1. Rudy Alapag
    Rudy AlapagFebruary 13, 2018 at 10:18 am

    The bite can be twice worse than JAWS if for example “The Mother Shark” from
    Jaws 3?

  2. Sam Al
    Sam AlAugust 6, 2018 at 5:07 pm

    I can’t accept that Meg was primarily a scavenger based mostly on its teeth shape. That’s the same argument Jack Horner used when arguing T.rex was primarily a scavenger and I don’t think it holds any more weight than it does here. Having such strong teeth and jaws would make taking down prey much, much easier than other predators you’re sharing your habitat with. I can, however, accept your argument on the basis of an adult Meg being too slow to catch anything.

    1. Max Hawthorne
      Max HawthorneAugust 8, 2018 at 8:41 pm

      Hi Sam. It’s not the strength of the jaws that supports the primary scavenger role in large adults (note: primary, not total, they still hunted), but the morphological changes in the teeth that went with that. The teeth become rib crushers/crackers, something that requires an immobile target to maximize benefits. Lacerating a set of flukes or belly would be easier (a la the great white) and would endow the predator with teeth more like a great white’s (blades, not chisels). When u combine it all – and keeping in mind many experts now state that the shark was designed to prey on small whales (30′ approx) and could not deal with the great whales as they came on the scene – the comparatively slow speed, the sheer mass, the bone crunching teeth – the role of being mainly a scavenger for brood stock makes perfect sense. Best, Max

  3. Dave Knapp
    Dave KnappSeptember 3, 2018 at 5:54 pm

    I agree with Max.. Makes perfect sense😉

Leave a Reply