Dunkleosteus - Smaller and Rounder Than Expected?

Подписаться 93 тыс.

Просмотров 27 тыс.

50% 1

Dunkleosteus is among the most well-known of prehistoric fish, and prehistoric life in general, and are the prime representative for the class of fish known as placoderms, and of the clade Arthrodira, of which they are the largest known member. This diverse group of animals ranged from Dunkleosteus of course, representing giant apex predators, but also detritus-nibbling bottom dwellers, which ranged in size a good amount.
The size of Dunkleosteus though, and their proportions have however been consistently unclear due to their head and thoracic armour being the only elements of their body which are regularly preserved in the fossil record, and to fill in the gaps, utilizing the remains of other more complete placoderms has been essential in trying to build a more complete picture of them and how they appeared. Now, a new paper has been published that calls into question their larger size estimates, and well, calculates much smaller sizes for them. How valid are the claims presented though? Find out that and more in this video! I hope you enjoy.
Background music:
Bright Idea - Geographer
Jay Sweeps - Geographer
Submarine - INSIDE
Make sure to like and subscribe to learn more about our wonderful world!
Sources:
www.mdpi.com/1...
palaeo-electro...
peerj.com/arti...
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
All video/game content is recorded and edited under fair use rights for reasons of commentary and social satire.

Опубликовано:

10 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 209

@JurassicJustice Год назад

Dunkleosteus has now become CHONK-leosteus.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

They became the Dunkleorb, and they haven't looked back.

@Bos-dd4rr Год назад

Petition to make this it’s official name ?👨🏾‍🦯

@DannyGruesome Год назад

@@Bos-dd4rr youd roll in your grave if some kids had the power to rename your discovery something goofy for no reason other than to laugh at it

@jonathanjonesii1897 Год назад

😂😅

@bjrnterjesen651 Год назад

😂😂😂

@danielmcguire7752 Год назад

Chunky or not BIG or small Still a very amazing animal especially for it's time Love the Devonian era

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

I full agree. A really incredible animal, and time period!

@Cancoillotteman Год назад

Even if we DO find a complete fossile, these efforts are not in vain as they are helping a lot in defining good metods and processes to estimate complete body size (and for instance limit the number of "larger than T-Rex" polemics too... )

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Apparently we do from Morocco, but they have yet to be published for a range of regions, mostly due to a lack of resources, unfortunately.

@Cancoillotteman Год назад

@@HenrythePaleoGuy Great news though, thanks for the update !

@critterjon4061 Год назад

So what you’re telling me is that there is no proof that dunkleosteus did not look like a giant eel

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Well, it's highly, highly unlikely regardless, lol.

@samfish2550 Год назад

Guys guys, you're missing the obvious answer... Giant manta ray with pseudo teeth.

@SirDarthDragon Год назад

Armored starfish imtensifies

@BlUsKrEEm Год назад

Great, now that nightmare will haunt my dreams tonight

@rollotomasislawyer3405 Год назад

Haha... Exactly. All I know is that business end is massive!

@TheAnimalKingdom-tq3sz Год назад

Dunkleosteus: "It's becoming increasingly obvious. I cannot deny it no longer!..." *i'm smol*

@MdRiAD-cc6kt 2 месяца назад

15 ft won't look small when loose arm and see a dark shadow swimming around you

@juliusfucik4011 Год назад

The Dunk is my absolute favorite marine animal. I have seen the skull in the Vienna Museum of Natural History a few times. Insane.

@GeorgeTheDinoGuy Год назад

No matter what size these are still some of my favourite prehistoric animals. Placoderms in general deserve more love and attention, so at least this new discovery has hopefully inspired further research into them.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

100% They are really awesome regardless!

@mikewilson858 Год назад

The new model for body shape reminds me a lot of a grouper. They tend to ambush prey in the cluttered environment of reefs. The elongated model would be good fast pursuit like a shark but that might not be needed in a world where fish had heavy armor and giant sea scorpions.

