Megalodon Fossil range: Late Oligocene-Early Pleistocene 25–1.5 Ma |
|
---|---|
Model of the jaws of the megalodon at the AMNH. | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | Animalia |
Phylum: | Chordata |
Subphylum: | Vertebrata |
Class: | Chondrichthyes |
Subclass: | Elasmobranchii |
Order: | Lamniformes |
Family: | Disputed; Lamnidae or †Otodontidae |
Genus: | Disputed; Carcharodon or †Carcharocles |
Species: | †C. megalodon |
Binomial name | |
Disputed; Carcharodon megalodon or Carcharocles megalodon For Carcharodon megalodon, Agassiz, 1843 |
|
Synonyms | |
|
The megalodon, Carcharodon or Carcharocles megalodon (pronounced /ˈmɛɡələdɒn/ MEG-ə-lə-don, "big tooth" in Greek, from μέγας and ὀδούς) is an extinct megatoothed shark that existed in prehistoric times, from the Oligocene to Pleistocene epochs, approximately 25 to 1.5 million years ago.
C. megalodon may have been the largest and most powerful macro-predatory fish in vertebrate history. Fossil remains of C. megalodon indicate that it was the biggest shark that ever lived and possibly approached a maxima of around 20.3 metres (67 ft) in length. C. megalodon has been assigned to the order Lamniformes but its phylogeny is disputed. Scientists suggest that C. megalodon looked like a stockier version of the great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, in life. Fossil evidence confirms that C. megalodon had a cosmopolitan distribution. C. megalodon was a super-predator,[1] and bite marks on fossil bones of its victims indicate that it preyed upon large marine animals.
Contents |
According to Renaissance accounts, huge, triangular fossil teeth often found embedded in rocky formations were once believed to be petrified tongues, or glossopetrae, of the dragons and snakes. This interpretation was corrected in 1667 by a Danish naturalist Nicolaus Steno, who recognized them as ancient shark teeth (and famously produced a depiction of a shark's head bearing such teeth).[2] He mentioned his findings in a book, The Head of a Shark Dissected, which also contained an illustration of a C. megalodon tooth, previously considered to be a tongue stone.[3]
A Swiss naturalist, Louis Agassiz, gave this shark its scientific name, Carcharodon megalodon, in 1835,[4] in his research work Recherches sur les poissons fossiles[5] (Research on fossil fish), which he completed in 1843. The teeth of the C. megalodon are morphologically similar to the teeth of the great white shark. On the basis of this observation, Agassiz assigned the genus Carcharodon to the megalodon.[4] While the scientific name is C. megalodon, it is often informally dubbed the megatooth shark [6] or giant white shark[7] or even monster shark.[8]
As with all other sharks, the megalodon skeleton was formed of cartilage rather than bone; this results in mostly poorly preserved fossil specimens.[9]
The most common fossils of C. megalodon are its teeth, which are morphologically similar to the teeth of great white shark but are more robust,[6] and more regularly serrated.[6] The teeth of C. megalodon can measure over 180 millimetres (7.1 in) in slant height or diagonal length, and are the largest in size of any known shark species.[10]
Some partially preserved fossil vertebrae of C. megalodon have also been found.[3] The most notable example is a partially preserved but associated vertebral column of a single C. megalodon specimen excavated from Belgium in 1926. This specimen comprises 150 vertebral centra, with the largest centra being 155 mm in diameter.[6] However, the vertebral centra of C. megalodon can be over 225 mm in diameter,[11] and are likely the largest in size of any known shark species.
