Talk:Megalodon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

Add these infographics:

• [1]
• [2]

72.10.105.199 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done they appear to be copyright - and not very encyclopedic - Arjayay (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we don't really do infographics... WarriorFISH (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

We do. That doesn't mean we can just take any random infographics from the net and use them. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

Under the heading "Nursery areas" there is the following sentence: "As is the case with most sharks, C. megalodon gave birth to live young." I haven't been able to identify a source that shows this to be known. I would like to suggest a confirmed citation for this sentence. 108.6.33.60 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done --JustBerry (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Added a citation WolfmanSF (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

you should include the depth at which, these creatures swam. 63.245.245.155 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Great white sharks have been know to dive to depths as great as 1,200 m (3,900 ft), probably because they sometimes prey on giant squid. If megalodon also preyed on giant squid, it may have behaved similarly. However, most evidence points to megalodon preying primarily on marine mammals, so it's more likely it spent most of its time close to the surface. We don't actually know. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus over Megalodon taxonomy

copied over from [[3]]

Hi, it has come to my attention that there no longer seems to be a dispute over the classification of C. Megalodon. There seems to now be a strong consensus that Megalodon is a member of Otodontidae and thus is not a close relative of Great white sharks within Lamniformes. It therefore should be considered a member of the genus Carcharocles. No paper supporting the Carcharodon placement seems to have been published for over a decade, and every recent scientific paper on the topic uses Carcharocles.

The main contention being that Megalodon is derived from the genus Otodus and therefore ultimately Cretaceous Cretolamna while the great white shark derives from "Cosmopolitodus" hastalis, I can find very little information about the precise origin of that species except that is probably derived from some Cretaceous members of the mako genus Isurus.

At this point, I think that Wikipedia should be updated to reflect this, but since the article is such a high traffic one I think that a consensus should be reached first.

Kind regards --Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Estimated age doesn't make sense

This is the first sentence (bold italics added by me):

"Megalodon (Carcharocles megalodon), meaning "big tooth" from Ancient Greek: μέγας (megas) "big, mighty" and ὀδoύς, is an extinct species of shark that lived approximately 23 to 2.6 million years agoItalic text (mya), during the Early Miocene to the end of the Pliocene."

This makes no sense. As written, this shark lived "approximately" from 1994 to 2.6 million years ago.

Even if it is supposed to say "approximately 23 million to 2.6 million years ago" that wouldn't make sense - as these kind of things are usually cited in reverse chronological order - so 2.6 million to 23 million years ago. And I'm wondering about the .6 million years - would anyone really be that exact given the length of time involved? Wouldn't it be 3 million to 26 million years (if those numbers are correct)?

The way it's written I can't tell what the writer(s) meant.

Rblack2001 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is normal to use the oldest age first. That is what we do in non-paleontological speech too. "Grandma lived from 1900 to 1980", not "from 1980 to 1900".

The 2.6 is the top age of the Pliocene, the youngest strata are dated to that age, so it is the minimum age of the shark. Does not mean the youngest fossils are dated at 2.6 Ma. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Megalodon vs C. megalodon

The lead says "Megalodon" but the rest of the article refers to the shark as "C. megalodon" and a lot of sources use these interchangeably, so I'm wondering whether we should just use Megalodon, megalodon (with a lower case "m"), or stick with C. megalodon and delete "Megalodon" from the lead.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

At some point relatively recently, someone changed all or nearly the examples of "megalodon" to "C. megalodon" to make it look more scientific. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

that was me, I flipped a coin and picked C. megalodon but now I'm wondering whether it should just all be "Megalodon"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say the two names should be used in the article, also to avoid repeating the same phrasing for better reading (like is done in biographies about people, sometimes using their full name, sometimes their last name only). As Megalodon is known under that name in popular science, I would use that name. Maybe in the text where the comparison is made with other C. species using C. megalodon and where the use is more to indicate this unique shark (its size, in popular culture, etc. ) use "Megalodon".

I have just expanded the Pisco Formation (Peru) article, after creating the Castilletes Formation (Colombia) before (would be nice if the other formations where Megalodon has been found get expanded and created too), also to highlight the paleo-environment where Megalodon lived (prey, other species, etc.). Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I also think we should be able to use the common name "megalodon" (as other sources do) and the scientific "C. megalodon" interchangeably in the article in whatever manner is best for readability. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally in articles you want to be consistent in usage between common name and scientific name (unless you're trying to emphasize something)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

First line of lede

I've been following the development of this interesting article. I'd just like to ask the opinion of other editors regarding the first sentence in the lede:

• Megalodon (Carcharocles megalodon), meaning "big tooth" from Ancient Greek: μέγας (megas) "big, mighty" and ὀδoύς (odoús) "tooth", is an extinct species of shark that lived approximately 23 to 2.6 million years ago (mya), during the Early Miocene to the end of the Pliocene.

I'm just wondering whether the word "approximately" is needed. Isn't the range both broad and rounded enough to suggest that it is an approximate range?  – Corinne (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I would always use terms as "approximately", "around", etc. in paleontological articles (also for size and weight estimates; they are estimates, we cannot know them directly from fossils), as the dating of the fossils and/or sediments is not precise enough (except in the case of ash beds with absolute age calibration done in publications). The oldest and youngest sedimentary layers where fossils of Megalodon have been found would be dated to Early Miocene (starting at 23 Ma, by definition) to Late Pliocene (ending at 2.6 Ma, idem), but the exact position within those layers of the very fossils would need to be pinpointed to know a more exact age (based on foraminifera mostly). Then there is the additional problem that shark teeth can easily be washed from higher up (or lower down with onshore currents) to end up (so not in situ) in a younger formation than the age the animal lived. Would be nice to see which of the fossils found were the youngest and oldest to reduce the range a bit. Also for that the geologic formations list is useful, will be a separate one not to blow the article too much with it and it is complete enough for a separate list. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for the additional information.  – Corinne (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Distribution info

@WolfmanSF: Okay so I see some back-and-forth disagreement going on, so might as well discuss it here. I think the passage "as well as Puerto Rico,[38] Cuba,[39] Jamaica,[40] the Canary Islands,[41] Australia,[42] New Zealand,[17]:iv Japan,[9][4] Malta,[17]:53 the Grenadines[43] and India.[4]" is irrelevant because it was already stated that it had a worldwide distribution. The ones listed are just random examples cherry picked by whomever wrote it originally, they would've been found anywhere basically. It just doesn't seem to me that these random examples should be included. I tried to save as many refs as I could, but the majority in the passage just say it was present in that single location   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

"Worldwide distribution" leaves out all the details and oversimplifies the situation. If these quoted locations are cherry-picked and not representative of the actual distribution of the locations of fossil material from species, then we can improve the section. As long as they are reasonably accurate and complete, they represent the basis for the generalization and in my view should remain. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

My point is it can't be complete until you list effectively every country on the planet. There's a reason it lists continents before getting into all the little islands   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an equal reason for the opposite; the find of fossils on say Malta is much less common than in some US state. That deserves mentioning and especially when it is separately referenced there is no reason to actively exclude this information from the viewer. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the best solution is, and don't have time to investigate the subject in depth at the moment. But I (and presumeably some others) am interested in more detail on the distribution beyond just "cosmopolitan". A map of fossil sites would be relevant, if anyone had the time to prepare one. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The solution certainly isn't to arbitrarily list random places fossils have been found, or every single place they have been found, if that means practically every country on earth. That leaves more general areas as the best solution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@WolfmanSF:, this journal article has a great world map illustrating where Megalodon's been found (the one with all the blue and yellow dots under the Results section). The Journal of Biogeography copyright information on illustrations says that the images should be covered by the creative commons license (i.e., free to use on Wikimedia Commons). I have no idea how the upload process work for the Commons (I think you need some app), but if you're familiar, you could give it a go and we could skip all the specifics in-text. If you're uncomfortable, maybe @FunkMonk: could do it perhaps?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

