Jump to content

Megalodon evolution?


Max-fossils

Recommended Posts

Hey all!

 

Sorry to bother you again with my Megalodon questions, but I'm very curious about this fascinating beast.

 

So I found this picture on Google. In my previous topic about Megalodon, we discussed about the genus of the species, and Otodus came as the answer. Now this picture (which still represents Megalodon as Carcharocles) shows the succession of species till Megalodon. Seeing that it starts with Otodus obliquus, and then goes on with the Carcharocles genuses, I was wondering something: if Megalodon is actually considered as Otodus, should auriculatus, angustidens and chubutensis also be considered as Otodus?

 

Best regards to all,

 

Max

image.jpeg

Max Derème

 

"I feel an echo of the lightning each time I find a fossil. [...] That is why I am a hunter: to feel that bolt of lightning every day."

   - Mary Anning >< Remarkable Creatures, Tracy Chevalier

 

Instagram: @world_of_fossils

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Max-fossils said:

if Megalodon is actually considered as Otodus, should auriculatus, angustidens and chubutensis also be considered as Otodus?

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

 

Yes.

Alright, thanks for the info!

That was a faster answer than I expected. :P

 

Best regards,

 

Max

Max Derème

 

"I feel an echo of the lightning each time I find a fossil. [...] That is why I am a hunter: to feel that bolt of lightning every day."

   - Mary Anning >< Remarkable Creatures, Tracy Chevalier

 

Instagram: @world_of_fossils

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Megalodon is not considered otodus though, so the question is mute. Scientists decided that once the teeth became serrated, the sharks morphology, behavior and diet were sufficiently different that they no longer belonged to the Otodus genus. All life on earth ultimately derives from a common ancestor, but we aren't all considered the same genus. Evolution has changed megalodon enough to warrant assigning it a new genus, which happened before auriculatus evolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, britishcanuk said:

Megalodon is not considered otodus though, so the question is mute. Scientists decided that once the teeth became serrated, the sharks morphology, behavior and diet were sufficiently different that they no longer belonged to the Otodus genus. All life on earth ultimately derives from a common ancestor, but we aren't all considered the same genus. Evolution has changed megalodon enough to warrant assigning it a new genus, which happened before auriculatus evolved.

 

Glickman in 1964 first proposed using the genus Otodus for serrated megatoothed sharks. It was pretty much ignored until 1999 when Zhelezko and Kozlov agreed that Glickman was correct. Now slowly other researchers are agreeing, including Cappetta. There really isn't any difference between Otodus obliquus and O. auriculatus besides the serrations, certainly not enough to warrant an entirely new genus. So now megalodon has moved through many different names and now is Otodus megalodon. Maybe it will change again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, britishcanuk said:

Megalodon is not considered otodus though, so the question is mute. Scientists decided that once the teeth became serrated, the sharks morphology, behavior and diet were sufficiently different that they no longer belonged to the Otodus genus. All life on earth ultimately derives from a common ancestor, but we aren't all considered the same genus. Evolution has changed megalodon enough to warrant assigning it a new genus, which happened before auriculatus evolved.

 
 
 
 

Ok, thanks for your great input!

So you consider megalodon a genus of its own? Then what would the species of it be?

And I know that it doesn't mean you are automatically the same genus as your ancestor; but I asked that because there was Otodus --> Carcharocles --> Otodus, which I found weird.

 

Best regards,

 

Max

4 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

 

Glickman in 1964 first proposed using the genus Otodus for serrated megatoothed sharks. It was pretty much ignored until 1999 when Zhelezko and Kozlov agreed that Glickman was correct. Now slowly other researchers are agreeing, including Cappetta. There really isn't any difference between Otodus obliquus and O. auriculatus besides the serrations, certainly not enough to warrant an entirely new genus. So now megalodon has moved through many different names and now is Otodus megalodon. Maybe it will change again.

 
 

Alright, thanks for the additional info!

 

Best regards, 

 

Max

 

By the way, I'd like you both to have a quick look at this (well, @Al Dente already has, but I believe @britishcanuk will find this informative.)

 

Max Derème

 

"I feel an echo of the lightning each time I find a fossil. [...] That is why I am a hunter: to feel that bolt of lightning every day."

   - Mary Anning >< Remarkable Creatures, Tracy Chevalier

 

Instagram: @world_of_fossils

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no idea that megalodon had been lumped into otodus, so that makes my last response somewhat confusing.

 

When we have little more than teeth to go by, there is much speculation. The only thing that is certain to me is that Otodus will be temporary :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, britishcanuk said:

The only thing that is certain to me is that Otodus will be temporary :)

 

I wouldn't be certain, but I agree that there probably is a big chance it's temporary.

Max Derème

 

"I feel an echo of the lightning each time I find a fossil. [...] That is why I am a hunter: to feel that bolt of lightning every day."

   - Mary Anning >< Remarkable Creatures, Tracy Chevalier

 

Instagram: @world_of_fossils

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shimada et al. 2016 most recently considered declaring Carcharocles as a junior synonym of Otodus. Recognizing both Otodus and Carcharocles as distinct taxonomic entities - yet recognizing that the latter evolved from within the former - makes either Carcharocles or Otodus "paraphyletic" - i.e. a name that applies to a group that does not include all the descendants of a single ancestor. Paraphyly essentially designates a group that is not biologically real. There is a bit of a philosophical debate within paleontology and biology whether or not taxonomy and phylogenetics are one and the same; taxonomists may not have a problem, but in phylogenetics names do not exist in a vacuum and rather should represent branches on the tree of life. Here's a figure from their paper.

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2016.1236795

Otodus.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...