claim that 59' is a widely accepted length; the source simply says that this is the maximum accepted length; it doesn't comment on the level of support given to this claim.--THobern 05:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sources here, as many are at best "popular science" and few are by recognised academics. Here are some I'd feel confident I'd be confident using, based on Google Scholar (some probably are already used) - there seems little academic literature on megalodon:
I have corrected several idiocies (the word is deserved, even considering WP politeness guidelines), e.g. repeated use of "shows" for "claims". Generally, the lack of thought displayed by (at least) one previous editor is worthy of high schooler---and not one particularly bright at that. 188.100.205.226 ( talk) 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It has been pointed out in some sources that earliest remains of C. megalodon date back to late Oligocene epoch. Paleontologist David Ward has confirmed that he has an Oligocene age C. megalodon tooth in his possession (information from the book: Megalodon: Hunting the hunter). Some other scientists, M. D. Gottfried and R. Fordyce, have also confirmed the occurrance of C. megalodon fossils from Oligocene sediments (information from the research paper titled: An associated specimen of Carcharodon Angustidens (Chondrichthyes, Lamnidae) from the Late Oligocene of New Zealand, with comments on Carcharodon interrelationships). Some 2nd grade sources have also provided similar revelations. Hence, I believe that these confirmations should not be ignored and thus I have made relevant modifications in the article accordingly. Though, I am keeping the earliest date at 25 MYA for now, and Oligocene epoch ends at 23 MYA. However, I would appreciate some additional input in this regard.
LeGenD ( talk) 09:30, 02 November 2009 (UTC)
The picture of the tooth with the ruler is a little off; comparing the tooth in the picture against the ruler, it appears to be 17cm long. I have a larger tooth in much better condition (see the lead image in Shark tooth). I could take photos of the front and the back, with a ruler or scalebar that isn't misleadingly sloped and placed. I thought I'd check here first though, so as not to step on any toes.--THobern 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern ( talk • contribs)
People should keep in mind that scientists have yet to reach a consensus on the genus for the Megalodon and the dispute continues to date. So we cannot just out-rightly declare that it is Carcharodon megalodon or Carcharocles megalodon. Until the controversy is resolved, we need to adopt a cautious tone. The Oligocene age records of Megalodon contradict with the suggestions of "Carcharocles proponents." These findings indicate that Megalodon actually co-existed with the Carcharocles angustidens and expose the flaws in the theory proposed by the "Carcharocles proponents."
LeGenD ( talk) 08:05, 08 November 2009 (UTC)
Skimming the cited source, I couldn't find any mention of the claim that C. megalodon reached 20m. Could I get a direct quote from the book? Secondly, the part about the Bertucci reconstruction will have to go; his reconstruction is not reliable; it was an unpublished display piece.--THobern 08:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that we have two similar images, it's obviously pointless to keep them both; which one do people prefer?--THobern 15:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
leaving my oppinions surrounding the Meg's bite force aside, the section clearly says 5 times the power of T-Rex. It is of course talking about the bite force but Megalodon DOES NOT have a bite of AT LEAST 100t. Now 18t is pretty excessive for a shark but 100t!? It needs changed. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is the study that got the 20t bite for T-Rex. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-T-rex-Had-the-Strongest-Ever-Bite-of-a-Land-Animal-55140.shtml T-Rex's article also needs up-dating with this. So i will post it on the Rex talk page too. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I say it didnt have a 100t bite force as that is the truth. But the main page indirectly says that (though probally by accident). And i have never heard of a T Rex bite force as low as 3.6t. I dont see the problem with the study (though the link i gave isnt the best refference i know). Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling this is the ref you ment [2]. If so i can already see its flaws. Computers may estimate a GWS bite at 2t, but that doesnt compare to real life in the field bite tests which have never yielded more than 400 pounds. But then it goes and says that the GWS bite is the strongest of any mosern animal, but 2t isnt more than a Salty's bite of 3t. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay but Saltys still have a stronger bite (the one that yeilded over 3t was only 4.5m long, they too can excced 6m). And what i meant by 100t is that the article says meg has a bite 5 times more powerful than a T rex. Yet Meg has an 18t bite (i belive) but Rex has been found with 20t (ill dig the link up soon). Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