The fossils of C. megalodon have been excavated from many parts of the world, including Europe,[3] North America,[6] South America,[3][6] Puerto Rico,[12] Cuba,[13] Jamaica,[14] Australia,[15] New Zealand,[10] Japan,[3][6] Africa,[3][6] Malta,[10] Grenadines,[16] and India.[3] C. megalodon teeth have also been excavated from regions far away from continental lands (i.e. Mariana Trench in the Pacific).[10]
The earliest remains of C. megalodon have been reported from late Oligocene strata.[10][17] Although fossils of C. megalodon are predominantely absent in strata extending beyond the Tertiary boundary,[6] they have been reported from Pleistocene strata.[18] It is believed that C. megalodon became extinct in the Pleistocene probably about 1.5 million years ago.[9]
The great white shark is regarded as the most analogous species to C. megalodon among the extant taxons.[3][6] The lack of exceptionally preserved fossil skeletons of C. megalodon have forced the scientists to rely on the morphology of the great white shark for the basis of its reconstruction and size estimation.[6]
Estimating the maximum size of C. megalodon is a highly controversial and difficult subject.[10] However, the scientific community acknowledges that C. megalodon was larger than the whale shark, Rhincodon typus. The first attempt on reconstructing the jaw of this shark was made by Professor Bashford Dean in 1909. From the dimensions of this jaw reconstruction, the size of C. megalodon was theorized to be around 30 metres (98 ft), but in the light of new fossil discoveries and advances in vertebrate sciences, this jaw reconstruction is now considered to be inaccurate.[19] Major reasons cited for this inaccuracy are; (1) relatively poor knowledge of C. megalodon's dentition in Dean's time; and (2) inaccurate muscle structures.[19] Experts suggest that a rectified version of C. megalodon's jaw model by Bashford Dean would be about 70 percent of its original size and would depict a shark size consistent with modern findings.[19] Hence, to resolve such errors, scientists, aided by new fossil discoveries of C. megalodon and improved knowledge of its closest living analogue's anatomy, introduced more quantitative methods for estimating its size based on the statistical relationships between the tooth sizes and body lengths in the great white shark.[6][19]
In 1973, the ichthyologist John E. Randall introduced a method to determine the size of the great white shark and extrapolated it to estimate the size of C. megalodon.[20] The proposed method is: "Megatooth's" Total Length in meters = [(0.096) × (enamel height of tooth in mm)].[19][20] The logic behind this method is that the enamel height (the vertical distance of the blade from the base of the enamel portion of the tooth to its tip) of the largest upper anterior tooth in the jaw of the shark can be used to determine its total length.[19] The largest C. megalodon tooth in his possession at that time had an enamel height of around 120 mm,[19] which yielded 13 metres (43 ft) length.[19][20] However, two shark experts, Richard Ellis, and John E. McCosker, pointed out a flaw in Randall's method in 1991.[6] According to them, shark's tooth enamel height does not necessarily increase in proportion to the animal's total length. This observation led to proposals for new, more accurate methods to determine the size of the great white shark and similar sharks.[6]
Three scientists, Michael D. Gottfried, Leonard J. V. Compagno and S. Curtis Bowman, after thorough research and scrutiny of many great white shark specimens, proposed a conservative but more accurate method for measuring the size of C. carcharias and C. megalodon that was published in 1996. The proposed method is: "Megatooth's" Total Length in meters = − (0.22) + (0.096) × [(Tooth maximum height in mm)].[6] The biggest C. megalodon tooth in the possession of this team was an upper anterior specimen, which had a maximum height of 168 mm (6.61 inch). This tooth was discovered by L. J. V. Compagno in 1993, and it yielded a length of 15.9 metres (52 ft).[6] However, rumors of larger C. megalodon teeth persisted at that time.[6] The maximum tooth height for this method is measured as a vertical line from the tip of the crown to the bottom of the lobes of the root, parallel to the long axis of the tooth.[6] In short words, the maximum height of the tooth is its slant height.[21]
Gottfried et al., also introduced a method to determine the body mass of the great white shark after studying the length – mass relationship data of 175 specimens at various growth stages and extrapolated it to estimate the body mass of C. megalodon. The proposed method is: Weight in kilogram = 3.29E−06[TL in (meters)3.174].[6] And according to this method, a 15.9 metres (52 ft) long specimen would have a body mass of about 47 metric tons (52 short tons).[6]
