Liopleurodon vs Megalodon

Liopleurodon vs Megalodon

Posted in the Dinosaur Forum

First Prev
of 15
Next Last
Prehistory96

United States

#1 May 4, 2009
Thier both powerfull. But Liopleurodon was the biggest meat-eater. So liopleurodon would win
Scott M

Toledo, OH

#3 May 10, 2009
According to Jorn Hurum, Lio was only big in the BBC's "Walking with Dinosaurs" program, and almost no scientists believe those size estimates. Check out the links that appear on my posts in "Megalodon VS Predator X" if you're interested. Jorn said that Predator X is the largest pliosaur on record.
Prehistory96

Lancaster, OH

#4 May 11, 2009
Scientists have estimates that show that liopleurodon was the largest. And they happen to find on that was almost as large as a Blue Whale.
Which is 82 ft.
Scott M

Toledo, OH

#5 May 11, 2009
I also found a reference to the overinflated size estimate through this link(had to access it through the "Cache" version)as it's an old link:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q= cache:intQ3dxbxcYJ:dic.academi c.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/6325593+li opleurodon+82+feet+long&cd =8&hl=en&ct=clnk&g l=us

**********

*"Liopleurodon" was overestimated to be 25 metres (82 feet) long and 150 tons. These lengths were based on what was at first believed to be tooth marks from a juvenile "Liopleurodon". It was more likely to have grown to 12 metres (39 feet) long. In Walking with Dinosaurs: The Next Chapter, they fixed this with a more reasonable 40 feet long.
Prehistory96

Lancaster, OH

#6 May 11, 2009
Liopleurodon fossil that proves for it to be 82 ft specimens were the jaws, that were 12 to 13 ft long. Thus making the specimens bigger than 39, 40, and even 49 ft long. It was no overestimate. There is a large specimen of Liopleurodon found.
And the other prove that Liopleurodon was large was its huge teeth. 1 foot long.
Scott M

El Segundo, CA

#7 May 12, 2009
I haven't found any articles on the internet that confirm lengths of over 40 feet for L. ferox, only a few refuting them. Predator X was estimated to have teeth measuring a foot long, and this estimate was based on cross sections of broken tooth fragments. If you can find an article or link to support these estimates, I'd like to see them. Until then, I'm siding with Jorn Hurum- those estimates seem to be grossly overinflated-(perhaps to add to the entertainment value of the BBC "Walking With Dinosaur" program?) I'd love to be proven wrong here- a pliosaur that's even larger than Predator X would be history's ultimate marine predator.
Scott M

El Segundo, CA

#8 May 12, 2009
Just before "Predator X" aired on the History Channel, I emailed artist/ author Richard Ellis, and asked him if he'd ever heard of a pliosaur that was as large as Predator X, and here was his response-(but, bear in mind that he's quoting the figures of the people involved with the BBC program- and the very same figures which Jorn Hurum and others are disputing)Anyway, here is what Richard Ellis had to say:
**********
I think the fuss about the 50-foot pliosaur is all hype for the tv show, Predator X" (or is a movie?) People have known about 50-foot pliosaurs for over a century. Here's part of what I wrote in "Sea Dragons" in 2004:
As large as or larger than Kronosaurus was Liopleurodon, a gigantic predatory pliosaur that one source (Haines 1999) said is “25 metres [82 feet] long and weighs almost 150 tonnes. Each flipper measures over 3 metres, and at the end of his huge mouth he carries a crown of dagger-like teeth for impaling prey.”(The name Liopleurodon means “smooth and ribbed teeth,” from the Greek leios, for “smooth;” pleuron for “rib;” and odon for “tooth,” because the teeth, triangular in cross section, have one smooth face and another that is strongly ridged.) Tim Haines is the author of the book Walking with Dinosaurs, and produced of the BBC television program of the same name that aired in Britain in October 1999. The book includes a limited bibliograhy, but there is a list of scientists who are acknowledged for their expertise, and one of these advisors is David Martill of the University of Portsmouth, who studies plesiosaurs. He has examined fragments of giant individuals of Liopleurodon ferox from the clays of Oxford, hinting at pliosaurs that may have been in the 50-foot range.(In the 1991 Fossils of the Oxford Clay, he wrote,“The skull of Liopleurodon may have been up to 3 m long, making it the largest known marine reptile, and possibly the largest carnivorous reptile. A specimen in excess of four metres in length… was discovered during preparation of this book.”) It appears that Martill provided some information on the gigantic pliosaurs, but Haines (like Romer) was apparently unsatisfied with a pliosaur “only” 50 feet long and increased its size on his own. Estimates of total length for Liopleurodon are based on very large but fragmentary specimens that suggest a length of around 60 to 65 feet, but for the BBC to say it weighed 150 tons as much as a blue whale seems irresponsible and sensationalistic.(*)
__________
(*) Following the airing of the television series and the publication of the accompanying book (also called Walking with Dinosaurs), Dave Martill and Darren Naish wrote Walking with Dinosaurs, The Evidence: How Did They Know That? In answer to the question “How big was Liopleurodon,” they wrote:“Because it is not possible to simply put whales onto weighing scales, experts disagree over the weights of these animals. Some say that the largest blue whales may reach an astonishing 200 tonnes, while others say that they probably don’t even reach 100 tonnes. Regardless, weights within the range were then applied to Liopleurodon. However, most of a whale’s bulk is carried in the thick blubber layers it carries for use on its long migrations, and to insulate it from the cold of the polar seas it often frequents. Liopleurodon was a denizen of warm tropical seas and would not have had such blubber. We therefore estimate that even the biggest pliosaurs would not have weighed as much as the biggest whales.”
**********