found it. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 18:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
shark teeth are NOT attached to their jaws: its not because of their jaws that they show a strong "bite force", but because of their very sharp teeth, which enables them to cut through Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The 20 ton (for T. Rex) estimate should be the one we use for this article. Meers's estimate for T. Rex bite is 183 kN to 235 kN, and he got that number by scaling up the bite force with weight, which is I think is how the Megalodon bite force estimates were found. (Big weight to small weight is 114 tons/65 tons, which is about 182201 newtons/108514 newtons) Estimates for all the animals listed vary a lot anyway, even that of the great white shark, so I think that we should just remove the section comparing the megaldon's bite force to the other animals'. Qwertzy ( talk) 03:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that some non-members of wikipedia have attempted to remove entire sections from the article (e.g. Hunting behavior and bite force sections were removed by an IP 206.226.143.4). These types of actions warrant attention from fellow wikipedians and some protection status shall be awarded to the main article. It requires lots of effort and time to make useful contributions to an article and acts like these can tarnish the hard work and should be discouraged. I have restored these sections now.
LeGenD ( talk) 10:46, 03 December 2009 (UTC)
While the appearance of Orcas during Pliocene may be perceived as one of the factors behind Megalodon's demise. The reasons cited are not very convincing to many experts. Megalodon was still better at killing whales. What Orcas could achieve with pack behaviour, Megalodon could achieve single-handedly. Also, this hypothesis has been questioned in a recent documentary on Megalodon by National Geographic due to lack of convincing evidence and the observation that the great white shark persists to the present time, despite being targeted by Killer Whales. A fight with pack predators from Miocene age has been demonstrated in the documentary. Megalodon kills one individual from the pack and drags the remaining pod members to greater depths, where the pod members are forced to abandon their pursuit to avoid any potential breathing issues. This should be kept in mind: Modern whales cannot fight so well against pack predators because they aren't as well armed, are surface breathers, and also have sometimes calves to protect. So criticism (opposing views) to this hypothesis should not be ignored but pointed out in the main article.
LeGenD ( talk) 08:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have merged content of interspecific competition section with range and habitat section and expanded information in several sections with new references. Their is better correlation between information presented in different sections now. LeGenD ( talk) 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
not a productive or even useful thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There have been theories that megalodon existed until 10,000 years ago, and even that it is still extant. Should this be in the article? - Richard Cavell ( talk) 12:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
megalodon was an Evolutionary failure, probably got wiped out by Killer Whales Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
|
I suppose most, if not all, scientists don't take the 'alleged' sighting of a giant white shark off the coast of Port Stephens, Australia in 1918 seriously. This giant shark was said to be about 80 feet long and swallowed crayfish (lobster) traps whole. I am only metioning it, because, if I don't write about it, someone who read about the story is going to ask about it. It is a very infamous "fish tale" about the ultimate fish which got away. A lot of books about sharks, and 'mysteries' of the ocean, do bring it up. 204.80.61.110 ( talk) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Bennett Turk
this giant shark did not survive unfortunately, and was hunted down by a pack of Killer Whales Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"over 28 times greater than that of Dunkleosteus at 6.3 kN (6,300 lbf), over 10 times greater than that of great white shark at 18 kN (4,100 lbf), over 5 times greater than that of T. rex at 31 kN (7,000 lbf), and also greater than that of Predator X at 150 kN (33,000 lbf)."
