https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aea6285Truly a big guy.
pretty based
oh that's pretty big
Fake
>>5118738but can it beat megalodon
>>5118741they're both about the same length at their biggest predicted sizes, so that depends if you think a 20m octopus can beat a 20m shark, considering that more than half the length is tentacles
>>5118742Tentacles become less efficient at applying force the bigger they are. Giant squids which measure 12 m according to these graph >>5118738 eat normal sized fish like orange roughy and smaller squids. Giant squids are also preyed on by greenland sharks which are 6-7m long. People overestimate how cool/scary cephalopods are. They are just blobs of water tentacles that feed on way smaller prey than them.
>>5118763in the paper they actually say that the pattern of wear on the beaks is consistent with crushing bones of large prey, rather than crushing shellfish or eating small fish like modern cephalopods. The authors' hypothesis is that they were top predators
>>5118766That's pretty sick.
>>5118770yeah the size is incredibleA and B are from cretaceous octopuses, C is from a giant squid
>>5118766Damn, would it be possible for them to be scavengers? Squids and Octopus nowadays are mostly ambush predators. I can't see how such a big squid can ambush big bony fish/reptiles.
>>5118702>another made up animal found by le scienceYou guys do realize we still don't what dinos really looked like right? These are all just theories based on no real facts or evidence
>>5118776Maybe, but the curse of the soft bodied cephalopods is we won't ever know what they looked like, maybe they were more streamlined
>>5118766How do you differentiate between bite wear caused by bones vs thick shelled molluscs.
>>5118738I'm fully prepared for some other discovery in the future to downsize the shit outta the new IRL lusca. See what happened to pic related.Haggarti's gonna be downsized to Jeletzkyi's proportions by next week, just you watch.
>>5118815Probably not that much. Haggarti's fossil is much larger than Jeletzkyi's fossil.>>5118770
I read the thing, I find that they're drawing altogether too many paleo-ecological conclusions from a few fragmented tooth fossils.
>>5118815Why is he directly under its anus and genitals?
Squids and octopuses can't really fossilize.The mere suggestion that there could have been giant squids and giant octopuses in the primeval past really pissed academics off for no real reason, for some reason."There may have been krakens""Um non retard show me your evidence""I can't; that's precisely the point; they leave very little evidence"Christ.
>>5118881You just know.
>>5118884Paleontology is a religion.
>>5118798it's some interesting stuff>Frequent durophagous predation on hard-shelled prey causes wear of their jaw tips and jaw edges, which is absent in nondurophagous cephalopods such as squids>This wear provides reliable evidence of durophagy, in a broader sense carnivory, in fossil cephalopods. The wear was found on adult jaws of Late Cretaceous Cirrata, but not on their juvenile jaws. It is also absent in co-occurring fossil squid jaws, including both juveniles and adults>In the largest specimens of N. jeletzkyi and N. haggarti, the loss of jaw material caused by the accumulated wear reaches ~10% of the total jaw length, which is more severe than in modern durophagous cephalopods>These wear patterns suggest that Late Cretaceous giant Cirrata were active carnivores that frequently crushed hard shells and bones. The long scratches distributed on wide areas of their jaw reflect the dynamic use of the entire jaw for dismantling prey. Asymmetric loss of the jaw edges suggests lateralized behavior, which has been linked to a highly developed brain and cognition>This, in turn, suggests that the earliest octopuses already possessed advanced intelligence. Laterality is known in modern octopuses, whose high intelligence matches that of vertebratesso essentially the heavy wear on cephalopod beaks imply eating shellfish rather than fish. But in this case, there's extreme wear, up to 10% of the beak which is significantly more wear than modern shellfish eating cephalopods have. The fact that there are long scratches on the wide areas of the beak indicate the use of the beak to rip apart large animals, rather than just crushing shells. And the fact that bones are much thicker and tougher than shellfish shells explains why the beaks are proportionally worn down much more than modern shellfish eating cephalopods.
....Wasn't this already known? We found graveyards of bones in enormous artistic arrangements, typical of the prey that octopuses leave behind...The idea isn't far fetched. Academics are just not imaginative enough to entertain something very plausible.
>>5118888Retarded nerds need hard evidence even for the most obvious of shit.
>>5118888quad 8s confirm
>>5118884>>5118888Yeah it's pretty pathetic how people will act like there weren't truly enormous jellyfish zapping the shit out of whales in ancient timesShit was far bigger back then and we know just how huge some squishy boneless things can get even today still
>>5118888Those are from the Triassic, not the Cretaceous
>>5118888There is no confirmation that cephalopods arrange their prey's remains.They create trash dumps called middens and make sure the remains(usually shells, beaks, and other things without bones typically have, which is what they typically eat) go into them and stay there. But no artwork or anything.
>inb4 it's actually like this
>>5118952NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>7-19m Pretty extreme range of estimates there. I’ll go with around 11m max.
>>5118955I think the tuna comparisons are more humiliating for dunked-on-osteus
this is the same made up bullshit like megalodon because le jaw big. We KNOW just based on giant squids cephalopods that size can't move too fast without giving themselves strokes. Really expect us to believe a giant octopus was hunting much faster predators?
>>5119004maybe it was an ambush predator
>>5118887Would a cephalopod eating large vertebrates not have a proportionately very large beak? Which would push these size estimates towards the lower end.
>>5118702Downsized in a month
>>5118931>>5118947Missing the point like a bitch, eh? The era doesn't matter. The graveyards don't matter. The lack of evidence doesn't matter. It's still very fucking plausible. The ONLY evidence you need is how poorly cephalopods fossilize. You start from there.
>>5119058why would the beak be proportionately large and not the entire animal being large?
