What is the largest carnivore in history?

Posted in the Dinosaur Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Some Guy

Philadelphia, PA

#1 Aug 25, 2010
Out of all the families, all the eras, what was the largest carnivore ever in general? I already know that Spinosaurus was the largest land carnivore. And please, baleen whales don't count in this thread, so please don't say the blue whale. So far to my knowledge it was Shonisaurus. Is this true?
Lord of the Allosaurs

Burlington, Canada

#2 Aug 25, 2010
AFAIK you are correct.
Some Guy

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Aug 25, 2010
Lord of the Allosaurs wrote:
AFAIK you are correct.
YES I knew it.

But Shonisaurus wasn't much a big-game hunter I believe, like it didn't feed on big prey.
ronald mcdonald

United States

#4 Aug 25, 2010
i believe it was sort of like spinosaurus.

pound for pound, not very impressive but due to size it could likely take on many large animals.

if you mean big-game hunter, then Leviathan Melvillei or C.megalodon.

“BOOMER WILL LIVE”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#5 Aug 25, 2010
Carcharocles megalodon is, iirc, large than Shonisaurus.
Btw, Balaenoptera musculus IS the largest carnivore ever.
Some Guy

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Aug 25, 2010
ronald mcdonald wrote:
i believe it was sort of like spinosaurus.
pound for pound, not very impressive but due to size it could likely take on many large animals.
if you mean big-game hunter, then Leviathan Melvillei or C.megalodon.
That's a very good analogy. I like it.
Spinodontosaurus wrote:
Carcharocles megalodon is, iirc, large than Shonisaurus.
Btw, Balaenoptera musculus IS the largest carnivore ever.
Wasn't Shonisaurus 70-76 feet long though? And I doubt Carcharocles Megalodon exceeded 70 feet.
Alternative Baryonyx

Meda, Italy

#7 Aug 25, 2010
Ehy u saw me in yt but u didnt read vat i wrote dere!
Da s. sikkaniensis found in canada is estimated 2 be 21 m long (69 ft). Even wiki says so

While carcharocles is currently estimated 2 be 20 m (65.6 ft)...
Some Guy

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Aug 25, 2010
Alternative Baryonyx wrote:
Ehy u saw me in yt but u didnt read vat i wrote dere!
Da s. sikkaniensis found in canada is estimated 2 be 21 m long (69 ft). Even wiki says so
While carcharocles is currently estimated 2 be 20 m (65.6 ft)...
Yes I did Alternative, or should I say, Allosaurus333!

Anyhow, that still would make Shonisaurus larger then Carcharocles, wouldn't it?
Alternative Baryonyx

Meda, Italy

#9 Aug 25, 2010
Some Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I did Alternative, or should I say, Allosaurus333!
Anyhow, that still would make Shonisaurus larger then Carcharocles, wouldn't it?
Call me vateva u want! ;)

Bdw, as i said more dan once, its useless sayin "x is larga dan y" when da 2 animals show a MINIMUM size difference. A SINGLE META IS NOTHIN, seriously

I dont have da pdf bout s. sikkaniensis, so i dont know HOW dey estimate it 2 be 21 m long

Dey didnt eva found complete fossils of carcharocles or shonisaurus, so we cannot DIRECTLY compare dese 2 genera
Carcharocles size is not known, we can only ESTIMATE its size from teeth. Dats why size estimates r highly variable
ALL we know bout carcharocles is dat it was longa dan 16 m
UF 237956 is a tooth belongin 2 a specimen estimated 2 be 16.8 m. Da calculation method followed is from shimada (2003)
"The relationship between the tooth size and total body length in the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias (Lamniformes: Lamnidae"

Bdw, carcharocles could have been no more dan 17 m

And we must ALWAYS talk bout AVERAGE specimens. Non-average specimens r so rare dat dey dont fossilize
Some Guy

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Aug 25, 2010
Alternative Baryonyx wrote:
<quoted text>
Call me vateva u want! ;)
Bdw, as i said more dan once, its useless sayin "x is larga dan y" when da 2 animals show a MINIMUM size difference. A SINGLE META IS NOTHIN, seriously
I dont have da pdf bout s. sikkaniensis, so i dont know HOW dey estimate it 2 be 21 m long
Dey didnt eva found complete fossils of carcharocles or shonisaurus, so we cannot DIRECTLY compare dese 2 genera
Carcharocles size is not known, we can only ESTIMATE its size from teeth. Dats why size estimates r highly variable
ALL we know bout carcharocles is dat it was longa dan 16 m
UF 237956 is a tooth belongin 2 a specimen estimated 2 be 16.8 m. Da calculation method followed is from shimada (2003)
"The relationship between the tooth size and total body length in the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias (Lamniformes: Lamnidae"
Bdw, carcharocles could have been no more dan 17 m
And we must ALWAYS talk bout AVERAGE specimens. Non-average specimens r so rare dat dey dont fossilize
I agree, and its hard to estimate an average Carcharocles when all we have are its teeth. Personally I don't think a shark could attain such lengths as 20 m, but its all up in the air. Originally they thought Carch was 98 ft long, then they thought it was 30-40 feet long, now its 50-68.... we don't know for sure. But I still don't think nature would allow such a big shark. It would be too virtually "unstoppable" in nature's rulebook. But then again, we were and still are, so its plausible.
Alternative Baryonyx