An app isn't needed, you just download and upload a given image. It seems that journal has multiple options for licences, some which are non-commercial, which is not allowed here, so I'm not sure which one applies to the specific article. If we can't use it, we could recreate the map. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea how to do that either. Also I feel like it'd be easier to email the author to check and then have an OTRS verify it (but then again, I have no idea how this works)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I could do a map if it doesn't work. The journals usually control the copyrights, so I don't think you would get anything from OTRS, but you could ask what licence the specific article has... FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Journal of Biogeography is one of Wiley's subscription journals and their "OnlineOpen" blurb says that the article contents will only be open access if the authors choose to make it so by paying a fee. If they had done that, the article would have a PMC number, and it doesn't seem to. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Well in any case I already emailed the first author of the article (Catalina Pimiento) and she said she's unsure of the licensing of the images but she's willing to release it to Wikipedia. Before I send her the official write-up thing, she's the copyright holder right? Or would it just be easier for you to create an original map based on it rather than going through the OTRS?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the copyright would be owned by the journal publisher in most cases, but you never know. I do think it would be safer to make a new map. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: okay, will you be handling that? I have absolutely no idea how to make those pictures   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons to add the fossil localities was to have the coordinates of those sites linked. Would be a good starting point for making an overlay map. I think an overlay map is better than a drawn one, because there may be more sites coming in the future in other locations and then the map needs to be updated (redrawn) all the time to reflect new fossil finds. With an overlay map it's just adding an extra point and ready. Maybe in the future, when I have time I can make one, I've done it for the gomphothere fossils of South America too, also showing the differences between the sites (here we have Miocene and Pliocene ages for Megalodon), but now I have other things I am working on. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Could be nice if you could make it, but it is best for citability that it is based, at least partially, on a published map. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I was about to just make a map like I did at Steller's sea cow, but the one at gomphotheres is much better. I'll try to have it out by the end of the week, but after that should the table stay? It's not very easy to navigate through in terms of finding specific details, and I think readers would find info more easily using the table. The two could work together, the table for specifics and the map for visual aid   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: looks like the author found the copyright transfer agreement, and as far as I can tell the images are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC) license. If you want to check yourself, I can email you the PDF she emailed me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That settles it, then, non-commercial licenses are not allowed on Commons. But we can of course make a a new image based on it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
class=notpageimage| Locations of Megalodon fossil discoveries, turquoise from the Pliocene and red from the Miocene

Okay so I've finished putting all the points from fossilworks, but there're some missing according to the journal. I'd add them but I'm not sure of the coordinates, should I just get in the ballpark of it and approximate the coordinates, or just leave it? Also I'm thinking of putting this in the taxobox as a range map, sound good?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'll go ahead and add it, and we can always add points on later, and the taxobox is not a good idea. Also I think the table should stay in this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks pretty great to me, but yeah, would probably be too small in the taxobox. And it doesn't really show an inferred range anyway, but simply where fossils have been found. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing Information

There was a purported sighting of a Megalodon in 1918 off the coast of New Zealand that's never mentioned in the article. There are also arguments of its alleged survival by some in the scientific community that should be added as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

References, please. There are purported sightings of lots of things in the world. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well there's this from The Cryptozoology Review journal, it talks about all the possible sightings. Also the author keeps referencing other studies so those can be used too, but I mean he eventually concludes that it's a myth so anything discussing this would probably talk about how it didn't survive and explain away all the 'sightings'. Do you think it's notable enough for a separate section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It would probably only warrant a paragraph in the culture section, which would be better off with a more inclusive title. A separate section for such fringe info would be WP:undue. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I put it under the In fiction section, it seems apt   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New revelations

Two publications came to my attention recently:

Pimiento, C., Griffin, J. N., Clements, C. F., Silvestro, D., Varela, S., Uhen, M. D., & Jaramillo, C. (2017). The Pliocene marine megafauna extinction and its impact on functional diversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(8), 1100.

This paper offers a comprehensive picture of the "chain of events" that drove Megalodon to extinction (first of its kind). This article shall be a major citation in the "Extinction" section of the main article. Much of the ecosystem of which Megalodon was a part, collapsed during the Pliocene epoch. This was a major extinction event, and the study advances the notion that great climatic variability coupled with sea-level oscillations played a fundamental role in it. In connection, animals with high energy requirements (homeotherms) were particularly vulnerable to sea-level oscillations.

Ferrón, H. G. (2017). Regional endothermy as a trigger for gigantism in some extinct macropredatory sharks. PloS one, 12(9), e0185185.

This paper advances the notion that Megalodon was an endothermic shark. I believe that this revelation deserves a sub-section of its own in the Paleobiology section of the main article. This paper endorse biotic factors as being responsible for the extinction of Megalodon but Pimiento et al (2017) disclose the bigger picture in this regard.

--LeGenD (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

well both of those refs are already used in the article and I don’t think they warrant their own little section. The first ref has a sentence and the other one has a small paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that these two references are being under-utilized. First, this is the statement in the main article:

″However, since the Otodontidae sharks are considered to have been ectotherms, and megalodon was a close relative to them, megalodon may have also been ectothermic.″

Ferrón (2017) suggest otherwise:

″Now, regional endothermy of otodontids is strongly supported here from multiple approaches, and is confirmed as the key element that promoted the metabolic shift needed to reach huge sizes as macropredators in this group. Therefore, the integration of ecological and physiological triggers (i.e., availability of blubber-rich prey and endothermy inherited from cretoxyrhinids) offers a more holistic hypothesis to explaining the evolution of gigantism and the maintenance of active modes of life in this shark lineage.″

Secondly, Ferrón (2017) acknowledged the extinction theory advanced in Pimiento et al (2017):

″However, Pimiento et al. [16] have recently demonstrated that the range of water temperatures inhabited by O. megalodon was wider than previously expected being rather consistent with the existence of regional endothermy in this taxon. Furthermore, they noted that the occupancy range of O. megalodon was not correlated with climatic changes thus suggesting that extinction of otodontids was not primarily driven by climatic change and ocean cooling. Results presented here strongly support the existence of regional endothermy in the Cretolamna-otodontid lineage making it necessary to integrate this phenomenon and its consequences (e.g., tolerance to a wider range of water temperatures and less vulnerability to ocean cooling) in new explanatory hypotheses about the extinction of otodontids. In this sense, hypotheses that involve global habitat loss produced by sea-level oscillations during the Pliocene [182] and/or biotic factors such as the drop in the diversity of potential prey (filter-feeding whales) or the appearance of new competitors (large predatory whales and the great white shark) could be more in agreement with all these aspects ([16,115] and references therein).″

My point is that Megalodon having an ecothermic physiology is an outdated notion in the light of latest research.

That's why it follows it up by saying "Contrary to this, the largest contemporary ectothermic sharks, such as the whale shark, are filter feeders, implying some metabolic constraints with a predatory lifestyle," but looking back I see how it can be vague, so I added "That is to say, it is unlikely that megalodon was ectothermic." Also the Climate change section has a paragraph refuting it so I think it's covered  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your phrasing gives the impression that this is a minor revelation and it is still incorrect. Re-examine your statement in the main article:

″Its large size may have been due to climactic factors and the abundance of large prey items, and it may have also been influenced by the evolution of regional endothermy (mesothermy) which would have increased its metabolism. However, since the Otodontidae sharks are considered to have been ectotherms, and megalodon was a close relative to them, megalodon may have also been ectothermic. Contrary to this, the largest contemporary ectothermic sharks, such as the whale shark, are filter feeders, implying some metabolic constraints with a predatory lifestyle. That is to say, it is unlikely that megalodon was ectothermic.″

Two questions come to mind. (1) Who has considered Otodontidae sharks as ectotherms? and (2) Why should we assume that Megalodon was endothermic but earlier Otodontidae were ectothermic? Your statement appears to isolate Megalodon from family Otodontidae in this respect which is erroneous. Huge size of Megalodon seems to be an inherited trait from family Otodontidae (Megalodon is firmly positioned in the family Otodontidae in latest research (a family in which members with serrated teeth are also identified as Carcharocles in some sources (i.e. Otodontidae and Carcharocles are synonymous)). You can learn more about Megalodon-Otodontidae linkage from following sources:

Diedrich, C. G. (2013). Evolution of white and megatooth sharks, and evidence for early predation on seals, sirenians, and whales. Natural Science, 5(11), 1203.

