The Megalodon was not only thinner and longer than a great white but also more comparable to mako sharks.
This new understanding of the Megalodon's body type would affect scientists' understanding not only of the giant shark itself but also its impact on marine ecosystems and why it went extinct.
The giant extinct shark, Megalodon, may have been even longer and more slender than previously believed. The research team now suggests that the Megalodon was not only thinner and longer than a great white but also more comparable to mako sharks. This new understanding of the Megalodon's body type would affect scientists' understanding not only of the giant shark itself but also its impact on marine ecosystems and why it went extinct.
Megalodon may have been even longer and more slender than previously believed
The Megalodon was not only thinner and longer than a great white but also more comparable to mako sharks.
A better model for the Megalodon's body type is the modern mako shark, which suggests that it behaved differently based on this new understanding.
Accuracy
Most of what we know about megalodon is based on the teeth and jaws
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of experts in the field. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Megalodon as a 'fearsome predator' and stating that its extinction was due to changing sea levels. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence presented in support of these claims.
The megalodon went extinct 3.6 million years ago, and is thought to be the largest shark that ever swam the Earth.
Megalodons may have been even longer and more slender than previously believed
Researchers now suggest Megalodon may have been more slender than previously believed
The revised understanding of the Megalodon's shape would affect scientists' understanding not only of the giant shark itself but also its impact on marine ecosystems and why it went extinct.
<40 feet long
Accuracy
The Megalodon was not only thinner and longer than a great white but also more comparable to mako sharks.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents the Megalodon as a slender and elongated creature when there is no evidence to support this claim. The author uses the barrel-chested form of the great white shark as a reference point for piecing together the physiology of the ancient beasts, but this is not accurate. Additionally, some statements made in the article are taken out of context and presented as fact without proper citation or evidence.
The Megalodon may have had a much leaner, elongated body type when compared to that of today's great white shark.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the study published in the journal Palaeontologia Electronica without providing any evidence or context for its credibility. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Megalodon as a 'colossal danger fish' and a 'nightmarish aspect'. Additionally, there is an example of a dichotomous depiction in the sentence 'The Megalodon was truly colossal in size, and boasted a powerful bite that would have allowed them to devour a whale In just a few bites.' which presents two opposing views on the size of the Megalodon. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Megalodon as 'an overgrown great white shark' and its appearance in monster movies.
The study published in Palaeontologia Electronica suggests that the Megalodon may have had a much leaner, elongated body type
The Megalodon was truly colossal in size, and boasted a powerful bite that would have allowed them to devour a whale In just a few bites.
As part of the new study, researchers weighed and performed CT scans on great white sharks and compared it with reconstructions of Megalodon vertebral columns.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that the Megalodon may have been even longer and more slender than previously believed. This is an example of bias because it implies that previous beliefs about the Megalodon's size were incorrect, without providing any evidence to support this claim.
The end result is that there is very little physical evidence of the ancient megapredators that once ruled over Earth<2019s oceans, bar their enormous teeth, and sections of spine.
> The Megalodon is, without question, one of the largest and most terrifying carnivores ever to roam Earth<2019s oceans. As evidenced by their fossilised teeth, Megalodon were truly colossal in size.
The megalodon was not only thinner and longer than a great white but also more comparable to mako sharks.
Megalodons may have been even longer and more slender than previously believed.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that a new study suggests that the megalodon was not similar to a supersized great white shark as previously thought. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that there has been some kind of scientific breakthrough or discovery when in fact no such thing has happened. In reality, the article is simply reporting on an ongoing debate among scientists about how to interpret previous studies and fossil evidence related to the megalodon's body form. Secondly, the author quotes a scientist who claims that there are inconsistencies in a separate study from 2022 but does not provide any details or context for this claim. This is deceptive because it creates an impression of scientific controversy without providing enough information to allow readers to understand what is actually being debated. Finally, the article uses sensational language and imagery (e.g.,
The megalodon was thought to look like a supersized great white shark
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing a study published in the journal Palaeontologia Electronica without providing any details about the study or its methodology. This makes it difficult for readers to evaluate the credibility of the information presented in the article. Additionally, there are inconsistencies between different studies on megalodon's body form and size, which creates confusion and uncertainty among readers.