@Qbliviens Год назад

I agree that it's far fetched basing this lenght estimate primarily on the trend in size (correlation between head shape and body lenght) within modern fish, especially considering how different placoderms where from most modern fish. If anything it shows a trend for fish in general, and basically how plausible it is for any fish of a certain head shape to be long or short, but Dunkleosteus might still just be an odd one out (thinking of wolf eels for example, short heads with an affinity for biteforce but a long body) This whole discussing reminds me of the T. rex feather debate, where it was assumed it had feathers primarily because many smaller tyrannosaurs have them and the general public startet throwing themselves on the idea that T. rex now looks like a giant sparrow.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

Except that this system was very accurate for placoderms too. It wasn't just modern fish they used, it was also placoderms, so that argument is kind of invalid. Arthrodires are more known for having rotund bodies than overly elongate ones. Not to mention how with most Arthrodires, the bottom chest plate ends at (or at least near) the base of the tail, which would suggest a smaller estimate like the one here. Dunkleosteus might have been an exception, but given we know it was likely a pelagic predator, a more compact body plan is more likely than an eel like one. The only eel like placoderms I know about are Pseudopetalichthyids and such but they are pretty unique for placoderms and aren't that closely related to the arthrodires from what I know.

@MaryAnnNytowl Год назад

So cool that we still learn so much, so often, about these amazing long-gone critters! Thanks for what you do, Henry. 😊 ❤️❤️

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

It really is! So much more out there to cover! Really appreciate it! The more people view, the more I can keep up with making content! :D

@veggieboyultimate Год назад

Liopleurodon: “first time?”

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

And unlike them, Dunkleosteus' head size at least remains the same, it's just the postcrania that's under debate/revision. :)

@thedisastricartist5075 3 месяца назад

poor liupleurodon 😢😢 and spinosaurus dragomball xd

@Thulgore Год назад

It's size doesn't change the mechanics of it's jaw..............which is fucking terrifying.

@kitwing2904 Год назад

Even smaller, this thing can chomp a shark to pieces.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

100%. They could absolutely cleave right through a person, no problem.

@laurachapple6795 Год назад

I don't know if this is a good theory or not but it's definitely gonna be a frontrunner for Most Memeable Paleontology of 2023.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

There seem to be problems here and there; just means more people need to do more studies and research, which is the name of the game of science and especially paleo after all. :) And we'll see on that. So many descriptions happened in 2022, especially in the latter half, so we'll see!

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

@@HenrythePaleoGuyMost of the issues seem to be with details ultimately irrelevant or at least of little relevance to the papers findings themselves. While it does need more research, there are other papers that people take at face value that need more research far more than this one.

@EmmaSpAce111 Год назад

Is it weird that I am incredibly satisfied with this information? They always looked too long for their heads. They seemed like they should be stocky tanks

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

In many ways yeah, it does look more uniform.

@bittersweet7145 Год назад

"Smaller and rounder than expected"? Not the first time I've heard those words 🤣

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

@purplehaze2358 8 месяцев назад

I love the "new" Dunkleosteus, they're so smol and round and I wanna hug them.

@LG22475 Год назад

Although I do agree that the paper in question makes a few broad assumptions about fish morphology, I think that it does make a decent argument that the size estimates of Dunk were likely overblown. A 10 meter long predator is probably a little too unrealistic, but putting the animal at only 3.3 meters makes it anatomically atypical. Keep in mind that Dunk was not the only large placoderm of the Devonian. It's large head would need at least a somewhat comparable body size due to it's likely niche as an apex predator. While I do not claim to be the most qualified individual around (even though I have seen a likely fully grown Dunk skull in person), I think that an upper estimate of around 5 meters is more likely than what the paper claims. Just a thought.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

P.s I believe the estimate used is 3.6 metres. Most Arthrodires have the bottom chest plate go all the way to the tail base, which would require a body size comparable to this one. As David Peters (yes, I can't believe I'm saying this too) pointed out, Amazichthys doesn't quite match up with this, but since it isn't more basal than Dunkleosteus we don't know if that's an adaptation specific to Selenosteids or Aspinothoracids or if it also applies to Dunkleosteidae. The part I'm not sure about is the length of the tail. It is unusually short, and using other related placoderms to estimate the tail length from the body you get something around 4.5 metres for the largest specimen (based on lengths made by Fabio Alejandro).

