The with child fishy predator ever to lurch the world ’s oceans may have been even more jumbo than past estimate evoke . The finding , published inPalaeontologia Electronica , is an unexpected outcome of a program to get high schooling educatee concerned in science , and the dedication of a post - graduate pupil intrigue by their contradictory finding .
Entire specimens of nonextant creature are seldom found , so paleontologist have developed formulas for estimating size of it based onsingle bonesor , in extreme cases , teeth . Megalodon ’s name literally means “ big tooth ” because , a few vertebrae apart , that is all we have allow for of them . Sharks ' cartilage , which replaces most of the bone in other vertebrates ' bodies , rarely fossilizes . In 2002 , equationswere publishedfor calculating the sizes of jumbo extinct sharks from their teeth , includingmegalodons , which dominated the oceans for 20 million twelvemonth , andotherslarger than any survivors .
While doing his PhD at the Florida Museum of Natural HistoryDr Victor Perezrealized these computation could be turn into a specially interesting science project . Perez collaborated with mediate - shoal teacher Megan Hendrickson to have her students 3D mark replicas of real megalodon teeth , measure them , and use the formula to calculate the size of the giant they came from .
When Perez depend at their results , however , he come up the students were getting wildly different reply that could n’t be attributed to measurement errors . Some thought the shark was 12 meters ( 40 feet ) long , which would be immense enough , but others produced an estimation of 45 beat ( 148 feet ) . The latter figure would have made it almost one and a half times the distance of the long racy whale .
Perez take off with the obvious explanations . " I was going around , see , like , did you use the wrong equation ? Did you blank out to convert your unit ? ” he say in astatement . " But it very quickly became light that it was not the student that had made the error . It was but that the equations were not as accurate as we had call . "
Faced with a nearly consummate Seth of teeth , the pupil had made choice as to which they should use for their deliberation . Although in possibility the formula leave for varying sizing by tooth location , Perez recover the further back in the jaw a tooth was , the large the size of it compute for the fish it come from .
Others might have ignored the issue , but Perez account the outcome in a newssheet read by fogy researchers and amateurs . recreational paleontologistTeddy Badautread the account and suggest tooth width might provide a more precise estimate of shark size than length . After all , the combined breadth of all the tooth provides an estimate of jaw size .
Perez and colleagues work on finding equations come to the width of tooth from living sharks to their size and extrapolating to their extinct relatives . In the study , they report these bring on much more consistent estimates for shark body duration .
Width may count more than length , but Perez acknowledges ; “ We have n’t really settle the query of how big megalodon was . ”
Nevertheless , the reach has been narrowed , suggest the largest teeth found came from creatures 17–24 meters ( 55–75 feet ) long . Although this overlap withprevious estimation , it is big than most ( those made by Hendrickson ’s students working on back teeth aside ) , confirming these giants were two to three times the length of the large living white-hot shark .
Sequels toThe Megshould call Perez as a consultant in the improbable event the makers deal about scientific accuracy .