...Prehistory96,perhaps it would be worth trying to contact David Martill of the University of Portsmouth, and ask him about this????? I'd be interested in hearing what his opinion is on this subject.
Scott M

El Segundo, CA

#9 May 12, 2009
Just found Martill's email:

[email protected]

...I'll email him. It's worth a try- either he'll confirm the length of L. ferox, or not.
Scott M

El Segundo, CA

#10 May 13, 2009
Hmmm... Still no word from Mr. Martill. I did find a very interesting link on giant pliosaurs (including L. ferox)and a reference to a 11.8" tooth. According to the author of this letter,
Martill apparently exaggerated the length of L. ferox while being a consultant for the BBC program. The author's name is Colin McHenry, of The School of Environmental and Life Sciences (Geology)University of Newcastle. Check it out!

http://dml.cmnh.org/2004Apr/msg00337.html

...I have also contacted Mr. McHenry, in the hope that he can clear up this issue. The link is dated 2004, so hopefully the email address still works!
Scott M

Toledo, OH

#11 May 14, 2009
Prehistory96,

Still no replies from McHenry or Martill. I think this may be a lost cause. Until someone can provide further proof, I'm siding with Hurum- Predator X, at around 50 feet, is the largest pliosaur on record. L. ferox seems to be comparable in size to Kronosaurus, according to the above listed link. If anyone can find any link or contact that says otherwise, let me know!
Scott M

El Segundo, CA

#12 May 14, 2009
I did manage to clear up one mystery- the 11.8" tooth appears to have come from a 42 foot Kronosaurus. The largest tooth's crown height, at 4.724" would be even larger than that of Predator X! http://www.oceansofkansas.com/kronosar.html
Scott M