@Alberad08 Год назад

Pretty interesting. I'm looking forward to the finding/developement of more reliable data on this topic - and thanks a lot for uploading this.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Sure is! Many thanks for watching!

@sarielle85 Год назад

I have had this thought before "What if dunkleosteus actually looked like a mola mola?"

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Funny you say that, lol: 64.media.tumblr.com/adeb2b315a48a9e1fab8b6c029edbd85/e75cbc67fd2cbd33-ed/s1280x1920/3813fc781958c0f7b038cef7cceac3b7a2b68937.png

@Rapt0rham Год назад

@@HenrythePaleoGuy Now that's a sunfish that doesn't take shit from anyone

@thenickhelms84 Год назад

I don't think I agree with the whole stout Dunkleosteus theory. Dunkleosteus was a Placoderm and other than their bony armor plates the rest of these fishes' skeletons were cartilage a primitive feature in fishes. Most modern fish today have a swim bladder to aid in buoyancy which mean fishes with short stocky bodies don't have to worry about constantly staying in motion. It's very likely that Dunkleosteus as well lacked a swim bladder and having such a short stocky body with the addition of very heavy bony armor in my mind would make Dunkleosteus a clumsy an very slow swimmer, something very disadvantageous for an active predator.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

I don't think so. The stocky body is a pretty hydrodynamic bodyplan (according to the paper, at least). Many other placoderms were pretty chonky too, just take Holonema (although to be fair I believe it is considered a slow reef fish so). While the tail might be unusually short in this method, the body matches up pretty well with other arthrodire placoderms. Why would dunk sink but not them? They might have employed the same method as sharks, containing lots of oils in their livers to help with buoyancy. Also, I'm pretty sure the cartilaginous placoderm skeleton thing is a myth. While lots of sources say it I can't find any actual papers suggesting it and at least one placoderm, Minjina, had bone comprising more of the skeleton than just the head. Regardless, they wouldn't have swim bladders because they (as far as we know) aren't Bony fish and swim bladders are specific to that group (at least I'm pretty sure it is). And while the head may have been reasonably heavy, I don't think it's heavy enough to cause that.

@alessandroparducci4952 Год назад

Imho dunkleosteus didn't need to be that big in the devonian, even if he was 3,5 m he still had a massive jaw enough to be the apex predator of the oceans

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Indeed. Still an incredibly formidable animal!

@elroboustein9102 17 дней назад

I really doubt it (I'm not going to say that it was massively large either) but if it was only 6 or 7 meters long it could also adapt without any problem by eating or enduring a lot of hunger that perhaps we don't know, not all of the Devonian is completely explored, already that the dunkleosteus is one of the few largest fossils from that era and it is probably that they found more that lived in the sea, having sizes almost similar to the dunkleosteus that we will never know what they will be.

@padraigmaclochlainn8866 Год назад

He's in shape, a C I R C L E ○ is a shape!

@gkess7106 Год назад

They would’ve needed a standard/slim body that was longer not fatter. A longer slender body was needed in order to propel that flat head through the water.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

I don't think so.

@Saurophaganax1931 3 месяца назад

A year later and it seems like the entire field of Placoderm palaeontology disagrees with you.

@Sakura_Matou Год назад

I hate how in Paleontology and to a limited extent Astronomy these little fringe theories come up from one group or person and suddenly the respective medias just jump on it as fact and it is all you ever hear about without them everreporting on counter arguements.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

Good point, but of all papers to apply this to, this one is far from the worst offender. I don't think there have been any academic counter arguments against the actual findings, although David Peters has issued one that isn't as ridiculous as most of his arguments. I wouldn't call it a fringe theory, I'd call it an idea well supported by numerous lines of evidence. There are far worse cases of this that people should be actually calling out.

