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.
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... )
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.
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.
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.
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!
@@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.
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
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.
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).
Funny you say that, lol: 64.media.tumblr.com/adeb2b315a48a9e1fab8b6c029edbd85/e75cbc67fd2cbd33-ed/s1280x1920/3813fc781958c0f7b038cef7cceac3b7a2b68937.png
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.
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.
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
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.-.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 😳
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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😅
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
Chunky or not
BIG or small
Still a very amazing animal especially for it's time
Love the Devonian era
I full agree.
A really incredible animal, and time period!
Dunkleosteus has now become CHONK-leosteus.
They became the Dunkleorb, and they haven't looked back.
Petition to make this it’s official name ?👨🏾🦯
@@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
😂😅
😂😂😂
Dunkleosteus: "It's becoming increasingly obvious. I cannot deny it no longer!..."
*i'm smol*
15 ft won't look small when loose arm and see a dark shadow swimming around you
The Dunk is my absolute favorite marine animal. I have seen the skull in the Vienna Museum of Natural History a few times. Insane.
Liopleurodon: “first time?”
And unlike them, Dunkleosteus' head size at least remains the same, it's just the postcrania that's under debate/revision. :)
poor liupleurodon 😢😢 and spinosaurus dragomball xd
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.
100% They are really awesome regardless!
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... )
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.
@@HenrythePaleoGuy Great news though, thanks for the update !
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.
So cool that we still learn so much, so often, about these amazing long-gone critters!
Thanks for what you do, Henry. 😊
❤️❤️
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
So what you’re telling me is that there is no proof that dunkleosteus did not look like a giant eel
Well, it's highly, highly unlikely regardless, lol.
Guys guys, you're missing the obvious answer...
Giant manta ray with pseudo teeth.
Armored starfish imtensifies
Great, now that nightmare will haunt my dreams tonight
Haha... Exactly. All I know is that business end is massive!
It's size doesn't change the mechanics of it's jaw..............which is fucking terrifying.
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.
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.
I love the "new" Dunkleosteus, they're so smol and round and I wanna hug them.
Pretty interesting. I'm looking forward to the finding/developement of more reliable data on this topic - and thanks a lot for uploading this.
Sure is!
Many thanks for watching!
Even smaller, this thing can chomp a shark to pieces.
100%. They could absolutely cleave right through a person, no problem.
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.
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!
@@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.
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
In many ways yeah, it does look more uniform.
Hahaha, that ending...! So, he isn't sizable. Big whoop. To me, Dunky makes it up in personality and general doughtiness of character.
Indeed. No matter what their postcrania looked like, they're still really awesome animals. :)
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.
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).
I have had this thought before "What if dunkleosteus actually looked like a mola mola?"
Funny you say that, lol: 64.media.tumblr.com/adeb2b315a48a9e1fab8b6c029edbd85/e75cbc67fd2cbd33-ed/s1280x1920/3813fc781958c0f7b038cef7cceac3b7a2b68937.png
@@HenrythePaleoGuy Now that's a sunfish that doesn't take shit from anyone
He's in shape, a C I R C L E ○ is a shape!
"Smaller and rounder than expected"?
Not the first time I've heard those words 🤣
XD
Lol, that ending though!
Had to fit some of the memes in there where I could. :)
Dunk a certified unit
6:49 "Tunas & Allies" 😂
A Dunk with an eel like body plan would make a pretty scary sea serpent.
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.
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.
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.
The "Dunk". I always love a good update. Ty
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
Indeed. Still an incredibly formidable animal!
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.
Hey friend, I really enjoyed watching your videos.
Hey! Thanks a lot!
@@HenrythePaleoGuy Ba Weep Grana, Weep Nidi Bang.
next up scientists discover that dunkleosteus actually had giant lips that completely covered their mouths.
Unlikely, given how their musculature would’ve worked.
Unlikely, given how their musculature would’ve worked.
@@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
@@Phantom-bh5ruAnd don’t forget the feathers.
