What's the right Dunkleosteus for you?

[Reuben03]

That is all.

what a chad lol i wish that was me

(he says sat in the dark in his bedroom next to an ocean full of parrotfish)

[stargatedalek]

I fail to see how depicting Dunkleosteus with the kind of tail all other giant fish have, and with smoothed out less exaggerated armor, is "making it more dramatic and extreme".

If anything clinging to the old reconstruction of the armoured biblical leviathan with giant "teeth made of bone" and a freaky creepy eel tail is what is overly dramatic.

[Gwangi]

Yeah, you all say "shark-like" tail but are unclear about what shark, the shape of a shark's tail is determined by its niche, as it would be with Dunkleosteus and relatives. The tail of a bottom dwelling nurse shark is vastly different than the tail of a pelagic short-fin mako shark. But forget sharks for a second, look at other open water predatory fishes. Billfishes, tuna, dolphinfish, barracuda, cobia, tarpon, bluefish, bonefish...the list goes on. The habits and habitats shape the tail. If the evidence is that Dunk was a pelagic fish than it stands to reason it had a pelagic fish tail and that should be the null hypothesis until evidence suggests otherwise.

[Stegotyranno420]

I hope you guys arent getting the idea i am denying the "shark"-like tail. I am just saying given the choice of the two depictions, which i have know almost nothing about(i have little experience with fish), i rather go with the armoured than the fast. By leviathan, i literally do not mean the bible animal, i am just referring to a large animal that lives in the water.

@Reuben03 thanks, but that wasn't really my argument.

Now here's my question: Is it possible that dunkleosteus may had what seemed like a grey area of the 2 tail types?(its kind of hard to explain).

[Loon]

I'm honestly still not a believer in Dunkleosteus being a fish at all. Until they find the entire animal, if such a thing exists, this whole fish thing is just an exaggerated theory made by grant hungry naval gazers, I mean "paleontologists." I'm far more inclined to believe it was a floating head.

[Stegotyranno420]

@Loon
are you being sarcastic? I cant really detect it well, so sorry if it sounds like a dumb question

[Loon]

@Loon
are you being sarcastic? I cant really detect it well, so sorry if it sounds like a dumb question

Why would I be sarcastic here? This is a serious conversation, and I am following suit. Wexter et al. (2006) clarified that a skull like that of Dunkleosteus, "was bio-mechanically sufficient enough to exist without the post-cranial burden suffered by most animals, known colloquially as 'the body." I am highly skeptical of these fish claims, after all, fish do have bodies. So until one of these so called "bodies" is found, a real science knower like me must accept the truth that Dunkleosteus had no body.

[Stegotyranno420]

I don't know, I'm pretty sure we have relatives of the animal that have bodies.
Are you trying to mock someone?
Sorry, I'm really confused here.

[Gwangi]

I'm honestly still not a believer in Dunkleosteus being a fish at all. Until they find the entire animal, if such a thing exists, this whole fish thing is just an exaggerated theory made by grant hungry naval gazers, I mean "paleontologists." I'm far more inclined to believe it was a floating head.

Ah, yes, like the ocean sunfish. Now I wish to see a Dunkleosteus restored as such.

[Stegotyranno420]

SIgh. They have bodies.

Its this like a joke or reference going on, because it seems like I'm way behind on trends.
Can someone fill me on this trend?

[Loon]

Ah, yes, like the ocean sunfish. Now I wish to see a Dunkleosteus restored as such.

Frankly, I find the Mola mola comparison ridiculous, as it relies on far too too much speculation. Not only is it a fish, which science cannot, despite all assertions, prove Dunkleosteus was, but it also has a body. So that my beliefs are not further misconstrued, I will share a piece of paleoart I have made. Yes, I dabble.

This reconstruction fits Wexter et al.'s description perfectly.

[Loon]

Its this like a joke or reference going on, because it seems like I'm way behind on trends.
Can someone fill me on this trend?

Galilei, Darwin, Brahe, Newton. I'm sure they were all thought of as jokers by some of their time, but now, look where we are. This isn't a trend, this isn't some flash-in-the-pan, fly-by-night malarkey, this is scientific discovery occuring before our very eyes.

[andrewsaurus rex]

Yeah, you all say "shark-like" tail but are unclear about what shark, the shape of a shark's tail is determined by its niche, as it would be with Dunkleosteus and relatives. The tail of a bottom dwelling nurse shark is vastly different than the tail of a pelagic short-fin mako shark. But forget sharks for a second, look at other open water predatory fishes. Billfishes, tuna, dolphinfish, barracuda, cobia, tarpon, bluefish, bonefish...the list goes on. The habits and habitats shape the tail. If the evidence is that Dunk was a pelagic fish than it stands to reason it had a pelagic fish tail and that should be the null hypothesis until evidence suggests otherwise.

the 'null hypotheis' argument is very reasonable and I would agree that should be the accepted idea, unless and until a better one comes along.  But that doesn't mean that I have to accept it.  I realize my view is going against the accepted grain.  Doesn't mean i'm wrong.