In 2002, shark researcher Dr. Clifford Jeremiah also proposed a method to determine the size of great white shark and similar sharks (i.e., C. megalodon).[10] which is believed to be based on a sound principle that works well with most large sharks.[10] The proposed method is: "Shark's" Total Length in feet = [(Root width of an upper anterior tooth in cm) x (4.5)]. It translates as for every centimeter of root width of an upper anterior tooth, there is approximately 4.5 feet of the shark. Dr. C. Jeremiah asserts that the jaw perimeter of a shark is directly proportional to its total length, with the width of the roots of the largest teeth being a proxy for estimating jaw perimeter.[10] The largest tooth in the possession of Dr. C. Jeremiah had a root width of nearly 12 cm, which yielded 15.5 metres (51 ft) length.[10]
The existing fossil evidence indicates that C. megalodon likely exceeded 16 metres (52 ft) in total length.[10][22][23][24] In 1994, a marine biologist Patrick J. Schembri claimed that C. megalodon may have approached a maximum length of 25 metres (82 ft).[25] The early size estimation of C. megalodon was perhaps not far fetched. However, Gottfried et al., in 1996, proposed that C. megalodon could likely approach a maxima of 20.3 metres (67 ft) in total length.[6][23][24] The shark weight measuring technique suggested by the same team indicates that C. megalodon at this length would have a body mass of 103 metric tons (114 short tons).[6][23]
Hence, scientific research makes it clear that C. megalodon is the largest shark that has ever lived and is among the largest fish known to have lived.[6]
A team of Japanese scientists, T. Uyeno, O. Sakamoto, and H. Sekine, discovered and excavated the partial remains of a C. megalodon, with nearly complete associated set of its teeth, from Saitama, Japan in 1989.[3] Another nearly complete associated C. megalodon dentition was excavated from Yorktown formations of Lee Creek, North Carolina in USA and served as the basis of a jaw reconstruction of C. megalodon in American Museum of Natural history in NYC.[6] These associated tooth sets solved the mystery of determining the exact number of teeth, which would be present in the jaws of the C. megalodon in each row in life. Hence, highly accurate jaw reconstructions were now possible. More associated dentitions of C. megalodon have also been found in later years. Based upon these discoveries, two scientists, S. Applegate and L. Espinosa, published an artificial dental formula (representation of dentition of an animal with respect to types of teeth and their arrangement within the animal's jaw) for C. megalodon in 1996.[3][6] Most accurate modern C. megalodon jaw reconstructions are based on this dental formula.
The dental formula of C. megalodon is:
As evident from the dental formula, C. megalodon contained four different kinds of teeth in its jaws.[3]
C. megalodon had a very robust dentition,[6] and it had a total of about 276 teeth in its jaws, spanning in 5 rows. (See "external links" below)
Paleontologists suggest that a very large C. megalodon had jaws over 2 metres (7 ft) across.[10]
In 2008, a team of scientists led by Stephen Wroe have conducted an experiment to determine the bite force of the C. megalodon and results indicate that it was one of the most powerful vertebrates in history.[23] At 15.9 metres (52 ft) long, C. megalodon was capable of exerting a bite force of about 108,514 newtons (N)[23] or 24,000 pound-force, and at 20.3 metres (67 ft) long, C. megalodon was capable of exerting a bite force of about 182,201 newtons (N)[23] or 41,000 pound-force.
C. megalodon's bite force, at maximum estimated size, is over 28 times greater than that of Dunkleosteus at 5.3 kN (1,100 lbf),[23][26] over 10 times greater than that of the great white shark at 18 kN (4,100 lbf),[23] over 5 times greater than that of T. rex at 31 kN (7,000 lbf),[23] and also greater than that of Predator X at 150 kN (33,000 lbf).
In addition, Wroe et al pointed out that sharks also perform lateral shaking activities while feeding which amplify the postcranial generated forces. Thereforce the total delivered forces experienced by prey are likely higher than the forces estimated through the experiment.[23] The extraordinary bite forces in C. megalodon must be considered in the context of great size of this fossil predator and paleontological evidence suggesting that C. megalodon was an active predator of large cetaceans.[23]
The exceptionally robust teeth of C. megalodon are serrated,[4][10] which would have improved efficiency in slicing the flesh of prey items. Paleontologist Dr. Bretton Kent suggests that these teeth are comparatively thicker for their size with much lower slenderness and bending strength ratios. They also have roots that are substantially larger relative to total tooth heights, and so have a greater mechanical advantage. Teeth with these traits are not just good cutting tools but also are well suited for grasping powerful prey and would seldom crack even when slicing through the bones.[27]
Aside from estimating the size of C. megalodon, Gottfried et al., also have tried to determine the schematics of the entire skeleton of C. megalodon.[6]
To functionally support the very large and robust dentition, the jaws of the C. megalodon would have been massive, stouter, and more strongly developed than that of the great white shark, which possesses a somewhat gracile dentition in comparison.[6] The strongly developed jaws would have somewhat of a pig-eyed appearance.[6]