Meda, Italy

#11 Aug 25, 2010
I just found dat da "20 m carcharocles" is just a misinterpretation

Da 20 m and 100 t carcharocles is da MAXIMUM SIZE ACCORDIN 2 PALAEONTOLOGIST GOTTFRIED (1996). But deres actually no fossil belongin 2 a specimen estimated 2 be dat large and heavy
Gottfried did some useless work by extrapolatin MAXIMUM SIZE 4 carcharocles... Dat maximum size would be result of acromegalia
Guys r 1.8 m on average. Dere r a lot of 2 m guys or even talla, but DEY R MAXIMUM SIZE. Dey r NOT normal. Da same applies on carcharocles and on ANY ODA EXTINCT OR EXTANT SPECIES. We must take account of AVERAGE size (aka fossils), NOTHIN MORE

Shimada is a palaeontologist bein a shark expat
http://gis.depaul.edu/envirsci/Administrative...
In 2003 he published a papa called
"The relationship between the tooth size and total body length in the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias (Lamniformes: Lamnidae)"
He talked bout him himself and gottfried extrapolatin carcharocles size

He wrote: "Using the total tooth height of 0.168 m, Gottfried et al.(1996) estimated the TL of the Carcharocles as 15.9 m based on their regression equation for the A2 of the modern Carcharodon (see above)
Regardless of its taxonomic placement, using the modern Carcharodon as a model to infer the TL of Carcharocles is logical, because Carcharodon is the largest extant macrophagous lamniform and the only extant lamniform with serrated teeth. Applegate and Espinosa-Arrubarrena's (1996) illustration of a large Carcharocles tooth, wich is 0.168 m in total height, suggets, that its CH measures approximately 0.125 m. Based on two assumptions, a conservative TL estimation is possible for Carcharocles that carried the gigantic tooth: 1) that it represents the largest tooth on the jaws (the A1 or A2); and 2) that the CH of the tooth has the same size relation to the TL as the CH-TL relationships in modern Carcharodon. When the CH of 0.125 m is applied to the regression equation for the A1 and A2 (Table 1), the TL of Carcharocles with such a tooth is estimated to be about 14.45 m and 15.11 m, respectively. My estimates are slightly lower than the estimated TL of Gottfried et al.(1996; 15.9 m TL). This may be due to the possible difference in the "growth rate" between the CH and root height (see above). Nevertheless, my result and that by Gottfried et al.(1996) suggest that large Carcharocles measured approximately 14-16 m TL"

----------

Now read vat wiki says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcharocles#Bod...
"Gottfried et al., also introduced a method to determine the body mass of the great white shark after studying the length mass relationship data of 175 specimens at various growth stages and extrapolated it to estimate the body mass of C. megalodon. The proposed method is: Weight in kilogram = 3.29E&#8722;06[TL in (meters)3.174].[6] And according to this method, a 15.9 metres (52 ft) long specimen would have a body mass of about 47 metric tons (52 short tons)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcharocles#Max...
MAXIMUM SIZE AND VERDICT
The existing fossil evidence indicates that C. megalodon likely exceeded 16 metres (52 ft) in total length.[10][22][23][24] In 1994, a marine biologist Patrick J. Schembri claimed that C. megalodon may have approached a maximum length of 25 metres (82 ft).[25] The early size estimation of C. megalodon was perhaps not far fetched. However, Gottfried et al., in 1996, proposed that C. megalodon could likely approach a MAXIMA of 20.3 metres (67 ft) in total length.[6][23][24] The shark weight measuring technique suggested by the same team indicates that C. megalodon AT THIS LENGTH would have a body mass of 103 metric tons (114 short tons).[6][23]

----------

Both wiki and shimada say dat gottfried estimated MAXIMUM SIZE carcharocles 2 be 20 m and 100 t! Dats not average and dere r no fossils belongin 2 20 m carcharocles...
Alternative Baryonyx

Meda, Italy

#12 Aug 25, 2010
Some Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, and its hard to estimate an average Carcharocles when all we have are its teeth. Personally I don't think a shark could attain such lengths as 20 m, but its all up in the air. Originally they thought Carch was 98 ft long, then they thought it was 30-40 feet long, now its 50-68.... we don't know for sure. But I still don't think nature would allow such a big shark. It would be too virtually "unstoppable" in nature's rulebook. But then again, we were and still are, so its plausible.
Nature... nature did some GREAT jobs, didnt it?:)