@Saurophaganax1931 3 месяца назад

It’s a year later and I don’t think this is a fringe theory. It seems to have wide spread support in the scientific community. Probably because he was really diligent and covered all his bases when he wrote it.

@Susie_Floozie Год назад

Hahaha, that ending...! So, he isn't sizable. Big whoop. To me, Dunky makes it up in personality and general doughtiness of character.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Indeed. No matter what their postcrania looked like, they're still really awesome animals. :)

@Phantom-bh5ru Год назад

next up scientists discover that dunkleosteus actually had giant lips that completely covered their mouths.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Unlikely, given how their musculature would’ve worked.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Unlikely, given how their musculature would’ve worked.

@Phantom-bh5ru Год назад

@@HenrythePaleoGuy lol yea but it would be hilarious. people were so pissed when some paleontologists said that the T-rex likely had lips that covered its teeth

@gkess7106 Год назад

@@Phantom-bh5ruAnd don’t forget the feathers.

@gkess7106 Год назад

And since they had lips they had a mustache.

@GoodForYou4504 Год назад

Lol, that ending though!

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Had to fit some of the memes in there where I could. :)

@petrairene Год назад

I always wondered how back at that time a predator could get so extremely huge. After all, there was no prey of appropriate size for such a gigantic predator.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

There was undoubtedly a great diversity of animals for them to feed on back them. Other placoderms, Acanthodians, and Chondricthyans, etc. No human impacts that aside from the occasional big local extinction event through volcanism or something like that, there would have absolutely been enough for healthy populations of them to survive.

@justsomeguywithbluepfp4269 Год назад

Well, sperm whales existed nowadays and they eat squids

@bennettfender9927 9 месяцев назад

You forgot about Titanichthys my friend a close relatives of Dunkleosteus that reached similar size and was a filter feeder.

@elroboustein9102 17 дней назад

Bro, because the Devonian is not fully explored, there could have been bigger ones like the Dunkleosteus. Don't trust the complete challenges of the Devonian if it has not been investigated in depth as they would have done to the Mesozoic dinosaurs.-.

@RankStankulon Год назад

Dunk a certified unit

@brianedwards7142 Год назад

A Dunk with an eel like body plan would make a pretty scary sea serpent.

@elroboustein9102 17 дней назад

but the dunkleosteus was not as elongated as previously thought, but I do not doubt that it is as plump as it appears in the new article.

@bkjeong4302 Год назад

The biggest takeaway from all this was that Dunkleosteus was NOT a slower, less mobile animal than living pelagic predators. As with mosasaurs we’ve been underestimating just how fast and agile this thing was all along.

@elroboustein9102 17 дней назад

It seems a bit speculative to me.

@monicapushkin3274 Год назад

I think it makes sense that they are chunkier. Those choppers are not efficient for processing large volumes to feed a long body. More like one and done, take a bite and find another victim.

@elroboustein9102 17 дней назад

On the contrary, they would do it even slower

@cheaplaughkennedy2318 Год назад

Shrinkleosteus

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Essentially!

@PleiadianDreams Год назад

Hey friend, I really enjoyed watching your videos.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Hey! Thanks a lot!

@PleiadianDreams Год назад

@@HenrythePaleoGuy Ba Weep Grana, Weep Nidi Bang.

@TroyColey Год назад

The Dunkleosteus Glow Up

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

In some ways!

@bustavonnutz Год назад

Don't trust studies that refuse to build physical models of their computational conclusions or relies on shoddy metadata. For example, "Spinosaurus can't swim" study used a model that was only 60% the width of an actual scaled Spinosaurus so predictably came up with a result that wasn't hydrodynamically stable in water. The "Allosaurus weak bite" study similarly didn't properly analyse neck musculature in terms of how it would impact bite force or properly accounting for muscle fiber density in Carnosaur jaw muscles. These are just a couple examples of "scientists" publishing groundless nonsense simply for attention, this is no different. You don't just throw out size comparisons to direct relatives in favor of some "gill-ratio" hokus pokus from unrelated lineages & expect people to take you seriously in the academic community. The fact that people are so quick to latch onto BS publications is one of the reasons pop science & the more ridiculous cultish ideas that pervade it have become so ubiquitous. Slowly the entire field is becoming a laughing stock compared to what it once was.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

