HOME | DD
Mcraelodon — Megalodon Nose problem
#megalodon #paleoart #shark #tutorial
Published: 2017-12-27 21:49:53 +0000 UTC; Views: 6570; Favourites: 78; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
ive started seeing this blunt nosed megalodon and ive decided to nick this problem in the butt before it becomes widespread.megalodon did not have as blunt a nose as some people have been restoring it.
there is no evidence for it in both jaw length proportion, niche, size, or ancestry and it seems this has originated with aGentlemanScientist in their video which they didnt give a source for their info on the matter.
they also mentioned megalodon would be covered in barnacles but large sharks today don't have them due to how their scales work, which are mostly microscopic and are basically teeth.
Related content
Comments: 78
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think it probably did have a blunt snout, if it hunted by ramming whales with its snout then it would definitely be blunt, and also look at this reconstruction of the skull, definitely blunt
cdn.discordapp.com/attachments…
i.redd.it/406lt1r5tgf11.jpg
megalodon skull ^
but then again this is just speculation and opinion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i know about the skull
its closer to what a porbeagle or salmon shark has than a blunt snout
im the one who found the skull on twitter and spread it
they increased the size of the rostral cartilage
shark-references.com/images/sp…
also that reconstruction is very old and also people seem to forget that white sharks have a pretty "short" nose based on the skeleton
img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3… here is a white shark with the jaws extended
the blunt nose isnt likely
especially if your ramming with your nose you want a smaller surface area in contact with the prey to inflict more damage which a pointed snout would help with
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
What kind of nose would be that? that will be really goofy!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
yes, id use salmon sharks and porbeagles as reference
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Also, have you seen the Meg? I think they used a blunt-nosed Megalodon, but that’s my perspective.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i havent but i have seen the design and its not good, its got 10+ gills
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well is the nose too blunt on it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've actually heard some scientists state that it'd look more like a Mako
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
not really, it would have been pretty robust, the reason makos are the way they are is because they specialize in speed.
something more like a porbeagle or salmon shark is more likely
recently cretoxyrhina was proposed to be pretty mako-esque based on tail morphology
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wouldn't an ambush predator like megalodon need to be more hydrodynamic though?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
robustness does not necessarily decrease hydrodynamics
also white sharks are ambush predators as well and they are pretty robust
so are porbeagles and salmon sharks
porbeagles and salmon sharks are especially robust
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've recently come across an actual fossil of a megalodon skull that managed to actually be preserved, and yeah, you were right about the snout
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
um im the one who spread that news, and this isnt based on that because it hasnt been described yet
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are very active in that field
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not arguing but what about the Megalodon skull and head impression currently at Zurich? It was apparently in a private collection for a while and a study on it is ongoing.
www.google.com/search?q=megalo…
While it might just be the way it was impressed and doesn't quite look like the snub-nosed description, it does seem to have a blunter, almost more porbeagle and tiger shark thrown into a blender.
EDIT: I didn't see you link the skull until after I posted, my apologies. Would like to hear you weigh in though because I'll be using C. megalodon in my writing soon for a paleo profile and any more up to date info is quite welcome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes the "nose" seems like that of a porbeagle, which are still pointed
and as such this "snub nosed" thing isn't really likely
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It looks rather like tiger shark.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the unpublished skull or the illustration
if its the publshed skull than it definitely does not
since tiger sharks have extremely broad almost square noses, which makes sense since they are the closest living relatives of hammerheads
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
pbs.twimg.com/media/DbOG9GHWsA…
This one has already been posted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
it hasnt been described at all though
and again this looks like a scaled up porbeagle or generic lamnid
with a conical nose
not anything like the shovel shape of galeocerdo
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Quite true. I think some might also get the comparison off due to confusion as to what constitutes pointy or not. When some state C. megalodon probably didn't look like a scaled up Great White, they look at the GW's big, very large and pointy nose and equate that to the nose not being pointy at all for Meg.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the nose of a great white is pretty short and rounded compared to its lamnid relatives
and i feel the need to "not be a scaled up great white" is strong but unwarranted since they were probably convergent in more than just tooth shape
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just saying in relation to something like a porbeagle or salmon shark. Just eyeballing it, to the layman the GW's nose does look a bit pointier and larger but I'd say that's more of an optical illusion because of the overall head-shape and proportion. I do agree on the convergence though. One could almost say the GW is a type of mako that's taking the role of a mini-meg.
Speaking of body parts though, what about fins in proportion to the body? What kind of shark would you say most closely matches C. megalodon because I've seen some reconstructions that range from "scales up Great White" to some which are a bit like a porbeagle to some like a shortfin or longfin mako. Even saw one that, while highly inaccurate in all likelihood, looked like a giant six-gill.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the most likely is porbeagles and salmon shark based ones
makos are not that good since they arent as bulky and are more adapted for sprinting after prey
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Duly noted duly noted, thanks! What about fin proportions? Also any idea on body coloration? Typical counter-shading for the family I'd presume? If so any particular tint?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
fin proportions would be like those of lamnids
and coloration might vary in terms of how saturated the color of the animal is and there might be tiny to medium sized spots in an irregular pattern across the body and these spots may be absent on certain individuals but the darks top, shiny sides, and white bottom is most likely since most pelagic lamniformes are colored like that
thresher sharks and lamnids are good inspiration
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Could you please draw a C. Megalodon using the skull? I can't make out the skull and to me it looks like a blob.