Toledo, OH

#13 May 14, 2009
To the other people who post here, my apologies for my numerous posts! I made a mistake in my last post- Predator X would have had a slightly larger crown height than Kronosaurus!
Anyway, I finally received a reply from Colin McHenry:
(Part 1)
__________
Until there's a scientific paper published it's all just rumour and heresay, but from the pictures that Jorn's team have shown it looks like a very big animal. So, yes, there seems to be reason to think that the Svalbard pliosaur may be the largest pliosaur we know about so far. However, I'm going to stop shy of saying it is definitely the biggest for the moment, as there are a couple of funny things about it; the humerus is really big, compared to other large pliosaurs, but the vertebrae are really not that large. Same deal with the skull - some of the jaw fragments look like they are from a really big animal, whilst part of the back of the skull is not really that large by comparison. And that, of course, is the problem with trying to work out body shape and size from fragmentary material. Jorn has a PhD student working on this and he has an interesting puzzle on his hands.
There are various other pliosaur specimens that indicate very large (>10 m) pliosaurs, but they are also all fragmentary and we still have a very poor idea of how big they were, and even what species they represent. Like the Svalbard animal (Tithonian - uppermost Jurassic) they are all Late Jurassic; Megalneusaurus rex (Knight 1895, 1897) is from the Oxfordian of Wyoming (Wahl et al, 2007) but it's very bitty, and the Aramberri specimen (Buchy et al, 2003) is from the Kimmeridgian of Mexico and is even more fragmentary. There are also some large fragments of pliosaurid from the Kimmerdigian of England. There are also some specimens from the Callovian (Middle Jurassic) of the English Oxford Clay; one is a robust mandibular symphysis, the other a vertebrae that was originally IDed as a sauropod (and I suspect that original ID is the correct one). However, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that any of these indicate a pliosaur bigger than the Cumnor pliosaur (Noe et al. 2004), known from an almost complete jaw from the Kimmeridgian of England and on display at the Oxford University Museum (see blog entry at Tetrapod Zoology;
Scott M

Toledo, OH

#14 May 14, 2009
Colin McHenry (Part 2)
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/... ), which is a very large animal. It remains to be seen whether the Svalbard material can confidently be said to indicate a larger pliosaur than the 'Cumnor monster'.
Given that most of what has been said about the big Late Jurassic is pure speculation, it is unfortunate that Liopleurodon ferox has been caught up in the public/media discussions of these animals. Unlike the really big animals, Liopleurodon is known from a large number of specimens, many of which are reasonably complete, and its anatomy and body size is well understood - it is a medium sized pliosaur with a maximum size of 5-6 metres. It is also known only from the Callovian, so it is stratigraphically too old to be the animal represented by the scrappy Late Jurassic specimens. With respect to the two possible specimens of very large pliosaur that are known from the Callovian, whatever the fragment of large jaw and the isolated vertebrae are, they are not Liopleurodon. The fixation with Liopleurodon as a really big pliosaur seems to have come from two sources; firstly, the Godzilliaisation of Liopleurodon in Walking With Dinosaurs to a 25 metre monster (a size far larger than any reasonable reconstruction of any known pliosaur specimen), and the confusion by the media of the Aramberri speicmen with L. ferox - the Arramberri specimen is not Liopleurodon, as repeatedly stated by the authors of that study. Oh well, that's the media for you.
Hope this helps. There are a couple of useful links that discuss aspects of this; Cameron McCormick's excellent blog http://cameronmccormick.blogspot.com/2007_02_... ,
and on Richard Forrest's plesiosaur site
http://www.plesiosaur.com/plesiosaurs/liopleu...
Cheers
Colin
Buchy, M., E. Frey, W. Stinnesbeck, and J. G. López-Oliva. 2003. First occurrence of a gigantic pliosaurid plesiosaur in the late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian) of Mexico. Bul. Soc. géol. Fr. 174(3):271-278.
Knight, W. C. 1895. A new Jurassic plesiosaur from Wyoming. Science 2(449).
Knight, W. C. 1898. Some new Jurassic vertebrates from Wyoming. American Journal of Science 4:378-381.
Noè, L. F., D. T. J. Smith, and D. I. Walton. 2004. A new species of Kimmeridgian pliosaur (Reptilia; Sauropterygia) and its bearing on the nomenclature of Liopleurodon macromerus. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 115:13-24.
Wahl, W. R., M. Ross, and J. A. Massare. 2007. Rediscovery of Wilbur Knight's Megalneusaurus rex site: new material from an old pit. Paludicola 6(2):94-104.
Scott M

Toledo, OH

#15 May 14, 2009
I've finally received a response from
Colin McHenry (Part 1)
__________
Hi Scott,

Until there's a scientific paper published it's all just rumour and heresay, but from the pictures that Jorn's team have shown it looks like a very big animal. So, yes, there seems to be reason to think that the Svalbard pliosaur may be the largest pliosaur we know about so far. However, I'm going to stop shy of saying it is definitely the biggest for the moment, as there are a couple of funny things about it; the humerus is really big, compared to other large pliosaurs, but the vertebrae are really not that large. Same deal with the skull - some of the jaw fragments look like they are from a really big animal, whilst part of the back of the skull is not really that large by comparison. And that, of course, is the problem with trying to work out body shape and size from fragmentary material. Jorn has a PhD student working on this and he has an interesting puzzle on his hands.