You are heavily misunderstanding this paper. Most of the previous estimates were just haphazardly slapping the bodyplan of a shark or Coccosteus onto a Dunkleosteus skull with no consideration of how there different anatomy would impact it. The new paper is actually more considerate. The gill ratio was actually very good at estimating the length of the other placoderms used in the study (which is quite a few), so why wouldn't it be good at estimating for Dunkleosteus. Not to mention how the bottom thoracic plate goes all the way to the tail base in other arthrodires, which is the case in the new estimate but not the old. I recommend that (assuming you haven't already) you should watch the skeleton crews video on the topic. It's very good and includes details on a lot of aspects of it. Also, Russell Engelman wasn't trying to create bs to get attention. He wanted a reliable length for Dunkleosteus to use for another paper and accidentally found this. He even choose one of the larger estimates to make the change less drastic, which is the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting.

@bustavonnutz 10 месяцев назад

@@trilobite3120 Read the first sentence of my comment again, that's the end-all be-all of the problem here. What's good for smaller Placoderms may not apply for Dunkleosteus, especially since estimates aren't physical evidence, nor was anything physical actually generated in this study. The very essence of a synapomorphy is possessing traits that go against convention in other related clades. Am I to believe that the largest Placoderm predator found so far conformed to the conventions of smaller cousins? It could give you an educated guess on their proportions; however, this is far from an accurate confirmation of anything, & at the end of the day it is a paper with zero substance.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

@@bustavonnutz How on earth are you supposed to build a physical copy of their findings. How would that even help? What are you even supposed to make a model of? The diagram? The new dunk? Also, I don't see any reason for the thoracic chest plate rule to not apply to them. It's not like the tail shape where it is directly dependent on size and niche. It's something that almost all other arthrodires have, regardless of niche and almost certainly size. At the very least it's a far better estimate than the previous. This uses something that works for most fish, including both fish of equivalent size and niche and closely related fish. The largest Arthrodire known from complete remains that I'm aware of is Amazichthys, and so that would be the largest placoderm they could possibly use, and the estimates were pretty accurate for it too. So the system works for both modern fish of equivalent size and niche and it's relatives ranging from the 30 cm freshwater Coccosteus to the metre long pelagic predator Amazichthys and there is no reason I can't think of that the dunk wouldn't confirm to these rules.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

@@bustavonnutz Just because nothing physical was generated doesn't mean it has zero substance. Genetic clocks don't generate physical evidence, so by your logic they are useless. There is almost no way to avoid the Dunk being around the size of the one in the paper. And what do synapomorphies have to do with this. We have no reason to believe the eye to gill ratio wouldn't be accurate for Dunkleosteus and numerous reasons to believe it would be accurate.

@elroboustein9102 17 дней назад

@@bustavonnutz I agree with you, lately every time they release new articles, people take it very seriously but when time changes it to another assumption then they change the way of thinking but they are not observing well if they are doing it through qualitative studies ( Therefore, I remain neutral in this article)

@LudosErgoSum Год назад

6:49 "Tunas & Allies" 😂

@gkess7106 Год назад

You show a picture of a catfish for comparison. Bad idea since catfish are bottom feeders. They need to have a body that suited to how they hunted, like a sharks body.

@AgroAcro 4 месяца назад

The world Dunkleosteus lived in was entirely different from the modern word, it isn't going to look like a modern fish.