The chrondocranium of C. megalodon would have a blockier and more robust appearance than that of the great white shark, in order to functionally reflect its more massive jaws and dentition in comparison.[6]
The fins of C. megalodon would have been most likely proportionally larger and thicker in comparison to fins of great white shark because relatively larger fins were a necessity for propulsion and control of movements of such a massive shark.[6]
Through thorough scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral C. megalodon specimen from Belgium, it became apparent that C. megalodon had a higher vertebral count than found in large specimens of any known shark.[6] Only the vertebral count in great white shark came close in quantity, symbolizing close anatomical ties between the two species.[6]
On the basis of the characteristics mentioned above, Gottfried and his colleagues eventually managed to reconstruct the entire skeleton of C. megalodon, which has been put on display in Calvert Marine Museum at Solomons island, Maryland in USA.[6][28][29] This C. megalodon skeletal reconstruction is 11.5 metres (38 ft) long and represents a young individual.[6] The team stresses that relative and proportional changes in the skeletal features of C. megalodon are ontogenetic in nature in comparison to that of great white shark, as they occur in great white sharks while growing larger.[6] In addition, the fossil remains of C. megalodon confirm that it had a heavily calcified skeleton in life.[11]
Sharks are generally opportunistic predators. However, scientists propose that C. megalodon was "arguably the most formidable carnivore ever to have existed."[23] The factors — great size,[23] high-speed swimming capability,[29] and powerful jaws coupled with formidable killing apparatus,[23][6] ensured a super-predator with the capability to challenge a broad spectrum of fauna.
Fossil evidence indicates that C. megalodon preyed upon cetaceans (i.e., whales,[3] including sperm whales,[10][30] bowhead whales,[7] cetotherrids,[9] squalodontids,[8][31] rorquals,[32] and Odobenocetops,[33] dolphins,[6] and porpoises[10]), sirenians,[31][34] pinnipeds,[9][16] and giant sea turtles.[31] Due to its size, C. megalodon would have fed primarily on large animals, and whales were likely important prey–many whale bones have been found with clear signs of large bite marks (deep gashes) made by teeth that match those of C. megalodon,[3][6] and various excavations have revealed C. megalodon teeth lying close to the chewed remains of whales,[6][28] and sometimes in direct association with them.[35] Like other sharks, C. megalodon also would have been piscivorous.[9][29] C. megalodon likely also had a tendency for cannibalism.[36]
Sharks often employ complex hunting strategies to engage large prey animals. Some paleontologists suggest that the hunting strategies of the great white shark may offer clues as to how C. megalodon might have hunted its unusually large prey (i.e., whales).[8] However, fossil evidence suggests that C. megalodon employed more effective hunting strategies against large prey compared to the strategies employed by the great white shark.[27]
Paleontologists have conducted a survey of fossils to determine attacking patterns of C. megalodon on prey.[27] The findings suggest that the attack patterns could differ against prey with respect to its size.[8] Fossil remains of some small cetaceans suggest that they were likely rammed with great force from below before being killed and eaten.[8] One particular specimen — remains of a 9 metres (30 ft) long prehistoric baleen whale (unknown taxon from Miocene) provided the first opportunity to quantitatively analyze the attacking behavior of C. megalodon.[27] The predator primarily focused its attack on the tough bony portions (i.e. bony shoulders, flippers, rib cage, and upper spine) of the prey,[27] which great white sharks generally avoid.[27] Dr. Bretton Kent elaborated that C. megalodon attempted to crush the bones and damage delicate organs (i.e. heart, and lungs) harbored within the rib cage of the prey.[27] An attack on these essential body parts would have immobilized the prey and it would have died quickly due to massive internal injuries as a result.[27] These findings also clarify why the ancient shark needed more robust dentition than the great white shark's.[27]
During the Pliocene, larger and more advanced cetaceans appeared.[8] C. megalodon apparently further refined its hunting strategies to cope with these larger animals. Numerous fossilized flipper bones (i.e., segments of the pectoral fins), and caudal vertebrae of large whales from the Pliocene have been found with bite marks that were caused by attacks of C. megalodon.[6][23] This paleontological evidence suggests that C. megalodon would attempt to immobilize a large whale by ripping apart or biting off its propulsive structures before killing and feeding on it.[6][23]
C. megalodon was a pelagic fish that predominantly inhabited temperate and warm water environments. The fossil records of C. megalodon confirm that it was a cosmopolitan species.[10] Prior to the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, the oceans were relatively warmer.[37] This would have made it possible for the species to thrive in all the oceans of the world.
