Largest Megalodon Fossil?

[Lonious]

Hello. I am new to this forum.

I am one who hardly knows anything about the science of studying fossils, however I am fascinated by the existence of such monstrous creatures such as C. Megalodon.

I have seen many images of different jaw fossils of the shark, however they seem to be of differing sizes...how many of these have actually been uncovered? And what is the largest or the smallest?

Thanks for your attention!

[Fossildude19]

Already been covered before HERE. and HERE.

Welcome to the Forum.

Regards,

Edited October 27, 2014 by Fossildude19

[Lonious]

Thank you, Fossildude19.

And if I may...I just want to quote myself from another forum:

This world, this universe, is FULL of fascinating things...it is such a marvel that one does not think twice about its grandeur.

I have recently been fascinated by the existence of this monster shark, a terrifying 60-foot whale eater. After surfing the net, I've encountered various pictures...apparently digitally altered...depicting the extinct shark species as somehow still alive and kicking.

Just for some eye-candy, let's start off with the most exaggerated ones:







...which are, obviously, buffed-up renditions of an already terrifying prospect of nature.

However, some images seem to be rather more faithful to the shark's real proportions:











What is my basis for saying so? Here are some pictures of its fossilized jaws:

(some may not be particularly enormous, but still terrifying nonetheless):









...and snarge...who could take a night's shower after seeing this one (allegedly 9 feet high, 11 wide)...



Interestingly, that last one seemed particularly large, seemingly bigger than the previous mouth pictures.

My question is: how accurate the fan-made representations of the previous group of pictures are? I am no expert in the field of measurement, so I desire someone experienced here to tell us how close these depictions are of the shark, to the real shark, in terms of size, with the fossil images as basis.

Are the sharks in those pictures actually the same SIZE as the real Megalodon? I want to believe whoever created those had in mind the proper measurements of the real Megalodon shark, so as to give us an accurately-sized portrayal of this amazing creature.

For example, the picture with the diver diving towards the "camera" and the Megalodon's mouth agape:



...may seem realistic, but I cannot ascertain just how large the mouth is, as the diver's body isn't shown standing, but rather, from a "top view".

Does the mouth in that image match the size of, say, this one:



? Or, for instance, this picture:



Could it be realistic enough to somehow be along the size of this:



?

It is amazing to find pictures like this since it somehow looks snarge real...but I am skeptical; I want to make sure those proportions are correct, so I can safely and authentically enjoy contemplating on these sleepless-inducing illustrations of terror.

Thank you for your attention! There is nothing more badass in this planet.

If any of you guys are experts on getting some measurements from these pictures...your help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Edited October 27, 2014 by Lonious

[Megatooth Collector]

I just quickly looked over this post. As you may or may not know, all of the Megalodon jaws from your photos have been reconstructed. That is, the actually jaw itself it man made and the teeth are real in some cases and synthetic in others. I guess that my point is that all of the jaw reconstructions are based on scientific estimates (I assume some more scientific than others). My understanding also is that as we have learned more about Meg dentition and a few nearly complete groups of teeth have been discovered, the estimated measurements of the jaws have also changed some. I know this does not really directly answer your question but I wanted to make sure you were clear that the jaws in the photos which would have been made of cartilage and thus likely not survived, are man made reconstructions as opposed to actual complete discoveries.

[JohnJ]

Additionally Lonious, please keep in mind that it is primarily science-based discussion of Megalodon we are interested in on TFF. Artificially altered fantasy images and pseudo-science discussions are available elsewhere online.

[Lonious]

I just quickly looked over this post. As you may or may not know, all of the Megalodon jaws from your photos have been reconstructed. That is, the actually jaw itself it man made and the teeth are real in some cases and synthetic in others. I guess that my point is that all of the jaw reconstructions are based on scientific estimates (I assume some more scientific than others). My understanding also is that as we have learned more about Meg dentition and a few nearly complete groups of teeth have been discovered, the estimated measurements of the jaws have also changed some. I know this does not really directly answer your question but I wanted to make sure you were clear that the jaws in the photos which would have been made of cartilage and thus likely not survived, are man made reconstructions as opposed to actual complete discoveries.

Is it, then, that some reconstructions are larger because of larger real teeth, or because of some change in the scientific estimates? I'm not sure if those from the Bertucci jaw are all real, or mixed with artificial ones.

Additionally Lonious, please keep in mind that it is primarily science-based discussion of Megalodon we are interested in on TFF. Artificially altered fantasy images and pseudo-science discussions are available elsewhere online.

Forgive me, Admin, if this seems too far-off. However, I don't exactly express an intent for what you call "pseudo-scientific" discussions. I am merely wondering if those artistic depictions match how a realistically-proportioned Meg really looked like. I know not how to accurately measure the jaws in those pictures, since in most cases the human is not directly standing by the jaw, unlike in the reconstrucrion images, so it's a bit hard for me to compare them properly. You see, I've developed a bit of a fixation on this. Edited October 28, 2014 by Lonious

[JohnJ]

Thank you. I can appreciate your curiosity. Hopefully one of the members can direct you to some publications or research on jaw size.

[painshill]

The first attempted jaw reconstruction (from unassociated teeth) was by Bashford Dean at the AMNH and your 10^th picture (the B&W photograph) is the result of his work, photographed in 1909. He went on to estimate the body length as more than 100 feet, but we now believe that to be erroneous. The jaw reconstruction has also been challenged since the teeth used as posteriors were not true posterior teeth.