There are various other pliosaur specimens that indicate very large (>10 m) pliosaurs, but they are also all fragmentary and we still have a very poor idea of how big they were, and even what species they represent. Like the Svalbard animal (Tithonian - uppermost Jurassic) they are all Late Jurassic; Megalneusaurus rex (Knight 1895, 1897) is from the Oxfordian of Wyoming (Wahl et al, 2007) but it's very bitty, and the Aramberri specimen (Buchy et al, 2003) is from the Kimmeridgian of Mexico and is even more fragmentary. There are also some large fragments of pliosaurid from the Kimmerdigian of England. There are also some specimens from the Callovian (Middle Jurassic) of the English Oxford Clay; one is a robust mandibular symphysis, the other a vertebrae that was originally IDed as a sauropod (and I suspect that original ID is the correct one). However, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that any of these indicate a pliosaur bigger than the Cumnor pliosaur (Noe et al. 2004), known from an almost complete jaw from the Kimmeridgian of England and on display at the Oxford University Museum (see blog entry at Tetrapod Zoology;
fongo

Spárti, Greece

#16 May 15, 2009
I thought that mosasaurus maximus was the biggest sea/reptile predator, besides we dont know much things about predator x it must have been another already known spiece with a big lenghth.What about this scotti?
Scott M

El Segundo, CA

#17 May 15, 2009
fongo,

Based on the information given to me by Colin McHenry (see above posts- but ignore last one, as I accidentally posted it twice)it seems that the top two contenders for the title of largest pliosaur is between Predator X and the so-called Cumnor Monster. Until there's a scientific paper published on Predator X, we won't really know for sure which of these pliosaurs is the largest. If you'd like to contact Colin and ask him about M.maximus, here's his email: [email protected]
Tracey

Rockford, IL

#18 May 27, 2009
Prehistory96 wrote:
Thier both powerfull. But Liopleurodon was the biggest meat-eater. So liopleurodon would win
learn to spell retard. jesus what are they doing with you kids in school these days...just coloring pictures or what?
spino vs rex XL

London, UK

#20 May 28, 2009
lipleurodon owns!
Prehistory96

Columbus, OH

#21 Jun 5, 2009
Scott M wrote:
I haven't found any articles on the internet that confirm lengths of over 40 feet for L. ferox, only a few refuting them. Predator X was estimated to have teeth measuring a foot long, and this estimate was based on cross sections of broken tooth fragments. If you can find an article or link to support these estimates, I'd like to see them. Until then, I'm siding with Jorn Hurum- those estimates seem to be grossly overinflated-(perhaps to add to the entertainment value of the BBC "Walking With Dinosaur" program?) I'd love to be proven wrong here- a pliosaur that's even larger than Predator X would be history's ultimate marine predator.
There are information of Liopleurodon being as large as 82 ft because the skull size provides the evidence. And the skull was 12 th 13 ft bigger than that of Predator X
Prehistory96

Columbus, OH

#22 Jun 5, 2009
and another proof is the teeth of Liopleurodon which is twice the size of that of Tyrannosaurus's teeth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
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 is weakest dinosaur 19 hr Gawdzilla 4
Spinosaurus would easily beat T rex in a fight (Jun '14) Feb 23 gamerakiller 396
Poll T-Rex vs 50 Velociraptors (Dec '11) Feb 22 T-rex_Rules 124
News Top Lehigh Valley weekend events include Jim Th... Feb 21 James T Thorpy 1
News Marshosaurus--the Jurassic's Forgotten Carnivore Feb 21 T-rex_Rules 1
Dinosaurs and man and Natural Selection Feb 21 T-rex_Rules 3
No room for silly science in Trump presidency Feb 20 T-rex_Rules 6
More from around the web