@kuitaranheatmorus9932 Год назад

Absolutely amazing video on the Ohio Fish

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Glad you enjoyed it! Really interesting as to what more we can learn about them. :)

@owambo8948 Год назад

The shark at 3:16 is really not comfortable with being included in that study lol That said I don't know if I would like it if my orbit-opercular length would just get called out like that 😳

@mr._ozy_ozvold7247 Год назад

THE DUNK

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

D U N K

@stopgont7360 Год назад

I think new dunkleosteus looks cute

@ericl447 Год назад

The "Dunk". I always love a good update. Ty

@bartolomeorizzo Год назад

The gills being or not omologous with the end of the head of the dunk is quite bothersome to me. As well as lumping all fish together as it can lead to under or over estimates

@Saurophaganax1931 Год назад

I don’t think he lumped all fish together, so much as he simply looked for any patterns in head shape relative ro body size that might be common to all fish.

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

Seriously, why does it so often feel like people forget they included other placoderms and got pretty accurate estimates. With the exception of things like oarfish, they paper got most sizes very accurate.

@trilobite3120 8 месяцев назад

@@Saurophaganax1931 Yes.

@Diictodon 11 месяцев назад

Dunk then: ancient monster shark Dunk now: water dog

@reeyees50 Год назад

Also, the creature has to make sense. This oceanic apex predator predated all other groups and linages of sea apex predators. And, it lived before any of them in a strage , early earth. Obviously its not going to attain whale size

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Well, not whale size, that was already a given. Balenid cetacenas are very specialised animals that evolved under a unique set of circumstances to get that big. More definitely needs to be done on these animals though.

@Akren905 Год назад

They were built like plecos😊

@Sirdilophosaurusthethird2.0 Год назад

He’s smoll now

@kitwing2904 Год назад

Small?! This thing is the size of an adult cow!

@Sirdilophosaurusthethird2.0 Год назад

@@kitwing2904 I mean it’s small compared to others like baslosaurus megalodon levithan mosasaurus and the blue whale

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

In comparison to where they were before, definitely!

@peytoia Год назад

personally i love the new bite sized football dunk. cute beast!

@trilobite3120 9 месяцев назад

I'd like to say that many of the comments have been talking about how the public shouldn't just trust scientific papers at face value, and while that is important, off all the papers to suggest this for, this one is far from the worst offender for multiple reasons. First of all, while I'm not sure how the general public has reacted, it seems to be common in the paleo community to see someone criticise the paper. I've seen many of these and essentially all I've seen so far have a relatively simple explanation or counterargument. I could just be projecting based on what I was like when the dunk paper first came out, but I feel like at least some of them are just looking for excuses to ignore the paper. Second of all, the paper is pretty well founded and has multiple lines of evidence pointing towards it's conclusion. I have heard someone say that they've heard of other authors planning to make a rebuttal, and I am curious to see where this leads, but ultimately I believe that any size significantly over 5 metres for the currently known specimens of Dunkleosteus would not be reasonable based on the know anatomy for most placoderms and most pelagic predators.

@GenghisDon1970 Год назад

glad i watched this one, despite having seen numerous Dunk is shrunk vids the last year. Only this one points out obvious, numerous & potential flaws in the paper, and so forth. Thanks Henry

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

Have you seen the skeleton crews?

@gkess7106 Год назад

5:15. You could change the size of the body if you wish make it shorter fatter whatever but you can’t change the size of its head!

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

The guy making the paper actually re-measured the head and found it to be shorter. The previous head lengths only matched up with a diagonal measurement of the skull.

@George_M_ Год назад

Higher percentage is armored, then

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Even before this, still a good amount. :)

@tanagerthenight-sky424 Год назад

Dunkleosteus: P-Paleoart Community? Please don’t turn me into a marketable plushie 🥺…. *poof* PALEOART COMMUNITY-

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nez7EOY3RnM.html&ab_channel=PetitePaleoartist This video sums that up well, lol.

@tanagerthenight-sky424 Год назад

@@HenrythePaleoGuy OMG YES! I love that video 😂😂😂.

@samplastik13 Год назад

It's more like tuna shaped now

@timexyemerald6290 7 месяцев назад

Oh no. Megalodon became Even Longer compared to Dunky chonk boy😅😂. In the past we used to compare Dunkl to Meg as ravils but now its becoming even more ridiculous to compare those 2😅

@x1mpressed Год назад

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't titanichthys the largest arthrodiran?