Ehret, D. J., & Ebersole, J. (2014). Occurrence of the megatoothed sharks (Lamniformes: Otodontidae) in Alabama, USA. PeerJ, 2, e625.

Ferrón, H. G. (2017). Regional endothermy as a trigger for gigantism in some extinct macropredatory sharks. PloS one, 12(9), e0185185.

In connection with the above, Ferrón (2017) advances the notion of regional endothermy being the fundamental trigger of gigantism in the family Otodontidae (including Megalodon). Therefore, it is safe to assert that Megalodon inherited both gigantism and regional endothermy from family Otodontidae. Accordingly, you may rephrase your statement in this manner: ″Gigantism in Megalodon might be an inherited trait from the family Otodontidae (Diedrich, 2013; Ehret, 2014; Ferrón, 2017). These sharks were originally presumed to be ectotherms [insert references here; trace them in Ferrón (2017)] but Ferrón (2017) suggest otherwise; regional endothermy would have been a crucial factor in the maintenance of macropredatory modes of lifestyle at enormous sizes in Otodontids, and these sharks might have inherited regional endothermy from ancestral Cretoxyrhinids. Conversely, largest known ecothermic sharks, such as the whale shark and basking shark, are as a matter of fact filter feeders.″ You are free to incorporate additional details in this suggestion per your liking. You can also put Ferrón (2017) to good use in the Paleobiology section; study it closely and you will notice some points in this regard. --LeGenD (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Secondly, previous studies put forth different notions about Megalodon's extinction (in isolation) but Pimiento et al (2017) highlight the bigger picture in this regard:

″Until now, disappearances of Pliocene marine megafauna species were thought to represent isolated examples within a broader assemblage that remained largely intact (for example, ref. 3, but see ref. 43). Our results show that these extinctions, which peaked in the late Pliocene, were part of a hitherto unrecognized global loss of marine megafauna biodiversity.″

In connection with the above:

″Here, we report an extinction and consequent erosion of functional diversity of marine megafauna during the Pliocene. We propose that these extinctions were driven by habitat loss produced by sea-level oscillations, probably acting alongside other oceanographic alterations such as changes in productivity and ocean circulation, in addition to biotic drivers such as prey availability and/or competition. Since the modern marine megafauna became established in the Pleistocene (Supplementary Fig. 1), this event shaped the Earth’s present-day assemblages of these large ecosystem structuring organisms (for example, refs 25,27,32,72). The discovery of this extinction event reveals that the biodiversity and functional contributions of marine megafauna were more sensitive to environmental changes in the recent geological past than hitherto assumed.″

Pimiento et al (2017) have almost back-tracked from there earlier explanation of extinction of Megalodon such as in Pimiento et al (2015). Pimiento et al (2017) disclose that climatic shifts (and resultant sea-level oscillations) devastated much of the Pliocene marine ecosystem [of which Megalodon was a part] and these developments drove Megalodon to extinction eventually. Of equal importance is the observation that modern marine ecosystem is a product of Pleistocene-related developments.--LeGenD (talk) 11:05, 07 November 2017 (UTC)

All of which are already discussed in their nicely sized section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that modern orcas (O. orca) did not co-exist with Megalodon. The species that co-existed with Megalodon was actually (O. citonensis) and it vanished in Pliocene as noted in Pimiento et al (2017). It is unclear whether (O. citonensis) is responsible for radiation of (O. orca) in Pleistocene or the latter is a distinct occurrence in Pleistocene; probably the latter. Moura et al (2014) also observed that:

:/ fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

″Apex predators are sensitive to disturbances in prey resources, which may be impacted by rapid climate change (see review in Introduction).″

Modern orcas experienced a significant bottleneck in their population growth during the Pliestocene epoch due to similar factors:

″When haplotypes from all other sampled regions are combined (including both Southern and Northern Hemisphere regions), there is a strong expansion signal dating to after the LGM (for a spatial expansion regardless of the mutation rate, and for a demographic expansion using the higher rate; see Materials and Methods). Our results based on nuclear data reflecting historical trends in the Northern Hemisphere indicate that events concurrent with the last (Weichselian) glacial period induced a severe population decline in this top marine predator, unique for this species during the Pleistocene timeframe. Therefore, both nuclear and mtDNA data are consistent with respect to the severity and timing of a bottleneck event (though the confidence limits are much tighter for the estimates based on the nuclear data). We cannot easily distinguish between a model of expansion from a single refuge and the founding of regional populations, compared with the decline of populations in most locations, some more extensively than others, or some combination of these processes. However, our mtDNA data are consistent with a postbottleneck expansion worldwide, with the exception of South Africa (where reduced historical population size remains possible, but not detected with the available data).″

You can learn more from this link: https://www.livescience.com/43109-killer-whales-ice-age.html

This all seems like overkill for this article (it's out of the scope), I think it'd be better off in the Plio-Pleistocene article or the killer whale article since it's directly referencing those too, whereas it's indirectly referencing megalodon. With the orca reference above it seems like you have to extrapolate your own conclusion based on info from this article and the Pimiento 2017 article if you're trying to relate it back to megalodon. It doesn't seem to me that the orca ref above actually mentions megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your remarks but I disclosed this information on purpose. The Extinction section of the main article seems to be nicely constructed but some of its revelations are in contradiction with other revelations and/or misleading (highlighted below). Causes of extinction of Megalodon have been explored in isolation prior to Pimiento et al (2017) and Ferrón (2017) and this is the fundamental reason behind implied contradictions. Pimiento et al (2015) does not offers a convincing rebuttal of the original argument that climate-induced cooling trends in the oceans restricted Megalodon's access to the polar regions in pursuit of its prey; fossilized remains (and evidence of trophic interactions) of Megalodon are completely absent in the polar regions of the world and Pliocene fossil records of Megalodon do not affirm adaptation to cooling extremes of the Arctic and Antarctic environments. Nonetheless, Moura et al (2014) and Pimiento et al (2017) disclose that climatic shifts (and resultant sea-level oscillations) can disrupt and ruin well-established ecosystems and such developments can orchestrate mass extinctions in turn. Essentially, the factors that drove Megalodon to extinction also drove other apex predators such as Livyatan and O. citonensis to extinction. In-fact, Megalodon appears to outlast Livyatan in the fossil record. However, this reality is not properly captured in existing sources (lack of attention or potential biases?). This is why I consider the competition hypothesis weak and largely subjective; a convenient fit in the paleo-ecological construct about extinction of Megalodon. For the sake of being impartial, competition hypothesis shall be retained in the main article but it should be a secondary theme (not overarching) even if it has 100 citations (more citations do not affirm reliability but repetition of the same argument). The overarching theme should be that climatic shifts (and resultant sea-level oscillations) destabilized the Pliocene marine ecosystem which in turn orchestrated a mass extinction event [as pointed out in Pimiento et al, 2017] and these developments drove Megalodon to extinction alongside a number of other apex predators of the time. Accordingly, I am suggesting a few amendments below. --LeGenD (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This statement in the Changing ecosystem subsection of the main article ″surviving species may have been faster swimmers and thus more elusive prey″ is erroneous and should be removed; book from Mark Renz is hardly a credible source because the author is an amateur and his work is not peer-reviewed. This statement also rests upon the assumption that Megalodon was ecothermic which is erroneous in the light of Ferrón (2017). --LeGenD (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we know this is erroneous? WolfmanSF (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

These statements in the opening segment of the main article ″The animal faced competition from whale-eating cetaceans, such as Livyatan and ancient killer whales (Orcinus citoniensis), which likely contributed to its extinction. As it preferred warmer waters, it is thought that oceanic cooling associated with the onset of the ice ages, coupled with the lowering of sea levels and resulting loss of suitable nursing areas, may have also contributed to its decline. A reduction in the diversity of baleen whales and a shift in their distribution toward polar regions may have reduced megalodon's primary food source.″ - should be revisited in the light of Pimiento et al (2017) and aforementioned revelations. --LeGenD (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This statement in the Changing ecosystem subsection of the main article ″Conversely however, the increase in baleen whale size may have contributed to the extinction of megalodon, as they may have preferred to go after smaller whales; bite marks on large whale species may have come from scavenging sharks.″ - is unsupported and should be removed. Where is the evidence of these supposedly gigantic whales during Pliocene and the assumption that Megalodon was not able to prey upon them? This statement is in conflict with the disclosures of Purdy (1996) and bio-mechanical findings of Wroe et al (2008) that complement disclosures of Purdy (1996). This is the revelation:

″Our maximal bite force prediction of 18 216 N for the largest white shark is the highest thus far calculated for any living species, and among the highest if comparison is extended to extinct taxa (discussed below). At 108 514–182 201 N, our estimated maximum bite force in C. megalodon is extraordinary. These huge forces must be considered in the context of the great size of this fossil predator (maxima of 48 000–103 000 kg) and paleontological evidence suggesting that megatooth was an active predator of large whales (Purdy, 1996). A predominance of tooth marks on tail vertebrae and flipper bones (Purdy, 1996) suggests that this giant shark first immobilized its leviathan prey before feeding.″

In-fact, why is Purdy (1996) not a source in the main article? This is the reference: Purdy, R. W. (1996). Paleoecology of fossil white sharks. Great white sharks: the biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, San Diego, 67-78. This article is one of the most informative and logical you can find regarding the subject. --LeGenD (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This statement in the Changing ecosystem subsection of the main article ″Competition from new superpredators, such as macropredatory sperm whales which appeared in the Miocene, and killer whales and great white sharks in the Pliocene,[54][58][73] may have also contributed to the decline and extinction of megalodon.″ - is in conflict with information from Purdy (1996) and Diedrich (2013) in regards to the role of great white shark in this matter. Ehret (2014) offers a convincing evidence of the hypothesis that great white shark is an evolved form of (Miocene epoch) Cosmopolitus hastalis - the so-called white shark lineage. In relation, Purdy (1996) and Diedrich (2013) disclose segregated distribution patterns of these taxa with Megalodon competitively excluding white sharks from the regions it has inhabited throughout the span of their co-existence. Adnet et al (2009) also come to realization that the great white shark replaced Megalodon in different regions in a gradual manner [in complete absence of the former species] following the Messinian salinity crisis and the partial or global dessication of the Mediterranean basins. Point is that the effect of competitive pressure from the white sharks on the survival of Megalodon is inconsequential in the light of other observations and Pimiento et al (2015) have made a leap in logic in this aspect. --LeGenD (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not partaking in edits right now because the main article is undergoing FA review. I believe that you will give my suggestions a fair look and incorporate them in the main article. Both the Paleobiology and Extinction sections of the main article require major revisions in accordance with the aforementioned revelations. Please understand that the suggested revisions are for the benefit of the quality of the main article. Thank you. --LeGenD (talk) 11:46, 07 November 2017 (UTC)

In the Appearance subsection of the main article, you have mentioned that Megalodon may have looked like a Basking shark (from a not-so reliable source). I do not think this is scientifically established and Megalodon is unlikely to have ecothermic physiology. Megalodon would rather look like a great white shark. An excellent depiction of Megalodon is in Collareta et al (2017) and/or in this link (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-giant-ancient-shark-extinct-due.html). If you can obtain permission from the source of this depiction and put it in the main article, this would be an excellent contribution. --LeGenD (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well the image originally comes from here where it seems to be free use (since it looks like I'm allowed to download it for free) but I can't find the page where it lists the copyright status of the image. All I can find are the licensing options for Open Access articles (and this one isn't Open Access). Do you think it's safe to just assume and I'll go ahead and add it to the commons? It seems Elsevier owns the copyright so I don't think I can ask for permission on this one, and the author of the article will probably not know. It's on Phys.org so I assume it has a CC-BY license; but come to think of it the author of that Phys.org article might know for certain the copyright status of the image, so should I email him?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You are correct in pointing out that that image is available for download which implies relaxed copyright criteria for it (if it has any). In-fact, the downloadable version of that image contains the caption ″A. Gennari 2015″ so I think copyright will not be an issue if it is used in the main article. Still, you can seek advice from Elsevier directly (https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=ELS&contentID=S0031018216305417&orderBeanReset=true) or from the author of that Phys.org article. This image will be an excellent addition in the main article. You can also seek advice from other more learned contributors in this regard. --LeGenD (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ll ask @FunkMonk:, unlike me he knows what he’s doing. Is the Megalodon restoration from this site free to use on Wikipedia? Oh yeah and by the way LeGenD, if this new restoration is allowed on Wikipedia, will it replace the restoration already in the Appearance section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Elsevier is generally a very restrictive company when it comes to copyright.[4] The paper the image is from can be downloaded here[5], and no licence is mentioned anywhere, only "© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved." So it seems quite unlikely it is free, the fact another site is allowed to use it says nothing about its exact licence. We do already have two white shark-like restorations in the article, so we should be fine in that regard. No reason to use non-free fair use images, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This image is available for download from Elsevier [6] with the caption ″A. Gennari 2015.″ Reuse on Wikipedia would still be an issue? --LeGenD (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that it can be downloaded isn't related to its licence. Note again "© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved" at the bottom. Free journals like Plos One have nothing like that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have sought permission from Elsevier for reuse of this image in Wikipedia and I will provide an update as soon as I get a response. --LeGenD (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but remember, there is no such thing as Wikipedia-only use, Wikimedia only allows images that are free for any use, even commercial. And you have to validate the permission through OTRS.[7] FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megalodon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160722045756/https://www.priweb.org/files/pubtext/item_pdf_289.pdf to https://www.priweb.org/files/pubtext/item_pdf_289.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New total length formula

Suggesting the article, under Estimations, should include the relationship by Leder et al (2016) b/w total length and sum crown width of the upper jaw, of associated Megalodon teeth sets. They found tooth width to be more relevant in calculating TL as it correlates to the size of the jaws compared to using crown height of isolated teeth. Their method yielded tighter consistencies than compared to K. Shimada's tooth position-specific TL equations of the Great White, as in practice, applying them to associated Megalodon teeth sets results in much greater variations.

They estimated the associated teeth set, from the Yorktown Formation, in Gordon Hubbell's collection belonged to an individual of around 18m long; the set's longest tooth in slant height is 5 & 1/8 inches (Mark Renz, 2002) and 107.3mm in crown width, if of the A1 position (Pimiento et al 2010). Suggesting a much larger average and maximum TL than conservative estimates.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891065_SIMPLIFYING_THE_METHODS_-_BODY_LENGTH_ESTIMATES_FOR_CARCHAROCLES_MEGALODON_USING_ASSOCIATED_TOOTH_SETS_AND_JAW_WIDTH_RELATED_DATA_FROM_GREAT_WHITE_SHARKS_AND_MAKOS Gatss (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gatss: would you like to add it then?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2018

add a reference to the Hungry Shark games Wandjay (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: There are various Hungry Shark games, eg here, but they don't say specifically that the shark is a megalodon. This area is covered by WP:POPCULTURE. Apparently a megalodon can be unlocked in one of the games [8] but this isn't very notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Megalodon size

File:Megalodon size.jpg

Megalodon size

I created this--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs)

And how is this significant or how is it better than say the scale picture already in the article?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

error in unit symbol

I corrected an error in the unit symbol for pound-force. There are several other occurrences but it's late and I'm going to bed. Hopefully someone else can fix - bad form for featured article. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"M"egalodon or "m"egalodon

Should the common name of the species be capitalized in the article, as Fghsfijgig has done? 128.189.203.33 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No, common names are generally not capitalised on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think that capitalizing it would actually refer to the bivalve, not the shark. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fringe sources