Gottfried, et al. (1996) proposed a formula to calculate body length from the slant height of the second upper anterior tooth (A II):

Body length in meters = [(0.96 x A II slant height in cm) - 0.22]

Taking that to non-metric units, teeth between 5 – 6 inches would suggest a body length of 39 – 47 feet and a 7 inch tooth would be from an individual of about 55 feet. That has also been challenged since the largest tooth available to them for study at the time was 168 mm (6⅝ inches).

Shark researcher Cliff Jeremiah has subsequently suggested that jaw perimeter is directly proportional to total body length, with the width of the roots of the largest teeth being a proxy for estimating jaw perimeter. For every centimeter of root width of the largest tooth, he suggests approximately 4.5 feet of shark length. It works well for extant sharks and he asserts that the relationship also holds good for megalodon.

Research based on the limited number of associated partial dentitions (and in particular the almost complete associated set of teeth found by Uyeno, Sakamoto, and Sekine in Japan in 1989) suggests an adult megalodon with teeth in the region of 5 – 6 inches would have had jaws around 6.5 feet wide and 8 feet high, although that wouldn’t be the maximum size.

The 13^th picture you posted (the photograph with the lady inside the jaws against a blue background) is the largest reconstruction to date, produced by Vito “Megalodon Man” Bertucci. It's shown again in the 15th Picture. It took him almost 20 years to collect the 182 teeth (four of them beyond 7 inches) and numerous jaw fragments which were set into a fibreglass frame during the 1990’s. He scaled the assemblage from extant great whites, with the jaws measuring 9 feet (2.7 meters) tall and 11 feet (3.4 meters) across.

I’ve seen it reported (unconfirmed) that it was up for auction at Christie’s shortly afterwards, but withdrawn from sale with the bidding at a million dollars. Sadly, Vito died in 2004, aged 47, while diving on a high tide with poor visibility in a hole at the bottom of the Ogeechee River bed in Georgia. His partner was in the attendant boat, but he was diving solo and un-tethered in dangerous conditions. He had four Megalodon teeth in his bag when his body was found four days after he disappeared.

Vito’s jaw reconstruction was offered again in 2011 by Heritage Auctions in Dallas but failed to reach the minimum bid of $625,000 and remained unsold.

Edited October 28, 2014 by painshill

[tmaier]

To that amazing collection of photos you can add this one... an experiment conducted at University of Florida on the effects of a megalodon jaw on a three year old.

Paper is still pending...

[Gabe]

"Research based on the limited number of associated partial dentitions (and in particular the almost complete associated set of teeth found by Uyeno, Sakamoto, and Sekine in Japan in 1989) suggests an adult megalodon with teeth in the region of 5 6 inches would have had jaws around 6.5 feet wide and 8 feet high, although that wouldnt be the maximum size."

Painshill, are you sure that this estimate of Meg jaws size has been directly based on this associated set of teeth ?

Regarding the methods of estimate, there is also the one used by Brett Kent for Parotodus and Michael Siverson for Cardabiodon, the one based on the jaw perimeter using modern lamnids, complete associated sets of teeth and larger individuals teeth as template. Dr. Siverson estimates based on this the largest adults Megs were up to almost 20 m. (Seen in his talk available on YT).

[painshill]

... Painshill, are you sure that this estimate of Meg jaws size has been directly based on this associated set of teeth ?

Hi Gabe... I'm sure that it hasn't and that's why I used the words "in particular" rather than the word "directly". I think it still remains the most complete evidence we have and nevertheless continues to make a major contribution (but not the only contribution) to the various estimates kicking around.

[Auspex]

...I am merely wondering if those artistic depictions match how a realistically-proportioned Meg really looked like. I know not how to accurately measure the jaws in those pictures...

You do recognize, don't you, that the first seven images are renderings that are, shall we say, ridiculous in that respect?

[tmaier]

That photo of the two fisherman in the boat pulling in the meg is obviously faked. Everybody knows you would be using a gaff for that.

Edited November 4, 2014 by tmaier

[Gabe]

BTW, I ve found that pic

http://fingerlakesfossilfarm.org/mammal_images/megalodon_tooth_sperm_whale_vertebra-01.jpg

Here :

http://fingerlakesfossilfarm.org/mammal_fossils.htm

The meg looks very large using the ruler. Authentic one ?

[Gabe]

Hi Gabe... I'm sure that it hasn't and that's why I used the words "in particular" rather than the word "directly". I think it still remains the most complete evidence we have and nevertheless continues to make a major contribution (but not the only contribution) to the various estimates kicking around.

Well, actually other than the set described by Uyeno et al. from Japan, there are three others sets partially or almost complete from the US. These certainly allow to make size estimates using the same ration as in modern lamnid.

In his paper about Parotodus, Kent explained that estimates based on a single tooth are likely to produce underestimates.

Also, regarding Gottfried's calculation, I'm not sure this method is using the slant height measurement of the teeth, rather the vertical height.

By the way, does any one knows the size of the largest Meg centra found ? The largest I know of has been described in this paper from Denmark in 1983, was found among 20 associated centras specimens and one large upper anterior tooth and was 230 mm in the diameter (I think the largest centra from the largest white sharks are 80-100 mm wide). Since Meg is estimated to have had about 200 vertebras (Gottfried) it's probable that this wasn't the largest centra in the entire column (?).

The paper : http://2dgf.dk/xpdf/bull32-01-02-1-32.pdf