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

In terms of mass, I think Dunkleosteus is bigger, but I'll get back to you if not. :)

@x1mpressed Год назад

@@HenrythePaleoGuy was Dunkleosteus denser or something?

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

@@x1mpressed Potentially, from what it seems.

@operkoi8954 Год назад

The paper also used the formula on titanichthys and got similar sizes to dunkleosteus with absolute maximum possible sizes being around 4 meters or so for the largest known dunk remains (a huge lower jaw blade) and titanichthys

@NoxFlex Год назад

*The king of goldfish*

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Could be considered, lol

@omegaman7377 Год назад

The Dunkleosteus look like a shark.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Given their niche and the prey they would've been going after, it makes sense. :)

@jessesorvali Год назад

That's a PHAT fish!

@yellowflowerorangeflower5706 Год назад

Cool

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Sure are!

@kade-qt1zu Год назад

To be honest, although I really liked the old slim Dunkleosteus, I actually think the new one looks better. If I ever made a show with the creature, I'll give it the modern proportions but upscale it to it's old size.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Certainly very chunky!

@Mikailodon Год назад

Shrunkleosteus

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Into the compressor they go!

@bibia666 Год назад

Without subtitles I probably would not have liked this one... Try to speak up and slower (please) the content is great good text and visuals.., yet the narration needs some improvement. Thanks for the upload non the less. Greetings bibia.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Sorry to hear that. I always try to strike the balance between clarity and volume, but it doesn't always work out for some. Thank you for watching regardless. I always try to improve. :)

@f.u.m.o.5669 Год назад

Doesn't that tail fluke look too high for it to swim straight?

@TheCucuyo9779 Год назад

Look how they massacred my boy. 😭

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Put in the compressor, lol.

@LeoTheYuty Год назад

great video

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Much appreciated! It's certainly very interesting.

@Sabatuar Год назад

I for one welcome our new chonkleosteus.

@diegodankquixote-wry3242 Год назад

I know how spinosaurus fans feel now.😂😭🤣😭

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Spinosaurus is a whole other mess, lol.

@amonumenttoalallyoursins1207 Год назад

It's all carp Scientists- always has been

@awesomearchivist1705 Год назад

I was hoping this was a April fools joke now I'm just sad.

@timexyemerald6290 Год назад

Glorified ancient colossal grouper

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Something that's pretty funny considering grouper were another one of the outliers in the paper.

@greydearing Год назад

I think it's probably just going to end up like the 2014 spinosaurus paper to some extent, that being there's going to be this first extreme cherry picky re-examination and then in the following few years they're going to find out they were probably going in the right with the paper but with the researchers involved estimation simply being a little too caught up with selecting information that most proposes this extreme estimate for the sake of being impressed while subsequent research is probably going to find that the animal was indeed shorter than original estimates but not to such an extreme degree, similar to how they found out spinosaurus was probably at least somewhat semi-aquatic but nowhere near as much of a degree as the original 2014 paper. Absolutely no formal degree in theology or anything of the sort but if I was going to say judging off of similar stuff like what I'm mentioning in the past I'm going to guess it's probably going to be a 16- 20ft or 5-6.5m animal

@trilobite3120 10 месяцев назад

I'd say 4.5 metres, 5 for the absolute largest. There are many lines of evidence supporting the shortened body length. From how things have gone, I doubt there will be a contradictory paper anytime soon. It seems to be pretty well accepted in the academic world, but not so much in the pop culture world. The guy also said he didn't want it to be this small and specifically chose one of the bigger estimates to make it less of a drastic change, so quite the opposite of the overexaggeration you suggest. Not to mention there were lots of different estimates and they all came out to a similar length.

@theqdie Год назад

No never

@mrjellyrollbaker8637 9 месяцев назад

My childhood favourite. Destroyed 😢

@kumozenya Год назад

you gotta de-ess youe audio

@JurassicClips740 Год назад

plump critter

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Big boy of a fish!