I've just pulled a fringe source used throughout the article. As a reminder, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience notorious for adherents presenting it as a branch of academia while, for example, promoting related pseudosciences, like Young Earth creationism and ufology. Cryptozoology sources, like this one, are by no means reliable. Per WP:FRIND, sources like these require a reliable source discussing them (such as the Donald Prothero source that appears elsewhere in the article). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tronvillain:, @Katolophyromai:, and @LuckyLouie: — do you see anything else that may have slipped in the article? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to say "you're preaching to the choir," but, I can't because I've had to deal with editors in this article and talkpage who've alternately, angrily claimed that shark fossils do not exist because cartilage doesn't fossilize, to an editor who angrily insisted that Wikipedia is malevolently colluding with... um, the tourism industry and the New World Order, I think, to cover up the existence of Megalodon's continued extant-ness because aforementioned editor could not be arsed to read the 1/10th of a second disclaimer in one of Discovery Channel's fakeumentaries.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: I am honestly surprised how many people believe the nonsense that the Discovery Channel has churned out about Megalodon. Back in spring of 2017, I had a conversation with some people who had seen one of the docufictions and were all excited, insisting, "Megalodon is real! They have footage of it!" When I told them, "You know that show was actually complete fiction, right? The shark was CGI and there was a disclaimer at the end saying, 'This production is a work of fiction.'" Nonetheless, they refused to believe me and insisted that I was clearly misinformed. I had another similar conversation with a certain aunt of mine who believes all sorts of crazy things. She was more receptive, though; after I told her that the supposed "documentary" is fiction, she laughed and admitted she had thought there had been something suspicious about it. @Bloodofox: Regarding this article, I find it rather jarring that Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives is mentioned in the very first paragraph of the lead. I think it does need to be mentioned in the lead, but not in the first paragraph. I think it may perhaps be better suited at the end of the last paragraph of the lead. Other than that, I could not find anything that seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It was fictional but I think we’ve established The Monster Shark Lives was and still is a big deal, and, in my opinion, it, along with the new Meg movie, is probably one of the bigger reasons most people come to read the article in the first place. I think it should go in the first paragraph of the lead (provided we all know it’s fictional)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to put any pop culture stuff in the first paragraph in the lead. Not even Tyrannosaurus does that, arguably the most famous prehistoric animal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

but why not? I've never understood why pop culture is very marginalized on these types of articles and how authors placing it in either Carcharocles, Megaselachus, Otodus, or Procarcharodon takes precedent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Because scholarly discussions of how to classify Megalodon always take precedence over entertainment and other people's original research.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The subject of the article is not pop culture, but science. We need to highlight the subject itself, and not cheapen it by prioritising pop culture references over facts. Otherwise we're giving the impression that palaeontology is only significant because it can be used to populate stupid movies and TV series. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is about Megalodon, and it's giving the impression that a reduction in the diversity of baleen whales and a shift in their distribution toward polar regions which may have reduced megalodon's primary food source is one of the greatest takeaways of the article. The average reader's coming here because they've seen Meg or are avid Shark Weekers, so why start off the article saying others argued that it belonged to the extinct family Otodontidae, and that there's a near unanimous consensus that this view's correct, without giving something they recognize to bite onto? The thing you should understand about readers is that they will stop at the first paragraph if they feel there're too many big, meaningless words in the article to be worth their time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If they already found the article, why would they need "the Meg" name-dropped to recognise what this article is about? Again, no other articles do it, culture stuff is always placed last in animal articles, simply because it is the least important, and say little about the animals themselves. Why should it be any different in the lead? FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Strongly agree with FunkMonk here, what popular culture references are notable is ephemeral and distracts from the focus on the actual creature, will the Meg be relevant in a decade? Probably not. The reason that the lead is like that (Lamnid or otodontid) is because when I was writing it people kept changing the lead to make it seem like there was still a dispute as to the nomenclature, when there hasn't been for a decade and they were citing literature from 1996 like it was cutting edge, so I felt I had to appease these people who hadn't bothered reading the literature. Arguably it should just say that it's an Otodontid at this point, and just say it was formerly thought to a lamnid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, it's of greater importance to give more weight to what scientists say Megalodon is, and less weight to Discovery Channel hoaxsters and the fools who believe who claim that there's a conspiracy to cover up the fact that a giant great white shark is alive and gobbling up ships.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the intro should cover the main points from the various chapters and if there is some sensationalistic pseudoscientific "notable" fantasy published, it should go into the last paragraph, definitely not in the first ones. The focus of the article is the science, not some interpretation made in the media. Tisquesusa (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I created the section "Allegations" to deal with modern allegations of giant sharks, especially the Polynesian "Lord of the Deep" and "The Black Demon" (Spanish: El Demonio Negro) of the Sea of Cortez off the coast of Baja California in Mexico, within the section "In popular culture". Leo1pard (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think this type of material adds value to the article. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Now we have "List of alleged megalodon sightings". This seems highly dubious and inadequately sourced. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Biology

Estimate

• Among the specimens found in the Gatún Formation of Panama, other shark researchers used this method and calculated a maximum height of 16.8 meters (55 ft) for a specimen,^[26] and for another a total length of 17.9 meters (59 ft). This result appears to be an error within the matrix, and the length of this individual is actually 19.6 meters (64 ft).^[46]

I have read both referenced articles here (26 and 46) and can see no mention of the fact that the 17.9 meter specimen is an error. Am I missing something? JJJacober (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @JJJacober. I've just read the same thing, and I also came here because I could not find it in the source. There is a possibility that the last sentence is an original research. Until someone could clarify this, I will remove the last sentence and put the 17.9 m figure, because that's the highest figure that is mentioned in the source. Mimihitam (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77 I also can't find the following information in the cited references

• "Megalodon teeth can measure over 180 millimeters (7.1 in) in slant height (diagonal length) and are the largest of any known shark species." --> I can't find the figure of 180 mm in page 33 of Megalodon: Hunting the Hunter. Instead the page is talking about the slant height of juvenile teeth.
• "Based on these discoveries, an artificial dental formula was put together for megalodon in 1996" --> can't find the information (particularly the year 1996) in page 55 of Great White Sharks: The Biology of Carcharodon carcharias. If it's in the other ref cited (I have no access to it, can't check it), then it should only cite that one.
• "Megalodon is represented in the fossil record by teeth, vertebral centra, and coprolites." --> can't find the mention of "vertebral centra" and "coprolites" in page 57 of Great White Sharks: The Biology of Carcharodon carcharias.
• "It is possible that large megalodon individuals had jaws spanning roughly 2 meters (6.6 ft) across" --> not in page 129 of Megalodon: Hunting the Hunter

However, I suspect that this is caused by the use of a different version. Could you kindly clarify, @Dunkleosteus77? Thank you. Mimihitam (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ll have to get back to you on the weekend   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Competition

Why are orcas considered competition with C. megalodon anyways? Sure, modern transient orcas could probably compete with megalodon, but all fossil evidence of Orcinus in the Pliocene points to them being smaller, fish and squid specialists. They just don't have the same type of dental equipment found in modern orcas and there's no reason to argue that they acted like transient orcas (because their teeth aren't like that of transient orcas, being relatively smaller and more numerous; even if you take pack hunting into account, there is no reason to think they were killing marine mammals as opposed to herding small fish). They seem to have been closer to false killer whales in behaviour

Before you say "there is a paper that argues megalodon was outcompeted by orcas", that paper was written entirely by shark specialists, who cannot be assumed to know stuff about orca evolution (Paleontologists that specialize in marine mammals, like Richard Boessenecker, seem to agree that large size and raptorial behaviour in orcas is a Quaternary phenomenon). The only animal we know for certain that competed with C. megalodon and also outlasted it is the great white shark.