C. megalodon had enough behavioral flexibility to inhabit wide range of marine environments (i.e. coastal shallow waters,[31] coastal upwelling,[31] swampy coastal lagoons,[31] sandy littorals,[31] and offshore deep water environments[10]), and exhibited a transient life-style.[31] The adult C. megalodon were not abundant in shallow water environments,[31] and mostly lurked offshore.
C. megalodon faced a highly competitive environment during its time of existence.[38] However, C. megalodon was likely one of the most powerful and dominant predators in vertebrate history,[23] and probably had a profound impact on the structuring of marine communities.[6][38] Fossil evidence indicates a correlation between the emergence of C. megalodon and massive diversification of the cetaceans around the world.[6][38] Juvenile C. megalodon preferred regions where small cetaceans were abundant, and adult C. megalodon preferred regions where large cetaceans were abundant.[6] Such preferences may have developed in ages prior to Miocene.[6] In addition, C. megalodon was contemporaneous with macro-predatory odontocetes (particularly raptorial sperm whales and squalodontids), which were also likely among the apex predators of that time,[8][38] and provided competition.[8][39] In response to competitive pressure from C. megalodon, odontocetes may have generally functioned in pods for increased safety,[8] and some species evolved gigantic sizes.[38][40] In addition, some species employed co-ordinated hunting behaviour for greater competitive effectiveness.[41] However, bite marks on the fossil remains of odontocetes indicate a predator-prey relationship between giant macro-predatory sharks and these cetaceans.[31][30] Furthermore, fossil evidence indicates that C. megalodon developed the capability to tackle gigantic whales with passage of time.[6] By the end of Miocene, raptorial sperm whales vanished from the fossil record and left an ecological void.[38]
Fossil evidence also indicates that other notable species of macro-predatory sharks (e.g. great white sharks) responded to competitive pressure from C. megalodon by avoiding regions it inhabited.[6]
Fossil evidence suggests that the preferred nursery sites of C. megalodon were likely to have been warm water coastal environments, where potential threats were minor and food sources were plentiful.[22] As is the case with most sharks, C. megalodon also likely gave birth to live young. The size of the neonate C. megalodon teeth indicate that C. megalodon pups were around 2–3 metres (7–10 ft) in length at birth.[10][22] The young C. megalodon commonly preyed upon fish,[22] giant sea turtles,[31] dugongs,[10] and small cetaceans.[6] Upon approaching maturity, C. megalodon predominantly preferred off-shore cetacean high-use areas and preyed upon large cetaceans, depicting an ontogenetic shift in diet.[6] At present, nursery sites of C. megalodon have been identified in the Gatun Formation of Panama,[22] the Calvert Formation of Maryland,[22] and the Bone Valley Formation of Florida.[22]
It is not yet clear why C. megalodon became extinct after millions of years of dominance; however, several factors may have been involved.