Bdw, da largest carcharocles tooth i know is UF 237965
Its from gatun formation, panama
SOURCE
http://striweb.si.edu/publications/PDFs/STRI-...
Dats why now i think da largest known carcharocles is estimated 2 be 17 m
A 15.9 specimen would weight 47 t
A 20.3 m carcharocles would weight 103 t
Now, how heavy is a 17 m carcharocles supposed 2 be?:)

PLUS, a SINGLE carcharocles specimen has teeth havin DIFFERENT SIZES, cuz dey r situated in different position of the jaws. Yes, not all teeth of da SAME specimen r equally large. So estimatin size is even more difficult
MStar

Houston, TX

#13 Aug 25, 2010
IS the Blue Whale a carnivore?
ronald mcdonald

San Francisco, CA

#14 Aug 25, 2010
yes, of krill.
MStar

Houston, TX

#15 Aug 25, 2010
I thought "hunting" invertabrates had another name...
Alternative Baryonyx

Misinto, Italy

#16 Aug 26, 2010
MStar wrote:
I thought "hunting" invertabrates had another name...
Balaenoptera musculus is a carnivorous filta feeda, but its a carnivore cuz it eats ANIMALS ;)
Prey size has nothin 2 do wif bein carnivorous or not, a species can be called carnivorous if it eats species belongin 2 da clade ANIMALIA ;)
Krill demselves r filta feeda cuz dey eat plankton, and plankton r DA FOUNDATION of da oceanic food chain

“BOOMER WILL LIVE”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#17 Aug 26, 2010
@Some Guy, i ws talking about mass, not length. Basilosaurus may be Carcharocles length, but it was not Carcharocles size.
A 17m Carcharocles? About 57t.
Some Guy

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Aug 26, 2010
@Alternative Baryonx:
Ok, I'm really sorry, but that entire thing you just posted about Shimada, Gottfried, and wiki really confused me. I can't tell whether you're saying Carcharocles was or wasn't 20 meters, it seems to go back and forth. I don't mean any disrespect, but could you please sum that up into a few sentences or a small paragraph or something?

“BOOMER WILL LIVE”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#19 Aug 26, 2010
Gottfried says that Carcharocles is 15.9m and 47t, but basically GUESSES the maximum size at 20.3m and 103t.
Alternative Baryonyx

Meda, Italy

#20 Aug 26, 2010
Some Guy wrote:
@Alternative Baryonx:
Ok, I'm really sorry, but that entire thing you just posted about Shimada, Gottfried, and wiki really confused me. I can't tell whether you're saying Carcharocles was or wasn't 20 meters, it seems to go back and forth. I don't mean any disrespect, but could you please sum that up into a few sentences or a small paragraph or something?
Dont worry :-)

Im sayin da largest carcharocles tooth belongs 2 a specimen estimated 2 be 17 m and 57 t. Da 20 m and 100 t carcharocles is just an HYPOTHETICAL MAXIMUM body size by gottfried (1996), but deres no actually a tooth belongin 2 such a large specimen
Gottfried just "increased" da maximum body size since maximum sizes r always considerably larga dan NORMAL size
4 example, im 1.82 m tall but dere r A LOT of 2 m guys or even talla. But dey r NOT average. Da 20 m estimate is like da 2.3 m estimate. Possible but NOT average and DEREFORE NOT REPRESENTED BY FOSSILS
SHIMADA is da SHARK PALAEONTOLOGIST who proposed vat i think is da most accurate method 4 obtainin length of sharks
And GOTTFRIED is da FISH PALAEONTOLOGIST who proposed a method dat is close 2 dat of shimada, but i think shimadas 1 is still betta. Bdw, gottfried himself proposed da most accurate method 4 obtainin MASSES of sharks
So shimada tells us carcharocles, while gottfried tells us carcharocles mass

Now i realize carcharocles is MUCH more plausible....
Hell, we thought it was ONE HUNDREND T ON AVERAGE! As u said, dat would make it virtually "UNSTOPPABLE"
Now dat carcharocles got scaled-down, its size and strenght is comparable 2 dat of oda large marine macropredators

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dinosaur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Spinosaurus the adaptable 1 hr Tiborg 1
The coming Extinction of Mankind? (Dec '06) 5 hr Mr Bloodwing 34
Spinosaurus: Smartest and Strongest Theropod 12 hr tyrannospinus 4
Which Godzilla do you like best? (May '09) 17 hr tyrannospinus 10
Spinosaurus vs Xenomorph Queen Sat Oase 11
Tyrannosaurus vs Predator Sat Oase 2
Spinosaurus vs. t-rex (Dec '07) Sat Oase 5,710
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Dinosaur People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••