The author cites a study published in Palaeontologia Electronica without providing any details about it.
Bias
(80%)
The author of the article is Julia Gomez from USA TODAY. The article discusses a study that challenges previous reconstructions of the megalodon as looking like a supersized great white shark. The author uses quotes and information provided by experts in their field to support this claim, including Sternes who led the investigation and is quoted extensively throughout the article.
The study suggests there are inconsistencies in previous studies that relied on underlying assumptions not fully tested.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of megalodon and great white sharks as they are both cartilaginous skeletons and fossils. The article also mentions Phillip Sternes who is an expert in this field.
The Megalodon had a slimmer body than previously thought.
A better model for the Megalodon's body type is the modern mako shark, which suggests that it behaved differently based on this new understanding.
Researchers now suggest Megalodon may have been more slender than previously believed
The megalodon was not only thinner and longer than a great white but also more comparable to mako sharks.
Accuracy
Megalodons may have been even longer and more slender than previously believed
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents a new understanding of the Megalodon's body type and behavior. The author claims that the Megalodon was slimmer than previously believed, which changes our understanding of its feeding habits and competition with other marine predators. However, this claim contradicts previous studies on the subject matter.
The article states that a new study shows the Megalodon was more slender than earlier studies suggested. This is deceptive because it implies that there were no prior studies suggesting a slimmer body for the Megalodon, when in fact previous research has indicated otherwise.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing a study published in the journal Palaeontologia Electronica as evidence for their claims. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe the Megalodon as a 'super-sized monster' and suggest that it was not merely a larger version of the modern great white shark.
The study sheds new light on the body form of the Megalodon, and its role in shaping ancient marine life.
Bias
(85%)
The article presents a new understanding of the Megalodon's body type and its role in ancient marine life. The author uses quotes from experts to support their claims that the Megalodon was slimmer than previously thought and had a longer digestive canal. This information challenges previous assumptions about the shark's behavior, feeding habits, and extinction factors.
A revised understanding of the Megalodon body type would in turn affect scientists' understanding not only of the giant shark itself, but also of its impact on the ecology and evolution of marine ecosystems that shaped the present-day oceans.
The Megalodon or megatooth shark is typically portrayed as a super-sized monster in popular culture
The research team then weighed in on a new comparison of Megalodon vertebra fossils to those of living lamniform shark relatives.
With increased ability to digest its food, it could have gone for longer without needing to hunt.
Megalodon was at least 36 feet in length, and could have had a maximum length of almost 50 feet (15 meters).
<40 feet long
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in its portrayal of the megalodon's body type. The author uses sensationalism and selective reporting to create a false narrative about the shark's size and shape.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing a study led by Kenshu Shimada at DePaul University and Phillip Sternes from the University of California as evidence for their claims about megalodon's body type. However, this is not enough to establish the validity of their findings without further evidence or analysis. Additionally, the author uses a dichotomous depiction by presenting two opposing views on megalodon's body type (beefy vs slender) and suggesting that one view is more accurate than the other based solely on scientific estimates. This oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores potential nuances or variations in megalodon's anatomy. Finally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing megalodons as
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes the megalodon by referring to it as a 'beefy great white'. This is an example of biased language. The author also quotes from previous studies and experts without providing any context or analysis on their own. This could be seen as lazy reporting, rather than thorough investigation.
The megalodon was the biggest, baddest shark to swim the oceans of ancient Earth.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Megalodons as they are reporting on research that challenges previous beliefs about their size and shape. The article also mentions Shark Week which is a program produced by Discovery Channel, where Ryan Whitwam works.