Sources on orcas not being major predators in the Pliocene:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giovanni_Bianucci/publication/244994854_Hemisyntrachelus_cortesii_Cetacea_Delphinidae_from_the_Pliocene_sediments_of_Campore_Quarry_Salsomaggiore_Terme_Italy/links/5631e95c08ae506cea679f1d/Hemisyntrachelus-cortesii-Cetacea-Delphinidae-from-the-Pliocene-sediments-of-Campore-Quarry-Salsomaggiore-Terme-Italy.pdf

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.5252/g2013n4a5

I also have major issues with any claims about raptorial sperm whales outcompeting megalodon, because the whales went extinct first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your sources, in the first, Bianucci (p. 80) compares Orcinus citoniensis with the "generalist" predators Pseudorca crassidens and Feresa attenuata, both of which are known to prey on other delphinids. This doesn't exactly support your position that there would have been no dietary overlap with megalodon. In the second, could you point out what comment Boessenecker made on the diet of Orcinus? I don't see one. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Boessenecker commented (as boesse) in this Tetrapod Zoology article on C. megalodon (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/cryptozoologicon-megalodon-teaser/), during a discussion in the comments about possible causes for C. megalodon going extinct. "The apparent coincidence in timing between the appearance of Orcinus and extinction of C. megalodon has been noted before (in the Lindberg and Pyenson chapter in the 2006 Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems volume). However, the Orcinus record is limited to a single tooth from Japan and Orcinus citoniensis, which is about half (or even less) the size, with smaller and more numerous teeth, and is hardly occupying the same niche as extant O. orca. I suspect that the large body size in the Orcinus lineage is a Quaternary phenomenon." Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Boessenecker remarks he "suspects" that the coincidence of the appearance of Orcinus and the disappearance of megalodon are unrelated (in a non-peer-reviewed blog post) is perhaps worthy of note, but we can't treat it as the last word on the subject, now, can we?? WolfmanSF (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this still ignores the fact that Feresa actually doesn't prey on other cetaceans, and that Pseudorca is larger and likely more formidable than Orcinus citoniensis. Even if it did hunt mammals on rare occasions, mammal predation by O. citoniensis wouldn't be a common occurence, just as Pseudorca only rarely attacks other marine mammals.

About the great white shark, everything I read seems to suggest the great white shark actively avoided megalodon. As for the orcas, I’ll have to read more into them this weekend. I think they were there when the article reached GA in 2008 (so I didn’t personally write it) but I also thought I’d gotten rid of all the outdated/incorrect information   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea Feresa preys on other delphinids is actually unsubstantiated aside from aggressive behaviour shown in captivity or during netting operations. The Feresa individuals were all wild-caught and the aggression may just be a result of stress. Stomach contents line up with a piscivorous diet (Rodríguez-López and Mignucci- Giannoni 1999; Zerbini & Santos 1997). Pseudorca, on the other hand, does seem to have attacked other cetaceans in the wild, but this doesn't appear to be a regular occurrence, and Pseudorca is also larger than Orcinus citoniensis. Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018

• Okay, found it, “Interestingly, the disappearance of C. megalodon is coincident with the appearance and diversification of some of the larger delphinids, including Orcinus. . . Here the evolutionary scenario for Orcinus departs from the other examples, because the presence of cooperative hunting behavior in the delphinids did not require predator size to exceed prey size.” So it’s not saying Orcinus directly led to the extinction of megalodon, rather that Orcinus was more adapted to the changing world, and outcompeted the shark which starved into extinction. So, maybe the statement needs to be reworded if that’s not being communicated?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that this all depends on ancestral orcas like O. citoniensis acting like modern transient orcas (because otherwise they wouldn't be eating the same food as the shark, and therefore not actually outcompete it)......which is debatable, considering that even among modern orcas, consumption of marine mammals is found only in some populations, not to mention the fact O. citoniensis has more numerous but smaller/less robust dentition than modern orcas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

well the book above says O. citoniensis hunted in packs on prey bigger than itself like the modern killer whale, and the big theory about modern killer whales is that, before whaling, they hunted baleen whales in sizeable quantity. Also, the theory is Megalodon hunted small baleen whales like Piscobalaena which was 5 metres (16 ft), and in comparison O. citoniensis was 4 metres (13 ft), so it’s plausible they hunted the same prey (albeit not Piscobalaena, but you get the idea). Also, the source, from what I can see, is only saying O. citoniensis could hunt prey better, not that megalodon actively avoided it or that its very existence led to the extinction of megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The claim that O. citoniensis was better at hunting cetaceans is, again, suspect because the anatomy of O. citoniensis isn't that of of an animal specialized to hunt cetaceans. And considering that even modern orcas largely take smaller cetaceans or the calves of larger ones, I'm not really convinced that O. citoniensis could kill a cetacean larger than itself even in pods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to step back and look at the big picture, which is that cetaceans competing with megalodon for marine mammal prey were evidently always present. This is what one would expect, given that cetaceans have a number of advantages over sharks in terms of their physiology and nervous system. It does appear that there was an overlap between the first appearance of Orcinus and the disappearance of raptorial physeteroids such as Hoplocetus. Both groups of cetaceans likely took a certain amount of marine mammal prey and by so doing reduced the available food supply of megalodon. Exactly how their niches were apportioned over time is not critical to the conclusion that competition with cetacean predators was a likely factor in megalodon's disappearance. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact C. megalodon coexisted with numerous cetacean competitors would actually be a mark against them being outcompeted by cetaceans (since it did just fine when the diversity of raptorial cetaceans was at its highest during the Miocene). And what physiological advantages do raptorial cetaceans have over sharks? Given that most extant lamniform sharks (not just proper lamnids, but also sand tigers, threshers, etc) do fine in temperate waters, and given that the only extant raptorial cetacean (the orca) is much more prevalent in temperate rather than polar waters, I don't see the argument of raptorial cetaceans being better-adapted to cooler-climate conditions that convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source that backs up any of what your saying (that it’s unlikely cetaceans and megalodon competed in some way) or is your only argument that it doesn’t make sense to you?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The point is that C. megalodon could deal with very high levels of cetacean competition in the Miocene, so it's illogical that C. megalodon would go extinct due to cetaceans, especially considering that it went extinct at around the same time as a wide range of other large marine animals, lots of cetaceans included (Pimiento et al, 2017)

What physiological advantages? Being warm-blooded and air-breathing, cetaceans like orcas have a much higher metabolic rate and can swim circles around aharks. Also, cetaceans generally seem to have been evolving faster than sharks. The cetacean fauna when meg went extinct was very different from that when it appeared. Presumably, cetacean predators were becoming more efficient and competitive during that interval. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I doubt any scientist has actually done rigorous studies on the comparative swimming abilities of sharks and cetaceans (note that there is a hard limit on animal swimming speeds due to cavitation, which puts doubts into speed estimates of cetaceans; see Iosilevskii and Weihs 2007). And while I can buy that cetacean evolution rates are more rapid than those of sharks, this can't in itself be evidence for the claim cetaceans became more specialized towards killing marine mammals; if anything, the cetacean fossil record indicates that there were fewer species of raptorial cetaceans in the Pliocene compared to the Miocene, so if anything, cetacean competition became less of a factor, unless you seriously want to argue that animals like O. citoniensis were equally well-adapted to hunting marine mammals when compared to modern orcas or to the raptorial physeteroids and squalodonts of the Miocene.

I still think there’s some misinterpretation going on here. The source above isn’t saying O. citoniensis led to megalodon’s extinction, just that O. citoniensis hunted in groups, O. citoniensis could hunt in cold waters, megalodon could not hunt in as cold waters, baleen whales started to migrate into cold waters, and both species fed on baleen whales. Macroraptorials have been around at least until 5 million years ago according to the source. When hunting large prey, a predator can do 2 things, 1) be bigger (Megalodon), or 2) get friends (Cetaceans)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no misinterpretation going on here, I'm just outright disagreeing with the idea ofO. citoniensis actually being a predator of cetaceans. As for the argument that group hunting negates the need for size; it really doesn't. There is a reason modern orcas are far larger and have far more formidable weaponry than every other dolphin, and it's not a coincidence that they're the only cetaceans today to regularly kill other cetaceans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, do you have a counter-source that says O. citoniensis could not hunt things bigger than itself, or is your argument still, “it doesn’t make sense to me”?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