@GentlemanBystander Год назад

So, Murder-Grouper...I can somehow totally see it.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Essentially, yeah!

@Nmethyltransferase Год назад

Fat feesh.

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Big chunky boy.

@jjt1881 Год назад

Could you please speak more slowly and clearly?

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

My speech doesn't work with everything it seems. I'll try to do better in future. :)

@LudosErgoSum Год назад

I like 'em chubby🙊

@minted1841 Год назад

Sounds fishy :)

@HenrythePaleoGuy Год назад

Sure is!

@juzzi137 Год назад

I call heresy and don't accept this.

@danilodesouza6461 Год назад

Chunkyosteus

@indyreno2933 Год назад

The placoderms (class Placodermata) are the most basal known jawed vertebrates, the Acanthodians (class Acanthodii) are only more derived than the placoderms but are basal to all other jawed vertebrates, there are six living classes of fish, Myxini (Hagfish and Fossil Relatives), Petromyzontida (Lampreys and Fossil Relatives), Holocephali (Chimaeras and Fossil Relatives), Elasmobranchii (Sharks and Batoids), Actinopterygii (Ray-Finned Fish), and Sarcopterygii (Lobe-Finned Fish), fish as a whole are a paraphyletic group as the class Sarcopterygii is more closely related to the tetrapods (clade Tetrapoda) than to the other five extant fish classes, it was formerly believed that fish are considered three classes (Cyclostomata, Chondrichthyes, and Osteichthyes), however all three groups are actually paraphyletic, mainly because jawed vertebrates are descended from jawless fish, thus more closely relating the class Petromyzontida to the clade Gnathstomata than to the class Myxini, bony vertebrates are descended from cartilaginous fish thus more closely relating the class Elasmobranchii to the clade Euteleostomi than to the class Holocephali, tetrapods are descended from bony fish thus more closely relating the class Sarcopterygii to the clade Tetrapoda than to the class Actinopterygii.

@Ozraptor4 Год назад

Since 2013 we've realised that acanthodians are closer to chondrichthyans than to osteichthyans. Acanthodians are now considered to be a paraphyletic grade of stem-group Chondrichthyes. To put things extremely crudely = Osteichthyans evolved directly from placoderms. Chondrichthyians evolved from acanthodians which evolved from placoderms.

@indyreno2933 Год назад

@Ozraptor4, actually, placoderms and acanthodians are monophyletic groups, both being basal classes of jawed vertebrates, the placoderms (class Placodermata) are the most basal of the jawed vertebrates and the acanthodians (class Acanthodia) are the second most basal, all living jawed vertebrates constitute the clade Neognathstomata, which excludes both placoderms and acanthodians, within Neognathstomata, holocephalans (class Holocephali) are the most basal, whereas the elasmobranchs (class Elasmobranchii) are more closely related to the bony vertebrates (clade Euteleostomi) and are classified with them under Teleostomi, so Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes are no longer valid taxa because both are paraphyletic, there are instead Holocephali, Elasmobranchii, Actinopterygii, and Sarcopterygii all ranked as full classes, so here's the correct classification of vertebrates, Myxini + Euvertebrata = Vertebrata, Petromyzontida + Gnathstomata = Euvertebrata, Placodermata + Eugnathstomata = Gnathstomata, Acanthodii + Neognathstomata = Eugnathstomata, Holocephali + Teleostomi = Neognathstomata, Elasmobranchii + Euteleostomi = Teleostomi, Actinopterygii + Neoteleostomi = Euteleostomi, Sarcopterygii + Tetrapoda = Neoteleostomi.

@tjarkschweizer Год назад

Warning! This guy just posts copy pastas of outdated information! Engaging with him is pointless.

@indyreno2933 Год назад

@Tjark Schweizer, none of this information is outdated, lampreys are more closely related to jawed vertebrates than to hagfish, sharks and batoids are more closely related to bony vertebrates than to chimaeras, and lobe-finned fish are more closely related to tetrapods than to ray-finned fish.