A major reason cited behind the extinction of C. megalodon is the decline in ocean temperatures at global scale.[8] The Isthmus of Panama closed around 5 million years ago and fundamentally changed global ocean circulation.[3][42] This geological event initially set the stage for glaciation in the northern hemisphere,[42] and later on, also facilitated cooling of the entire planet.[42] Consequently, during the late Pliocene and Pleistocene, there were ice ages,[43][44] which cooled the oceans significantly.[3] The cooling trend adversely impacted C. megalodon, as it preferred warmer waters.[3][6] Fossil evidence confirms the absence of C. megalodon in regions where water temperatures had significantly declined during the Pliocene.[6]
In addition, wide-scale glaciation during the Pliocene and Pleistocene tied up huge volumes of water in continental ice sheets, resulting in significant sea level drops.[37] Lower sea levels may have restricted many of the suitable warm water nursery sites for C. megalodon, hindering population maintenance. Nursery areas are pivotal for the survival of a species.[45]
Cetaceans attained their greatest diversity during the Miocene,[6] with over 20 recognized genera in comparison to only six living genera.[46] Such diversity presented an ideal setting to support a giant predator like C. megalodon.[6] However, the dependency of C. megalodon on large prey made it over-specialized.[28] In addition, during the Pliocene, many species of cetaceans became extinct,[47] and most surviving species disappeared from the tropics.[48] Whale migratory patterns during the Pliocene have been reconstructed from the fossil record, suggesting that most surviving species showed a trend towards polar regions.[37] The cooler water temperatures during the Pliocene cut C. megalodon off from polar regions, and large prey was effectively "no longer within the range" of C. megalodon after the migrations.[3][6][9][48] These developments diminished the food supply for C. megalodon in warm waters. Paleontologist Albert Sanders suggests that C. megalodon had become too large to sustain itself on the available food supply in the tropics.[45] In addition, the shortage of food sources in warm waters during the Pliocene and Pleistocene might have fueled cannibalism within C. megalodon.[8] The juvenile individuals were at increased risk from attacks by adult individuals during times of starvation.[8]
The ancient relatives of the orca evolved during the Pliocene,[49] and likely filled the ecological void left by raptorial sperm whales by the end of Miocene.[38] Some paleontologists have speculated that orcas may also have contributed to the extinction of C. megalodon.[50] However, paleontologist Robert Purdy pointed out that there is not much fossil evidence for the history of marine vertebrates for the last three million years to support this hypothesis.[10] In addition, C. megalodon was already absent in high latitudes since the early Pliocene due to cooling trends in the oceans,[6] where ancient relatives of the orca commonly occurred.[49] Competition may have occurred in other regions — bite marks on the fossil remains of delphinids have been observed,[6] which indicate a predator-prey relationship between C. megalodon and delphinids.[6] However, the relatively common occurrence of the ancient relatives of the orca in high latitudes during the Pliocene[49] indicates the potential of orcas to cope with cold water temperatures and this trend continues with modern orca.[49] Therefore, this capability would have helped ancient relatives of the orca in coping with ice ages, while C. megalodon disappeared.
Even after decades of research and scrutiny, the controversy on phylogeny of C. megalodon still persists.[4][51] Several shark researchers (e.g. J. E. Randall, A. P. Klimley, D. G. Ainley, M. D. Gottfried, L. J. V. Compagno, S. C. Bowman, and R. W. Purdy) insist that C. megalodon is a close relative of the great white shark. However, several other shark researchers (e.g. D. S. Jordan, H. Hannibal, E. Casier, C. DeMuizon, T. J. DeVries, D. Ward, and H. Cappetta) dismiss the proposal that C. megalodon is a close relative of the great white shark, and cite convergent evolution as the reasons for the dental similarity. The arguments of the supporters of the Carcharocles genus for C. megalodon seem to have gained noticeable support.[28] However, the original taxonomic assignment still has wide-scale acceptance.[4]
|
|
The traditional view is that C. megalodon should be classified within the genus Carcharodon along with the great white shark. Main reasons cited for this phylogeny are; (1) an ontogenetic gradation, whereby the teeth of C. carcharias shift from having coarse serrations as a juvenile to fine serrations as an adult, the latter resemble those of C. megalodon; (2) morphological similarity of teeth of young C. megalodon to those of C. carcharias; (3) a symmetrical second anterior tooth; (4) large intermediate tooth that is inclined mesially; and (5) upper anterior teeth that have a chevron-shaped neck area on the lingual surface. The supporters of classification as Carcharodon for C. megalodon suggest that C. megalodon and C. carcharias share a common ancestor, Palaeocarcharodon orientalis.[4][10]
|
|