See one of the papers linked earlier(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giovanni_Bianucci/publication/244994854_Hemisyntrachelus_cortesii_Cetacea_Delphinidae_from_the_Pliocene_sediments_of_Campore_Quarry_Salsomaggiore_Terme_Italy/links/5631e95c08ae506cea679f1d/Hemisyntrachelus-cortesii-Cetacea-Delphinidae-from-the-Pliocene-sediments-of-Campore-Quarry-Salsomaggiore-Terme-Italy.pdf) where O. citoniensis is stated to be ecologically analogous for Feresa, which is a fish and squid eater (with its supposed cetacean-killing habits unsubstantiated except with captured, highly stressed individuals), and Pseudorca, which is a good deal larger than O. citoniensis but is a specialist of pelagic fish rather than of cetaceans (Pseudorca has killed marine mammals, but only in rare cases, mostly involving dolphins injured by humans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay now we can get somewhere. I wish I’d seen that you’d put that link up already, I made some changes (but I hope you understand since we have sources that go both ways we have to say it could have been either way)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'd consider this argument over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerlyanonymouseditor (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The source in question states this (emphasis mine): "Probably, like the extant Pseudorca crassidens and Feresa attenuata, they [meaning Hemisyntrachelus and Orcinus citoniensis] were generalist predators that fed on squids, large fish and other marine vertebrates." P. crassidens has been reported to attack sperm whales and humpback calves, so it hardly qualifies as a fish specialist. Sources such as this also do not describe F. attenuata as a fish and squid specialist. So, I don't see any basis at all for describing O. citoniensis as being a squid and fish specialist. Unless someone comes up with a source indicating such specialization, we shouldn't describe them like that. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

See Also Link to List of Cryptids

Given the discussion about the inclusion of fringe stuff and 'alleged sightings' and the deletion of this article, I noticed that a link to list of cryptids was just included in the article's "see also" section by a cryptozoologist editor: [9]. The editor, who was also behind the deleted article, presents this behind the name "Alleged sightings of giant sharks", which it isn't, and the section is very poorly sourced. This appears to be another attempt to promote fringe theories on this highly visible article. Is this WP:UNDUE, something else, or should it remain? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean there are cryptozoology conspiracies about the shark and they are pretty prevalent in pop culture but I don’t think that justifies a link to list of cryptids, and I remember Lord of the Deep comes from here, but I don’t know where Diablo Negro is coming from   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

New study reports independently constrained temperature estimate of the habitat based on clumped isotope analysis

Hi there, I would like to suggest the following change to the habitat section (new text bold, deleted text commented with "X"):

Megalodon had a cosmopolitan distribution;[21][49] its fossils have been excavated from many parts of the world, including Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Australia.[25]:67[56] It most commonly occurred in subtropical to temperate latitudes.[21][25]:78 It has been found at latitudes up to 55° N; its inferred tolerated temperature range was 1–24 °C (34–75 °F). The independently constrianed temperature and oxygen isotopic composition of the bodyfluid of a C. megalodon specimen with an 87Sr/86Sr age of 5.75 ±0.9 Ma are 19 ±4 °C and -1.2 ±0.9 ‰ VSMOW, respectively[NEW SOURCE BELOW]. It arguably had the capacity to endure Xsuch lowX temperatures as low as 1 °C due to mesothermy, the physiological capability of large sharks to conserve metabolic heat by maintaining a higher body temperature than the surrounding water.[21]

[NEW SOURCE] Löffler et al. (2019): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703719301401 DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2019.03.002

Best wishes, Niklas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntotheik (talk • contribs) 11:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I added a note on the finding. If we had such data for many samples it would be of more relevance. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2019

The meg is still alive in fact there is more than one. 174.227.137.176 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideau^talk 14:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalondon

The tooth of megalondon was discovered by a Fisher in Cape Town. Then the American scientist went to South Africa to see this. After he also saw a megalondon on a satalite at Brazil's ocean. But unfortunately he did not finish his research because the director of Environmental protection and Natural Resources of South Africa banned him because he thought this discovery was a propanganda. Thandiiey (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Synonyms

I think that we have to create an article about Megalodon's synonyms like List of Megalodon's synonyms because that speciesbox is taking to much room, and article looks bad with that gap in second section. — Punëtori' Rregullt 08:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The article could go like this:

This is a list that include Megalodon's synonyms:

Genus Carcharias

• • C. giganteus
  • C. grosseserratus
  • C. incidens
  • C. macrodon
  • C. megalodon
  • C. mexicanus
  • C. polygurus
  • C. polygyrus
  • C. productus
  • C. (Prionodon) incidens

Genus Carcharocles

• • C. subauriculatus
  • C. megalodon megalodon
  • C. productus

Genus Carcharodon

• • C. arcuatus
  • C. branneri
  • C. brevis
  • C. costae
  • C. crassidens
  • C. crassirhadix
  • C. crassus
  • C. gibbesi
  • C. gigas
  • C. helveticus
  • C. humilis
  • C. intermedius
  • C. latissimus
  • C. leviathan
  • C. megalodon
  • C. megalodon indica
  • C. megalodon megalodon
  • C. megalodon polygyra
  • C. megalodon productus
  • C. megalodon siculus
  • C. megalodon yamanarii
  • C. morricei
  • C. polygurus
  • C. polygyrus
  • C. productus
  • C. quenstedti
  • C. rectidens
  • C. rectideus
  • C. semiserratus
  • C. subauriculatus
  • C. tumidissimus
  • C. turicensis

Genus Megaselachus

• • M. arcuatus
  • M. auriculatus falciformis
  • M. branneri
  • M. brevis
  • M. crassidens
  • M. crassirhadix
  • M. crassus
  • M. gigas
  • M. heterodon
  • M. humilis
  • M. incidens
  • M. leviathan
  • M. megalodon
  • M. megalodon indicus
  • M. polygyrus
  • M. productus
  • M. rectidens
  • M. semiserratus
  • M. subauriculatus

Genus Procarcharodon

• • P. megalodon
  • P. megalodon megalodon

Genus Otodus

• • O. megalodon
  • O. (Megaselachus) megalodon

Genus Selache

• • S. manzonii

References

What gap? The list is collapsed per default. And stand-alone synonym lists seem utterly pointless. The list can be divided further, though, as in Smilodon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Average Total Lenght

Average Total lenght misunderstanding: 10.5 m is the average expected length based on a study of the remains whose range from 2.20 to 17.90 m. The issue is that 10.5 is not the average size of (mature) Megalodon. Mature sizes are listed below (males 10.5 to 14.3 meters (34 to 47 ft) and females 13.3 to 17 meters (44 to 56 ft)). I propose to clarify it and rewrite the section about average total lenght in one paragraph. KiL92 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We need to be careful how we do this because it's a tricky subject to word correctly without coming off as original research or confusing the reader. Everything about megalodon is estimated. For example, the 10.5m average is an based on a wide variety of estimates using teeth from all over the jaws. If Shimada 2019 is correct about only using upper anterior teeth, then many of the estimates used to estimate the 10.5m average are unreliable anyway. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't question the measurement results and don't ask to delete or add anything to the article. I mean that the average figure "10.5" includes creatures at different stages of growing up, sizes from two meters, this is clearly not only adults. It's necessary to indicate this. Quote from the source: "General Body-Size Patterns Total Length (TL) estimates for Carcharocles megalodon range from 2.20 to 17.90 m (mean = 10.02 m, mode = 10.54 m)." And when we talk about the average size of an animal, we mean a mature one. I suggest first to specify estimted mature sizes for males and females, and then general body-size patterns (10.5 m), and put it in one paragraph. KiL92 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Size estimate

• I added a cited line about Meg being the largest shark and had it removed on grounds 'the topic was already well covered'. I disagree, as the article makes no mention of Megalodon being the largest shark, claiming only that Meg was one of the largest predators (of which there are many predators), Meg may have been the largest *fish* if an unfounded claim were assumed to be true, and that Meg had the largest known teeth of any shark found. There is no claim, reference, or mention --cited or other-- to the fact that Megalodon was/is the largest shark, and I think there should be, and defer to you for consensus. --Ylleknivek (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ylleknivek, Rather than add the line and citation to the Lead, which is intended to summarize the article, why not look at the section titled Size and see if you can fit the idea and its citation there. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hazaa! Great idea. Added, it fits well and flows nicely, let me know what you think. --Ylleknivek (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ylleknivek, Looks good to me. Thank you. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

One final note. Generally Featured articles are considered complete. We change them far less than the many thousands of articles that need improvements. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The whale shark is the biggest known shark that ever lived   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