And since they had lips they had a mustache.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, sperm whales existed nowadays and they eat squids
You forgot about Titanichthys my friend a close relatives of Dunkleosteus that reached similar size and was a filter feeder.
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.-.
The Dunkleosteus Glow Up
In some ways!
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.
The world Dunkleosteus lived in was entirely different from the modern word, it isn't going to look like a modern fish.
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.
It seems a bit speculative to me.
I think new dunkleosteus looks cute
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.
On the contrary, they would do it even slower
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.
I don't think so.
A year later and it seems like the entire field of Placoderm palaeontology disagrees with you.
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
Have you seen the skeleton crews?
personally i love the new bite sized football dunk. cute beast!
They were built like plecos😊
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 😳
At least it has a smaller hitbox and is still torpedo-shaped, it wasn’t nerfed
Absolutely amazing video on the Ohio Fish
Glad you enjoyed it!
Really interesting as to what more we can learn about them. :)
THE DUNK
D U N K
Shrinkleosteus
Essentially!
Dunk then: ancient monster shark
Dunk now: water dog
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
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.
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.
@@Saurophaganax1931 Yes.
That's a PHAT fish!
He’s smoll now
Small?! This thing is the size of an adult cow!
@@kitwing2904 I mean it’s small compared to others like baslosaurus megalodon levithan mosasaurus and the blue whale
In comparison to where they were before, definitely!
Dunkleosteus: P-Paleoart Community? Please don’t turn me into a marketable plushie 🥺….
*poof*
PALEOART COMMUNITY-
ua-cam.com/video/nez7EOY3RnM/v-deo.html&ab_channel=PetitePaleoartist
This video sums that up well, lol.
@@HenrythePaleoGuy OMG YES! I love that video 😂😂😂.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't titanichthys the largest arthrodiran?
In terms of mass, I think Dunkleosteus is bigger, but I'll get back to you if not. :)
@@HenrythePaleoGuy was Dunkleosteus denser or something?
@@x1mpressed Potentially, from what it seems.
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
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
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.
It's more like tuna shaped now
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😅
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!
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.
*The king of goldfish*
Could be considered, lol
Higher percentage is armored, then
Even before this, still a good amount. :)
Shrunkleosteus
Into the compressor they go!
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.
great video
Much appreciated!
It's certainly very interesting.
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.
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. :)
The Dunkleosteus look like a shark.
Given their niche and the prey they would've been going after, it makes sense. :)
My childhood favourite. Destroyed 😢
Cool
Absolutely!
I was hoping this was a April fools joke now I'm just sad.
I for one welcome our new chonkleosteus.
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.
Certainly very chunky!
No never
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
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.
I know how spinosaurus fans feel now.😂😭🤣😭
Spinosaurus is a whole other mess, lol.
Look how they massacred my boy. 😭
Put in the compressor, lol.
Glorified ancient colossal grouper
Something that's pretty funny considering grouper were another one of the outliers in the paper.
It's all carp
Scientists- always has been
plump critter
Big boy of a fish!
So, Murder-Grouper...I can somehow totally see it.
Essentially, yeah!
you gotta de-ess youe audio
Chunkyosteus
Sounds fishy :)
Sure is!
Fat feesh.
Big chunky boy.
I like 'em chubby🙊
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.
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.
@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.
Warning! This guy just posts copy pastas of outdated information! Engaging with him is pointless.
@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.
@@indyreno2933 You still post outdated information, child. Daddy knows.
I call heresy and don't accept this.
Could you please speak more slowly and clearly?
My speech doesn't work with everything it seems. I'll try to do better in future. :)
It probably wasn't as short as at the methodology is a bit flawed.
Talk about lips...please
In these animals?
There is some upcoming work coming on that, so perhaps when that gets published I'll have more to say. :)
The round predator
Round boy
Round and awesome!
@@HenrythePaleoGuy Jes
Round
R O U N D B O I
Its a chunky boy
Truly an orb of a fish!
Doesn't that tail fluke look too high for it to swim straight?
Cool
Sure are!