>>5118770Benin :DDD
>>5118994I don't see why the tuna comparison's humiliating. They can get fucking massive and a tuna with a bolt cutter mouth seems utterly horrifying.
>>5119252thats a medium sized tuna
>>5118763Greenland sharks do not prey on giant squid they are scavengers. Squid beaks are found in their stomachs because they eat their bodies when they die.
>>5119252Tuna are kinda creepy, cause it's just normal fish like you catch in a lake... but gigantic.It's basically a gigantic goldfish.
Something worth noting. During the Cretaceous at least, large open-water durophagous animals was a common niche for things to take. Sharks did it, mosasaurs did it, there's even a giant chimera that did it. Nanaimoteuthis was most likely doing something similar to them as well.
>>5119780>giant chimeraWhich one?
>>5119784Edaphodon's the name
>>5119252Tunas are rarely kept in aquariums because the sheer force that a school of them can generate can easily damage most tanks
>>5119281>they are scavengersThey are opportunistic predators. They’ll attack live whales and seals, hunting squid is completely feasible
>>5119786Curious about why there were so many giant shellfish at that specific point in time to start with.
>>5118763>Cool as shit thing in paleontology gets discovered.>Immediate reaction is naysayers trying to downplay it.When did paleofags become such conservative pansies? I swear if Quetzalcoatlus was discovered today you'd all be whining about how there was no possible way it could fly because the idea of a creature that massive flying is just too ridiculous. Prehistory is full of extraordinary shit and we'll keep discovering new things that blow our minds. More boring possibilities aren't more likely just because they're more tame. The paper makes a valid foundation for it's claims and I haven't seen any good argument against it, just people being skeptical for the sake of pessimism.
>>5120460Scientist hype up their discoveries to get more notoriety and advance their careers. This is why the norm is to take their discoveries with skepticism.Paleontology history is full of crazy speculations that end up not being true and thus forgotten. This is nothing new.
>>5119160>The ONLY evidence you need is how poorly cephalopods fossilize. You start from there.You start from the "evidence" which is the fact that they don't leave behind any evidence of their existence? Are you retarded? We don't have any evidence of werewolves on the moon, does that prove they're real?
>>5120487Then why do terran werewolves howl to the Moon if not to communicate with their lunar brethren, smartass?
>>5120473The only time discoveries get "hyped up" is when it's some glupshittosaur known only from a single toe bone that a guy massively overestimates. Outside of the possibility of something like a mummified specimen the octopus is known from the best material possible for the type of animal it is. An extinct animals feeding apparatus is the best you're gonna get when it comes to figuring out how it was feeding, and the paper makes a logical conclusion based on what they observed from it. The entire reason the paper gives a broad size range of 7-19m is because the researchers involved found both extremes to be valid possibilities. "Hyping it up" would be them claiming the minimum size was 15m to insist that it was absolutely a massive super predator. You can also do this but in the opposite direction, as seen with >>5118992 , who suggests the maximum should be 11m for no good reason except artificially narrowing the estimate range to look better. Being conservative without good reason doesn't make your ideas more accurate, it just gives off an illusion that they do by making them fall in line with modern, familiar examples.
>>5119252That's a big tuna.
Far as I can find at least, the only visualization of how big the beak could've been in proportion to the actual animal.
>>5121411yup, this is a conservative estimate though. It could be double that size
>>5118742>>5118741handily
>>5120580Lets not pretend published science has any standards Granted, its not as blatantly made up as sociology but its not real either
>>5121411>>5121419Conservative reconstructions are always the best ones so i will believe it is this size unless proven otherwise
>>5122170Didn't this happen at an aquarium once?
>>5121078For you
>>5121411I come from the future to bring you this update.
>>5122171>Lets not pretend published science has any standards>"Sometimes studies are wrong so I only trust memes!"
>>5121411>>5122232Japanese have these?
>>5122398About 100.5 to 72.2 million years ago yes. Though it's worth noting the other species, Jeletzkyi, was actually found on Vancouver Island, Canada so these things were possibly global.
>>5122360I get what you mean but paleofags are notorious for discussing shit they made up
>>5122232this is way too conservativethe giant squid's mantle is significantly larger than a human, and the beak of nanaimoteuthis is multiple times larger than that of the giant squid >>5118770it would be ridiculous for nanaimoteuthis to be smaller than a giant squid, but have a beak something like 3-5 times as largealso it feels stupid calling an octopus nanaimoTEUTHIS, fix it basedentists.
>>5122531>it feels stupid calling an octopus nanaimoTEUTHISIn fairness, it being an octopus was only done recently. Before then, it was thought that it belonged to the vampire squid family.
>>5122545vampire squid also aren't even squidwe called them that because we thought they were squid, but that's not a good reason to keep calling new families squid
>>5118702has it been downsized yet?
>>5119252This is fake, right?
>>5123838The world record for rod and reel caught Tuna was 1496 lbs. They are big fish.
>>5122232The shorter size estimate is for if they’re wrong about which version of the dumbo octopus body plan it uses. It’ll be thick as hell if it’s 7 meters long
>>5118742Nah, that we have a Meg at average blue whale sizes rules that out.But to be fair, whatever size you can put on the octopus you can probably near double for the truly large specimens.
>>5123838There is a video of a Tuna moving past an oil rig support in deep waters, they estimate it at 5+ meters, which might be pushing it, but it seems about right.
>>5122207Conservative estimates had Megalodon at 12 meters, then we found an 11 meter spine, the full size is likely around 16.4 meters, and with a preexisting meg vertebrae over 1.4x the size we're looking at a 24+ meter Meg.Conservative fags are as unreliable as the sensationalist fags. It's just engagement farming for clout at the end of the day anyway for paleonerds.
