To clarify something: whale sharks aren't lamniformes, the two large-bodied filter feeding lamniformes mentioned are the basking and megamouth sharks.

I KNEW IT! I always found it strange that the meg would be bulky when in real life the gigantic sharks like the whale shark and basking sharks have an elongated, slender profile.

They shrunk the dunk. While Megalodon became MegaLONGdon.

the evolution of every shark fossil seems to be just switching between butterball and torpedo sausage

Dunkleosteus: “hey give me some of that back!”

It's annoying that we have no decent articulated fossils of this amazing animal (and possibly never will), considering it only became extinct comparatively recently.

What I find interesting is that everyone is talking about Megalodon length no is really talking about it’s width. This is a direct quote from the paper “megalodon vertebrae from Belgium along with the original vertebral column length of 11.1+ m indicates a vertebral column not only much thinner in relative terms than that of a white shark but also more gracile than those of smaller-bodied lamnids with known vertebral size data (Gottfried et al., 1996; Natanson et al., 2002; Doño et al., 2015).” This basically mean the girth of megalodon is in question when using a lamnid-like reconstructions.

Just to clarify, sharks don't have any bones at all. The teeth of a shark are still cartilage, it's just very calcified cartilage. Also whale sharks aren't lamniformes, they're Orectolobiformes, the order that contains carpet sharks like wobbegongs and nurse sharks.

Porbeagles used to be called "sea dogs" because they followed ships using the shadow to hunt. They can make ascorbic acid internally like all fishes therefore there is no such thing as a scurvy sea dog. 🏴‍☠ Early reminder that September 19 is talk like a pirate day.

That thresher shark looks like it took a flying leap with an unwilling remora attached.

We made a point in the paper of NOT saying how long it actually was because it would be too tempting for arguments. However, with a longer body, and probably more heterocercal tail giving a greater tail length, it may be that 15 metres was typical for an adult, very large females at maybe 20m, and rare, extremely old, females maybe touching a ceiling of 25m. Gigantic teeth are rare suggesting the normal adult size was a lot smaller than the odd giant.

Good news Dunkleosteus Your Length Reduction Surgery was a success Where is Megalodon? Who do you think took your Length?

I remember some people saying megalodon could get as big as a blue whale, then they said it was only like ten metes and it has been getting slowly bigger ever since

Could you do videos about prehistoric sharks possibly related to the Megalodon. These are Angustidens and Chubutensis. They're smaller than the Meg but still much larger than the Great White. They probably rival Mosasaurs and Pliosaurs in size.

Also, the paper got rejected as a rebuttal of the original paper, and had to be edited, and severely cut, to be published. A lot of comparative work and also discussion across related and non related large sharks had to be cut.

as my mate steve would say, Meglodon, a bit of a unit!

Megalodon features in chapter 7 of Carnian Street, though its features briefly in segmented sequences seizing a squalodon because obviously I couldn't be sure of its mass with the ever-changing estimates of its ratio. Glad I haven't written any material about dunkleosteus yet!

imagine Megalodon was a super long serpentine shark.

I feel like fundamentally the new study has the exact same problem as the previous study: assuming we know what this fossil is. The previous study went to extra length of assuming we know exactly what kind of shark Megalodon was... so it ended up being a chain of assumptions. But the new study still assumes this was Megalodon. And maybe that is a reasonable assumption.... but at the time it was also considered a reasonable assumption to think Meg was a Lamnid! The whole thing feels problematic and should probably carry *far* more caveats than many presenters are giving. There is a similar problem with assuming we know how the jaw is shaped in order to determine length. I wasn't aware of any complete Megalodon jaw fossils, just isolated teeth that have been assembled in reconstructions based on assumed taxa. But how do we know if Megs head and jaws weren't shaped completely differently than any exact species?

Is there a possibility that it was it could actually be from a giant filter-feeding prehistoric shark species instead of Megalodon? Have there been any large filter-feeding shark fossils ever found? I don't know anything about that so I'm interested in learning more.

The silence of the ending throws me off sometimes 😅 Also the idea of finding a fossil in the ocean blows my mind for some reason!

I'm reeling from the idea that it takes a PhD to basically watch a fish rot. All those years of self denial seem worth it. Talk about thankyou for your service.

Dunk donated some size 💀

Dunkleosteus got nerfed😢 Megalodon Got Longer😊

Interesting material - thank you very much for providing this here!

Perfectly balanced.

Amazing channel, I personally remain skeptical on this hot topic of debate, I think we need more reserach and evidence. I will note that normally weight, length, height, and or width, normally correlate in some form. For example, I measured my hand's lenght and my heads circumference in inches. My hand has a length of around 7 inches and my head had a circumference of around 22.5 inches (Note: I am a little tall so some of my proportions are much larger, additionally, these measurements are obviously not 100% accurate) I then meausured my Mom's hand and head,her hand has a length of around 7 inches while her head has a circumference of around 22 inches yet I think her head has a circumference of around 22.1 to 22.5. I then measured my cousins hand and head, her hand has a length of around 6 inches, so using the information I collected from my Mom and me, I can theorize that her head has a circumference of around 18 to 22 inches. Yet, the problem with this is that indiviual variation is very common in humans so this method was not the best. I'm not saying this paper is wrong but I'm just saying that in most organisms weight, length, height, and or width have to correlate at least in one way. Those are just my personal thoughts and opinions on this hot topic of debate. I still remain skeptical on this hot topic of debate and further research and evidence will reveal more about Megalodon and more of Paleontology.

Oh woa, good info

"the meg", oh no, when I saw this I thought I had a stroke, english langauge don't do this to me

Some prehistoric fish get short stick others long one.

Speaking of "the meg" any one seen the movie? Dwight Schrutte is in it

Megalongdon

Meg to T-rex: "my turn...."

Instead of Shaq we get Manute Bol.

You tell right but the comments is so bad you can see 😢

how much longer?

𝐈𝐭𝐬 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐞

How Long Is It Now?

They think the megalodon was bigger, but they refuse to say how much bigger. Very frustrating

Long boy now

I’d say this proves modern day sharks can get larger than previously thought .

I'll be really disappointed if megalodon is long instead of the bulky giant I thought it was. But I can't change reality so if it's true I'll just have to accept lanky megalodon

...and then it went extinct.

I need more than conjecture. Give me a fossil! Then you can say Megalodon was 'X meters long'. Otherwise he's just a mouth on a beachball for all the evidence.

*_E-L-O-N-G-A-T-E_*

Free Palestine RAHHH🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