So 6.3 kN = 6,000 ibf. But 18 kN is only 4,100 kN? Also how and why do you suppose a GWS can exert that? They hunt fleshy things (like seals) not crustaceants (like the nurse shark does). A show measured many animal bite forces, the GWS and Nurse Shark were two of them. They excerted <400 and ~1000 pounds respectivly. So the mis types need fixed, and probally so do the forces them selves. Spinodontosaurus ( talk) 14:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Leedsichthys is a larger predator than megalodon Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 09:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
complete fossil remains of Leedsichthys have been found, as this fish is made up of bone and not cartilage. Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 11:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Basilosaurus, Kronosaurus, Liopleurodon, Mosasaurus, Tylosaurus, Megalodon, Deinosuchus etc etc were all in similar dimensions and we should give up our immature ways as to whether whos larger. Evolution does not favour which class you belong whether you a fish, reptile or mammal Metamorphosed Fossil ( talk) 12:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The new infobox image is hardly better than the previous one, which contains actual teeth and was taken by a Wikipedia user, the new one seems to be all reconstruction and had some iffy license information (no confirmed OTRS), it is noisy, distorted by perspective, and badly cropped. I'd prefer the old one back. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this article, its overall tone and such, glorify the Megalodon a little too much. it also seems to make whales and other cetaceans seem inferior or incompetent. It should be changed so it sounds like it's describing an animal, and not an action hero. Star Hound ( talk) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the article a bit. I made it clear that Megalodon was not superior or better than any of the toothed whales that coexisted with it, and I removed the idea of it eating sperm whales, because I am unable to find any evidence of the animal eating sperm whales. Star Hound ( talk) 16:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a question regarding this at the bottom but personally I believe that Megalodon was only 12 metres long and weighed 20-30 tonnes (40 tonnes max), since to me the idea of +15 metre and +30 tonne predatory shark is just, no offence, ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.201.190 ( talk) 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
And it's in PLOS, so it's free, and we can use their images and text: http://www.ploscollections.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010552;jsessionid=98877ADBE526C9F39CB33DF115FE0694 FunkMonk ( talk) 06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The section quite clearly explains Megalodon's cannibalistic tendencies but only its inclusion into the Extinction section hints that cannibalism may have led to the extinction of the species. Can the section clearly say that that is a possibility with (of course) references to back it up? It might seem obvious that cannibalism was partly responsible for the extinction, but the number of successful cannibalistic fish that are alive today is quite large. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved the text from that section to the one that discusses its prey. I am afraid that keeping it in the Extinction section without a source saying that cannibalism caused the extinction would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If the Megalodon is a cryptid how come there are no undigested remains of both least concern and endangered cetacean species littering the ocean floor or attacks on ships due the classic case of mistaken identity so why is it in that catagory? in order to maintain such a monster of a shark would require a vast ammount of food meaning that the efforts of protecting marine life would have been wasted since a Megalodon female would have eaten every last species just to prepare for repoduction the notion of such a monster still living today is beyond insanity. So answer the riddle why this unstoppable killing machine a cryptid? remember this animal requires more food than any living fossil up to date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto457 ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
males may not eat as much meat but the females maybye the bigger problem and besides a species like that cant hide forever, think of it if they are still alive and have a population wouldn't the EPA and World Wildlife Foundation take notice that the poulations of modren marine life have disappeared but the fishing boats were not in the area where the species vanished just look at the behavior of the descendent the Great White if that species can do damage to humans just imagine a megalodon doing the same thing it would make Jaws look like Finding Nemo, where as the issue of the chupacabra is completly diffrent( Crypto457 ( talk) 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC))
Um are you suguesting that these extinct killing and eating machines might exist if thats the case wouldnt the marine life populations dwindle faster I mean really what kind of food scource that could keep up the needs of a population of these monsters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto457 ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Result: The consnsus is to not move the page. ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Megalodon →
C. megalodon — It appears that a bivalve with the genus name
Megalodon (bivalve) exists, so this article should probably be moved to C. megalodon, and the bivalve should be moved to Megalodon, as it would have priority.
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Megalodon could be stated as the largest and most powerful predator knwown, since current max size estimate for Dr Gottfried and Cliff Jeremiah, the most reliable today, indicate a shark heavier than a sperm whale (though not necessary longer), still bigger than the only specimen of Lyviatan melvillei, and both larger and heavier than the biggest jurassic pliosaurs (Predator X/Monster of Aramberri are estimated liberally at 45/50 tons).