2A02:1810:1C25:A900:55C5:185F:43D0:2975 (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Empty edit request. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 10:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

SHIVASUPER (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Megalodon is the biggest shark ever seen before

Already included – Thjarkur (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

New journal article published

An article has just been published in Nature (journal), that could be used here: [10] Tom B (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

<Rincon, P. (2014, October 23). Monster shark 'kept whales in check'. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29743081>

Add section:

Relationship to modern whales

Adding on to the predator–and–prey relationship between megalodon and whales, the extinction of the prehistoric shark might be the direct cause of the rise of modern whales' gigantism. Since scientists suggest that megalodons preyed on small whales and their tooth fossils are often discovered near whale skeletons, megalodon might have a direct control over whale populations. Thus, it is likely that the baleen whales experienced a top-down pressure release that allowed them to rise after the extinction of an apex predator like megalodon. Based on the study of this relationship, the rise of whale gigantism might be another way to date the extinction of megalodon. Evidence suggests that the baleen whales started to increase in size around 2.6 million years ago during the Pliocene and Pleistocene period until they reaches the size of the modern day blue whales. This timeline of whales indicates that megalodon possibly went extinct also during the Pliocene and Pleistocene period to allow such a significant transformation in whale size. TorresZ (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This is already in the article, the last paragraph of the Changing ecosystem section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

Maximum size estimates in opening paragraph are incorrect-It should read 14-20.3 meters, not 10-20.3. Shimada 2019 and Perez et al 2021 do not support a maximum length of 10 meters anywhere. Infamousshrek (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent

In the Evolution section, right after it says that megalodon is part of the genus Otodus, there's a paragraph stating that the megalodon is in Carcharocles. That seems like it should be changed? I might be wrong, though.

Asparagusus (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding new information from my new publication out of the NCMNS

Hello. I would like to update the "3.4 Feeding strategies" section for megalodon based on the findings of my and my colleagues' new paper: https://peerj.com/articles/12775/

How can I get access to making these changes?

Havivavrahami (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Haviv Avrahami Havivavrahami (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I believe it's because your account is very new, the article is semi-protected due to excessive vandalism, and the description of that says "Semi-protected pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia)."[11] So if you just make ten useful edits in other articles and wait a couple of days, I believe you should automatically be able to edit this one. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I will make some edits and wait 4 days.

Best, Havivavrahami (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday, Havivavrahami attempted to make the changes he wanted and was blocked by an edit filter. It was a false positive, but I have not made the changes he suggested because I think they are too detailed, dealing with a single specimen, and would not obtain a consensus supporting their inclusion, at least as presented. I'll leave you experts to decide whether or not a one or two sentence summary of the study's conclusions might be appropriate. Because the filter log in question was private, I have pasted the contents of the edit into my sandbox (permalink) so that others interested may consider the edit for themselves. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Compassionate727 and others. Please let me know what you decide and I can make any suggested changes.

Best, Havivavrahami (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Dunkleosteus77 and Macrophyseter could give it a look? FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

How about, "A 2022 study described a pathologically bifurcated megalodon tooth. In modern sharks, this condition is normally the result of being stabbed by a prey creature while attempting to eat it; such as by sea urchins, billfish, rays, or walruses" ? I'm not sure how far we should delve into shark tooth growth patterns Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

popular culture

PRIMAL S2E1. Drsruli (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is not for listing random appearances in pop culture. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What are the criteria for a popular culture reference for this article? (The article does have a popular culture section, with what seemed to be analogous references.) Drsruli (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Drsuli has a point. The popular culture section is stuffed with trivial references, and doesn't give a sense of why megalodon was thrust into the public consciousness in the first place. That's a reason to trim the section down, not add more trivial references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Those mentions were more to give an idea of how popular Megalodon is, like it features prominently in documentaries, movies, books, videogames; the examples themselves are quite arbitrary though Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If there was an effort to discuss how those mentioned examples tie into megalodon's popularity, instead of being written as an unsourced laundry list of trivial "Spot The Monster Of The Week"--Mr Fink (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I get that, but a more logical way to structure the section would be to show how Megalodon became popular in the first place like the Dodo from Alice in Wonderland, rather than media that depicts the animal well after it became well known. Looking at google ngram, the modern rise seems to begin around 1998-9. Is this to do with the publication of Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror or is that just a coincidence? Based on google trends, the 2013 pseudodocumentary Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives on Discovery channel also appears to have been a major contributor to its modern popularity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

this 2021 paper seems to confirm Meg pioneered the genre of contemporary megalodon fiction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So, again, the creature is beautifully rendered, recently, in an acclaimed series. I have provided the episode, but I can also find the minutes onscreen. (If it matters, the animal isn't just there as background, but figures in the story.) Drsruli (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"Giant white shark" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Giant white shark and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8#Giant white shark until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Megalodon Is 85 Feet In Length

The Megalodon Is 85 Feet Inlength 176.63.9.158 (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WelcometoJurassicPark is relevant. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources in Summary

Hello everyone reading this message. I would just like to know if someone is able to move all the references present in the introductory summary in the body of the article to their respective places (except the taxobox) so that the article can respect the regulations issued for a featured article ? Thanks in advance for anyone who will. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for new Info

While the megalodon has been studied for decades, there were definitely some misconceptions about it back in the Renaissance era. “During the Renaissance, a good chunk of the population believed that the giant, fossilized teeth of megalodons were fossilized remains of a dragon or serpent tongues.” Even though we now know that the megalodon had about 300 teeth that weighed more than a pound each, they once led the Renaissance men to believe that they had found a rare, amazing, dragon tooth fossil.

Lenard. “60 Massive Megalodon Facts about the Biggest Shark Ever.” Facts.net, Facts.net, 23 May 2022, https://facts.net/megalodon-facts/.

It primarily roamed around away from the north and south poles due to the extreme temperature. It is now shown that the Megalodon can be closely related to the Mako Sharks, which can be identified as smaller, but faster sharks. The Juvenile Megalodon sharks stayed closer to the shores while the adults preferred coasts, but would make the occasional trips into deeper territory. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/sharks-rays/megalodon#:~:text=Ecology%20%26%20Behavior-,Distribution,most%20southern%20in%20New%20Zealand. Morgan230218530 (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the article? This info is already there. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Hello Morgan230218530, and welcome to Wikipedia! As FunkMonk mentions, it would appear the article currently goes over the content you have provided in this request. Aside from that, edit requests must specify exactly what prose should be written and where it should be inserted so that volunteers can quickly and efficiently review and implement requests. Feel free to direct any questions to my talk page or the friendly community venue for new editor questions. —Sirdog (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Morgan230218530 This link is completely useless as a reference. Websites with titles like "Facts" are mostly just random listings of information gleaned from around the Internet. As in fact the information already exists on this Wikipedia page. These websites do not merely copy information from websites such as Wikipedia, they may contain inaccurate or outdated information, and they do not attempt to update it. This page[12] for example, counts Hesperornithoides as oldest ancestor of Velociraptor, clearly indicates that the author is a total amateur in this field. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The page needs to be moved.

It's name is not Megalodon but people call it Megalodon by short. The name is Otodus Megalodon. GgfHghf (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not read it fully but I understood. Thanks. GgfHghf (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

I would like to update the main image of the Megalodon jaws at the AMNH to a higher-resolution version. I have photographed a high-res version of the fossil using a professional camera and think it would be cool to replace the main article image with a nearly identical, higher-res version! Ryan Schwark (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ryan Schwark: Can you or have you uploaded the image to Commons? It would help watching editors to see the image. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons at this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Megalodon_jaws_at_American_Museum_of_Natural_History.jpg Ryan Schwark (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Now let other editors chime in and we'll see. Again thank you. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. How do we establish a consensus for this alteration? What is the process? Thanks. Ryan Schwark (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ryan Schwark: See Consensus Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I read the Consensus article but it doesn’t seem clear to me how we reach a consensus. Sorry for being so new to this process — I only started editing a couple of days ago! Do I need to provide a detailed explanation of my proposed edit, and then an administrator/overseer of the Megalodon article will give me permission to edit? Ryan Schwark (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)