Around 1923, the genus Carcharocles was proposed by two shark researchers, D. S. Jordan and H. Hannibal, to classify a shark C. auriculatus. Later on, Carcharocles proponents assigned C. megalodon to Carcharocles genus.[4][10] Carcharocles proponents also suggest that the direct ancestor of the sharks belonging to the Carcharocles genus, is an ancient giant shark called Otodus obliquus, which lived during the Paleocene and Eocene epochs.[28][51] According to supporters of classification as Carcharocles for C. megalodon; Otodus obliquus evolved in to Carcharocles aksuaticus,[10][28] which evolved in to Carcharocles auriculatus,[10][28] which evolved into Carcharocles angustidens,[10][28] which evolved into Carcharocles chubutensis,[10][28] which eventually evolved into megalodon.[10][28] Hence, the immediate ancestor of C. megalodon is Carcharocles chubutensis,[10][28] because it serves as the missing link between Carcharocles augustidens and C. megalodon and it bridges the loss of the "lateral cusps" that characterize C. megalodon.[10][28]
Shark researcher David Ward has further elaborated on the Carcharocles evolutionary process by implying that this lineage, stretching from the Paleocene to the Pliocene, is of a single giant shark which gradually changed through time, suggesting a case of chronospecies.[10]
Carcharocles proponents point out that the great white shark is closely related to an ancient shark Isurus hastalis, the "broad tooth mako", rather than to C. megalodon.[4][52][53] One reason cited by paleontologist Dr. Chuck Ciampaglio is that the dental morphometrics (variations and changes in the physical form of objects) of I. hastalis and C. carcharias are remarkably similar.[4] Another reason cited is that C. megalodon teeth have much finer serrations than in C. carcharias teeth.[4] Further evidence linking the great white shark more closely to ancient mako sharks, rather than to C. megalodon, has been provided in 2009 — The fossilized remains of an ancient form of the great white shark were excavated from southwestern Peru in 1988, which are about 4 million years old. These fossilized remains demonstrate a likely shared ancestor of modern mako and great white sharks.[51][54]
Paleontologist Dr. C. Ciampaglio asserts that similarities between the teeth of C. megalodon and the great white shark are superficial and there are noticeable morphometric differences between them, and these findings are sufficient to warrant a separate genus for C. megalodon.[8] However, some proponents of the Carcharodon genus for C. megalodon (i.e. M. D. Gottfried, and R. E. Fordyce) have provided more reasons to ascertain close relationship between the extinct megatooth sharks and the great white shark.[17] With respect to the recent controversy regarding fossil lamnid shark relationships, the overall morphology – particularly the internal calcification patterns – of the great white shark vertebral centra have been compared to well-preserved fossil centra from the megatooth sharks, including C. megalodon and C. angustidens. The close morphological similarity apparent from these comparisons provides supporting evidence for the idea that the giant fossil megatooth species are closely related to living white sharks.[17][55]
With respect to the case of the origins of the great white shark, M. D. Gottfried, and R. E. Fordyce have pointed out that some great white shark fossils are about 16 million years old and predate the transitional Pliocene fossils.[17] In addition, the Oligocene records of C. megalodon,[10][17] contradict with the suggestion that Carcharocles chubutensis is the immediate ancestor of the C. megalodon. These records also indicate that C. megalodon actually co-existed with Carcharocles angustidens.[17] Hence, proponents for the Carcharodon genus for C. megalodon argue that extinct megatoothed sharks should be placed within the genus Carcharodon.[17]
Some paleontologists argue that the Otodus genus should be used for sharks within the Carcharocles lineage and the Carcharocles genus should be discarded.[22]
At present, Carcharocles proponents accept that both species belong to the order Lamniformes, and in the absence of living members of the family Otodontidae, great white shark should be regarded as ecologically analogous species to C. megalodon.[22]
Ever since the remains of C. megalodon were discovered, it has been an object of fascination. It has been portrayed in several works of fiction, including films and novels, and continues to hold its place among the most popular subjects for fictional works involving sea monsters. Many of these works of fiction posit that at least a relict population of C. megalodon survived extinction and lurk in the depths of the ocean, and individuals may manage to surface from the vast depths, either as a result of human intervention or through natural means. Jim Shepard's story "Tedford and the Megalodon" is a good example of this. Such beliefs are usually inspired by discovery and excavation of a C. megalodon tooth by HMS Challenger in 1872, which some believed to be only 10,000 years old.[56] This tooth has been re-examined and findings indicate that it is actually untestable for age.[56]
Some works of fiction (such as Shark Attack 3: Megalodon and Steve Alten's Meg series) incorrectly depict the megalodon as being a species over 70 million years old and to have been alive during the time of dinosaurs. The writers of the movie Shark Attack 3: Megalodon depicted this assumption by referring to and using an altered copy of a book by shark researcher, Richard Ellis, called "Great White Shark". The altered copy had several pages that don't exist in the real book. The author of the original book sued the film's distributor Lions Gate Entertainment, asking for a halt to the film's distribution along with $150,000 in damages.[57] Steve Alten's Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror is probably best known for portraying this inaccuracy with its prologue and cover artworks depicting C. megalodon killing a tyrannosaur in the sea.
NOTE: Flash Player is required to view the content below.