Some would say that the Blue Whale is the largest predator ever since she eats krill, but currently, and even on some scientific or very serious papers, the Blue Whale isn't claimed as a predator or the largest predator, because the fact that many species of marine predators from the pasts have been stated sometimes as the largest predator that ever lived (giants piosaurs, shonisaurus sikanniensis, C.megalodon, lyviatan melvillei or modern sperm whales).
Also, in the light of the new largest teeth of the last years, Megalodon adults are widely regarded as reaching possiby currently 18 metres and 77 tons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.45.254 ( talk) 12:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Carcharocles currently redirects here, which is far from ideal. It should either have its own article or redirect to a higher level taxon where the Carcharocles vs. Carcharodon debate can be covered, possibly at Lamnidae or Otodontidae. As it stands, Carcharocles angustidens, Carcharocles auriculatus, and Carcharocles chubutensis are without a parent article. Thoughts? mgiganteus1 ( talk) 01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
while this is completely irrelevant to the content of the topic, i couldn't help but notice that the "in fiction" section states: "Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus (2009) and its sequel [...] are parodies of disaster films [...]". now i am not entirely convinced that they are really intended to be parodies, also i couldn't find any relevant sources to confirm this claim. (i'm curious now, i might actually watch them...) -- Phneutral ( talk) 18:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that Discovery Channel's new "documentary" entitled "Megalodon - The Monster Shark Lives" is another "fakeumentary" (I made up that word) written and produced by the same people that gave us "Mermaid - The Body Found"? I remember when Discovery had real science shows on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyhabenero ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the Discovery Channel show should be listed as "fiction". It is a competing and unorthodox hypothesis that theorizes that Megladon might not be extinct. Since scientists have, in the past, ultimately found living animals that were thought to be extinct, its a bit precocious to list the Discovery Channel Special as fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.26.139 ( talk) 15:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The references cited do not support the claim that the worldwide extinction is attributable to the closure. Bruner (1997) simply mentions the closure without discussion. Domning (2001) in a discussion of regional extinctions, mentions the (regional) extinction of C. megalodon without comment, citing Allmon et al. (1996). Allmon et al. (1996), again talking about a regional extinction, simply say "The reasons for the disappearance of C. megalodon from Florida waters in the early portion of the Late Pliocene is unknown, but a contributing factor may have been a decrease in the abindance and diversity of large marine vertebrates..." WolfmanSF ( talk) 08:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The proposed method is: mass in kilogram = 3.29E−06[TL in (meters)^3.174].[7] According to this model, a 15.9 metres (52 ft) long C. megalodon would have a body mass of about 47 metric tons (52 short tons). I read this as: m=3.29E-6*TL^3.174 m=3.29E-6*15.9^3.174 = 21.4g which is a tad bit off. Cannot check [7], which is also unlikely to contain the original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.138.132 ( talk) 12:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I'll just change the masses that claim to follow that model to the right numbers, and when someone has it figured out right, it can be changed later. Qwertzy ( talk) 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | No big issues, I have also requested a copyedit. |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | Some convert issues are not taken care of. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | all fixed. |
![]() |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | All reliable. |
![]() |
(c) (original research) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Covers em' well. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | To the point, except for the anatomy section. Branches off to far in that section. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Pretty good. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Pretty flat. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All fair. |
![]() |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | All fair. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
I have noted about GAR on major contributors' talk pages. Allowing 2 days and then it will reach a decision. |
Please add any related discussion here.