I don't usually pay attention to shark skeletons and basically all I know about them is that they're made of cartilage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
c1.staticflickr.com/1/764/2262… here is a good ref, the problem is most of the reconstructions based on trey the explainer's fish video is that they basically remove all the rostral cartilage, which is the stuff in front of the jaw
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Its tail would probably be broader and more crescent shaped to propel it through the water. Besides, evidence does suggest that Megalodon is likely in the family otodontidae, with the great white having evolved from an extinct mako. So, some anatomical changes would have had to have happened to allow the animal to survive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes but the family otodontidae is still more closely related to lamnids than to any other group
also we got a skull of a carcharocles megalodon
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you sure we've actually found a complete fossilized skull? because all pictures of the jaw were artificial reconstructions, so who knows what the actual mouth looked like. It could have still had a wider mouth to fit larger prey in. up-scaling an animal and calling it a day just won't work, even underwater. For megalodon to get bigger, it would have to have looked at least a little different from the great white.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ah yes, i can tell youve watched trey's video on the subject
dont trust trey on this
we have an associated tooth set from germany
pbs.twimg.com/media/DbOG9GHWsA… the skull
www.elasmo.com/genera/pics/neo… the tooth files
yes you are right BUT to those who do not study sharks closely they would have looked as similar as a porbeagle shark is to a white shark
the problem is that trey gave an example of a bad megalodon reconstruction to begin with
also basking sharks dont really have a hugely different tail size proportionally to that of white sharks
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, even mackerel sharks adapted for similar niches do have some differences. Megalodon could not have just looked like a giant copy of the great white. Also, evidence shows that Megalodon rammed its prey to fracture the rib cage and puncture the internal organs, so a blunter snout would make a better battering ram than a great white shark snout. So maybe its snout was like a bull shark snout. Its eyes may have also been smaller proportionate to its size and more deep-set. Also, even if its jaws were not blunter, they would have at least been wider to grab a whale more effectively. Its fins could have also been thicker. Megalodon likely would have some differences in morphology with the great white.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
note: white sharks attack baby whales regularly so using them as a base is fine
also may you give me a source on this nose ramming thing for megalodon. i know we have evidence that megalodon aimed its jaws for the bony bits of its prey like the ribcage
because white sharks do similar things with seals but their snout isnt as blunt
also the eye thing is a given
also i didnt say they would be exact
i said they would be as similar as mackerel sharks are to each other
also no, bull sharks are requiem sharks and as such have much wider snouts than lamniformes
its snout would have still been cone shaped and not be disk shaped
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, great whites aim from below for the soft underside, while Megalodon targeted harder parts. Also, great whites mostly target smaller animals and only go for baby whales that are separated. Many scientists actually agree that Megalodon had a more dome-shaped head and blunter snout.
sharkopedia.discovery.com/type…
Also, not all lamniform sharks have conical snouts. The Megamouth shark has a blunter snout. Sure it is a filter feeder, but that proves that not all mackerel sharks have the same design, so other extinct mackerel sharks could have been this way too. In addition, it would need a broader tail and longer fins to support its weight and keep it from sinking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
give me these many scientists
also i already said megalodon aimed for the bony parts of prey
ive only seen the one paper suggest the nose was shorter and that one didnt have it be dome shaped at all
alos megachasma are an outlier and are separated from other lamniformes my a huge gap in time and is closer to smalltooth sand tigers or basking sharks than to any other shark groups
imgur.com/rgOjUrQ the phylogeny for lamniformes based on dna
www.sciencedirect.com/science/… the study
also just because one animal does it doesnt make it likely at all
i have done my research on it
there is no reason to have carcharocles snout as short as i have shown in this image
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually barnacles of the genus Anelasma live on sharks.
Also Gottfried et al. (1996) suggested that C. megalodon had a deeper, blockier skull than the Great white shark Carcharodon carcharias.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's barnacle seems to specialize on lanternsharks only and castrated those it lives on
and it's extremely unlikely the nose was a shark short as a lot of recent art depicts have it as
eapecially those who use trey he was explainer as a source
Also may you provide an actual paper with that
The source trey the explainer (who obviously popularized this innacurate view of the the animal) wasbt satisfactory andnthe paper was Alain outdated since it still used the carcharodon genus for megalodon
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here is the source 14. Gottfried MD,Compagno LJV,Bowman SC (1996) Size and skeletal anatomy of the giant megatooth shark Carcharodon megalodon. In: Klimley AP,Ainley DG, editors. Great white sharks: the biology of Carcharodon carcharias. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 55–89.
Apart from the nomenclature, I don't know if it's considerable inaccurate, since it has been used in many recent blogs (like Tetrapod Zoology).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
also having it shorter than modern lamniformes based on bulk that we speculate on isnt really good
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>