Loon: not sure why you have to infuse an interesting discussion with silly comments, but that is your right.

I'd be more easily accepting of the shark like body/tail for Dunk, if someone could suggest a good reason why evolution would give Dunk  a shark like body/tail combo, but keep its big, heavy, un-streamlined head.  The two just seem at odds with one another.  If it was necessary for Dunk to be a fast swimming pelagic fish, then natural selection should have altered it's head to suit as well, not just it's body/tail.

[Reuben03]

I'm honestly still not a believer in Dunkleosteus being a fish at all. Until they find the entire animal, if such a thing exists, this whole fish thing is just an exaggerated theory made by grant hungry naval gazers, I mean "paleontologists." I'm far more inclined to believe it was a floating head.

dunkleosteus obviously was a race of floating heads that knew everything and communicated in psychic waves!!

[Reuben03]

Frankly, I find the Mola mola comparison ridiculous, as it relies on far too too much speculation. Not only is it a fish, which science cannot, despite all assertions, prove Dunkleosteus was, but it also has a body. So that my beliefs are not further misconstrued, I will share a piece of paleoart I have made. Yes, I dabble.
This reconstruction fits Wexter et al.'s description perfectly.

made my day.

[Loon]

I'm honestly still not a believer in Dunkleosteus being a fish at all. Until they find the entire animal, if such a thing exists, this whole fish thing is just an exaggerated theory made by grant hungry naval gazers, I mean "paleontologists." I'm far more inclined to believe it was a floating head.

dunkleosteus obviously was a race of floating heads that knew everything and communicated in psychic waves!!

Now you're just being silly, and there are far too many people being silly in this thread already.

I'll choose not to be one of these lower-class jokers and politely disagree with you. From the fossil evidence, it's pretty clear that Dunkleosteus couldn't communicate at all; frankly, if it even moved is highly dubious and a point where I argue even Wexter is being indulgent. The only lifestyle a reasonable, logic-based person can assert is that Dunkleosteus was a floating head that inhabited our oceans a long time ago. Hopefully that should be reasonable enough to be my last comment on the matter.

[Gwangi]

I'd be more easily accepting of the shark like body/tail for Dunk, if someone could suggest a good reason why evolution would give Dunk  a shark like body/tail combo, but keep its big, heavy, un-streamlined head.  The two just seem at odds with one another.  If it was necessary for Dunk to be a fast swimming pelagic fish, then natural selection should have altered it's head to suit as well, not just it's body/tail.

I would say it's because of their ancestry. Evolution isn't a perfect process, as illustrated by extinction, and not every species is as perfected as it potentially could be. Dunkleosteus is a placoderm, the bony plates on their head are a defining characteristic passed onto it by its ancestors and not so easily disposed of. It might be counterintuitive for a pelagic predator to be weighed down in such a way but it doesn't mean the evolutionary pressure wouldn't push Dunkleosteus in that direction despite that disadvantage. Given enough time to evolve maybe the decendents of Dunk would have been less armored, but Dunkleosteus died off, perhaps in part because of its evolutionary handicaps. In fact, the forward heaviness of Dunkleosteus strengthens the argument for a forked tail, in that it would better propel the animal.

[Reuben03]

Now you're just being silly, and there are far too many people being silly in this thread already.

I'll choose not to be one of these lower-class jokers and politely disagree with you. From the fossil evidence, it's pretty clear that Dunkleosteus couldn't communicate at all; frankly, if it even moved is highly dubious and a point where I argue even Wexter is being indulgent. The only lifestyle a reasonable, logic-based person can assert is that Dunkleosteus was a floating head that inhabited our oceans a long time ago. Hopefully that should be reasonable enough to be my last comment on the matter.

I stand by my statement.

[Loon]

@Reuben03 despite our disagreements about the animal's behavior. It looks like the the question of the right Dunkleosteus has been answered! Kaiyodo for the win!

Even has a hinged jaw, that's collector value if I've ever heard of it. The end, thread over.

[Reuben03]

@Reuben03 despite our disagreements about the animal's behavior. It looks like the the question of the right Dunkleosteus has been answered! Kaiyodo for the win!
Even has a hinged jaw, that's collector value if I've ever heard of it. The end, thread over.

agreed. captures the entire animals likeness perfectly.
no one else needs to make a dunkleosteus ever again now.