The BBC and Phys.org report on a new paper by researchers from University of Florida and University of Zurich, concerning the megalodon (an extinct species of shark that could grow to four times the size of a modern great white). This latest research claims to peg the date of megalodon's extinction at 2.6 million years ago. It also suggests that the extinction of the largest sea predator at the time made it possible for whales to grow to their current size.
Our results suggest that C. megalodon went extinct around 2.6 Ma. Furthermore, when contrasting our results with known ecological and macroevolutionary trends in marine mammals, it became evident that the modern composition and function of modern gigantic filter-feeding whales was established after the extinction of C. megalodon. Consequently, the study of the time of extinction of C. megalodon provides the basis to improve our understanding of the responses of marine species to the removal of apex predators, presenting a deep-time perspective for the conservation of modern ecosystems.
A mathematical approach called Optimal Linear Estimation (OLE) was used by the researchers on 42 of the most recent megalodon fossils.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2014, @12:43PM
Something about that number and its relation to fish...where did I read that?
Seems pretty Universal.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday October 24 2014, @12:54PM
Just wanted to get in there before anyone else.
How do we know the bigger whales didn't eat all the megalodons? Damn liberarians and their pro-whale paradigm.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday October 24 2014, @12:56PM
Keeping the main correlation with sharks in mind, I guess the megalodon went extinct because it kept looking at the laser with the remaining good eye.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 24 2014, @01:59PM
I for one welcome our new baleen-sporting, krill-devouring marine overlords.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday October 24 2014, @03:42PM
I visited England. In a pub one night these 2 large women had a delightful accent, so I asked them if they were from Scotland. Somehow I pissed them off and they hissed "Wales, you idiot". So I asked "are you two whales from Scotland?". I don't remember anything else from that night.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rts008 on Friday October 24 2014, @03:51PM
That's a poorly worded headline.
While it may be correct, it seems to imply that the increased size of the whales was a factor in the extinction of the sharks.
Reading the summary reveals the opposite case, but by then I lost interest due to expectations of more literary mud.
Word choice and sentence structure are important to accurately convey ideas/information.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2014, @04:36PM
I think the point could be that the extinction of the giant sharks left more food available for the whales. Not sure if that's what the article was trying to say?
(Score: 2) by juggs on Friday October 24 2014, @04:48PM
When I read it over at the BBC I took it to mean that the sharks were predators eating the whales. Sharks died out, giving the whales a better chance of a longer life and growing larger.
The whales in question are filter feeders (krill and the like) whilst the sharks most certainly were not (judging by their massive pointy teeth).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2014, @06:30PM
Yeah, here I thought (from the headline) that the theory was that the whales got too big to eat, so the shark went extinct.
Then I read the summary and left disappointed.