Please specify any convert issues that remain in Megalodon. Thanks, WolfmanSF ( talk) 19:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Discovery -> Identification, pls change "On the basis of this observation, Agassiz assigned the genus Carcharodon to the megalodon" to "On the basis of this observation, Agassiz assigned megalodon to the genus Carcharodon", the new object being assigned to the existing category, rather than the other way around. Thx. 124.169.82.178 ( talk) 03:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I am curious as to how vertebrae from this shark have been uncovered, when shark skeletons are made of cartilage and thus highly unlikely to fossilize. I'm not denying that such vertebrae have been found, but it must be a very unusual phenomenon indeed for cartilaginous matter to fossilize. -- 24.36.139.110 ( talk) 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The main article edit option is not working for me currently. New information for the subject is available but cannot be included in the article due to this reason. What is the issue? -- LeGenD ( talk) 05:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Research on Megalodon have further progressed in recent times; more scientific papers have emerged in 2013. Scientific paper from Diedrich, in particular, is excellent, addresses some misconceptions, and offers a beautiful explanation of shark evolution since Eocene. These new scientific papers are now part of the references of the main article. Their is an upcoming scientific paper which delves deeper into the subject of extinction of Megalodon (seems to be a new theory); gigantism was an asset for Megalodon during ecological/environmental ground realities of Miocene but a drawback during ecological/environmental ground realities of Pliocene, specially after formation of Isthmus of Panama which facilitated decline in global marine productivity and natural cooling trends (I have access to some information of this paper but I have not used it as a source yet because the paper is pending publication which would happen in 2014). Also, some scientists have recently made presentations about rise and fall of prehistoric large sharks (including Megalodon); one is from Dr. Mike Siversson while another is from Dr. Bretton Kent; Dr. Mike Siversson explicitly disagrees with the speculation that raptorial delphinids have anything to do with extinction of Megalodon, and Dr. Bretton kent also mentions other reasons. Both presentations have been added in the external links section. Furthermore, here is a documentary which investigates the impact of formation of Isthmus of Panama on wildlife of Pliocene epoch: [ Clash of the Americas]. I have implemented some changes in the main article on the basis of all of these updates. Input from fellow contributors is welcome.-- LeGenD ( talk) 07:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I have a question: does it be relevant and not insulting to add the Battlefield 4 easter egg into the "in fiction" section? I did checked the edit history and talk page and not seen it be mentioned at all, so here is a background: There is an easter egg in Battlefield 4 where you can make the Megalodon to jump out of the water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-WladmrdNQ It is pretty cool and the video has over 3.25 million viewcount, but if you think that it should be added then go ahead. (I myself can't edit :)) Vulpecular ( talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"Maximum size of 14-18 m ?"
14 m is not a figure provided in litterature, that's rather a guesswork from some wikiguy.
The appropriate statement, based on modern consensus and published data, should be stated as "maximum size up to 18 m".
Enough of these personnal guessworks while we have actual paper.
Update about the appearance and extinction dates are needed. An appearance 28 millions years ago is highly discutable and is only known from a New Zealand example. Presumably, the 28 M old dated tooth has been displaced in older deposits and was much more recent. See Pimiento 2014.
Pimiento 2014 has updated too the final extinction date at 2.6 millions years ago, not 1.5 millions.
Article needs updates on these points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Over there ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This article has a section for nearly every paragraph, which is rather ridiculous. Most of the headings should simply be removed. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Since there are several other species of Carcharocles, wouldn't it be prudent to eventually split it off as its own article?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
We should mention these as how the Megalodon has had influence on pop culture. The sharks in these films are specifically called Megalodons in the film, just not the title. These are the guys who made the 3 popular Sharknado films. 64.228.91.73 ( talk) 00:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is Megalodn's mass determined? The reason I ask is because some calculations I did seem to get different figures. Using the square cube law and comparing Megalodon to the largest Great White sharks, as most people do. The largest Great Whites were almost 7 metres and alomost 4 tonnes. Taking the 14 metre Megalodon estimates and using the square cube law, a 14 metre Meg would have been about 8 times as heavy as a 7 metre Great White. So about 30-35 tonnes. Of course a 15 metre Meg, which is the average estimation, would have been heavier. It also assumes Meg having similar proportions to Great Whites, when some think it slimmer and others the opposite. But I still find it hard to believe the weight exceeding 40 tonnes despite these allowances. Again huge estimates of 18 metres would be considerably higher, but for the more reliable 15 metres is this calculation correct or accurate? If not could someone explain the errors in it and how the weight of sharks are determined? 112.134.231.137 ( talk) 17:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)