While this was undeniably a massive animal, I'm taking the upper guesses on its size with a huge grain of salt given how little remains have actually been found and how common it is for paleontologists to overestimate the size of a newly-discovered species. I'm similarly suspicious of the hypothesis of it being a scavenger- whales don't have a functional sense of smell and that would badly inhibit its ability to find carcasses to scavenge in the ocean.
I think that's reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised if it did rival the size of a blue whale, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was smaller. Still, the vertebrae are very different from other whales, so as someone without a super detailed knowledge of marine tetrapods I don't think it's that outlandish as far as just pure weight is concerned.
@@RaptorChatter I, too, don’t have super detailed knowledge of whales, but I know people who do, and everyone I’ve asked seems to agree Perucetus definitely was not larger than a blue whale, and most likely within the 70-80 ton range, making it in the same size range as a fin whale. It was definitely still a very large creature, but the estimates that the original study gives are a bit extreme.
I was also under the impression that animals of that size need to filter feed to get enough energy. Maybe I’m wrong but I find it hard to imagine an animal close to or even heavier than a blue whale surviving on crustaceans.
The idea Perucetus was too slow to hunt is almost certainly false, as it ignores that other slow-swimming, coastal basilosaurids were definitely not too slow to hunt and were raptorial predators. The study also used questionable methodology to estimate the size of Perucetus (namely, they massively overestimated how much soft tissue the thing would have had, ignoring that other dense-bones basilosaurids like Antaecetus did not follow the same bone mass:soft tissue mass ratios as living cetaceans).
I would guess not since many paleontologists believe it would have swam in a manner similar to manatees, but maintaining the predatory nature of it's basilosaurid relatives.
I really would love to see that. Basilosaurus also had teeth with many points, which could have been used to slightly filter feed. So I would imagine it's an extreme version of that.
@@aceundead4750 personally I believe that it would have been a scavenger and bully potentially as it likely occupied shallower waters just like basilosaurus itself and other basilosaurids like Durodon etc, to me at least - it seems that the Eocene epoch oceans would have been highly active with massive predators such as the otodus sharks too.
@@RaptorChatter That reminds me of what Leopard Seals do, with their multipurpose, jagged, trident-shaped cheek teeth, which are used to both suction- and filter feed on krill, as well as chew up larger prey like fish, penguins and even other seals. Basilosaurids seem to have those peculiar jagged carnassials which, with a few adaptations, could have served a similar filter feeding function.
I took one look at thethumbnail and darn near skipped past it assuming it was clickbait. As I always do. Then I realized it was Raptor chatter. A trusted source.👍
Yeah, my wife, the editor, said she was going for the "great old one" style art on the thumbnail. Which clicks are good, but I really want to be reasonably accurate if I do get them.
Yeah, I saw this vid yesterday and didn’t watch it because I thought it would be something moronic like ‘ThE bLoOp (and I mean the conspiracy about it being an animal) HaS bEeN pRoVeN tO eXiSt’. But then I saw again, today, and I was too interested to ignore it. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised about how good this is. I’ll check out your other videos because I am very interested in marine life, extinct and living, and you’ve definitely found a new subscriber; not that one person will mean much.
@@mauretaniafan1133I hope this study was more serious than the studies that made Dunkleosteus a giant, because what they "did"vto Dunkleosteus is just discard all studies that didn't gave a justification for the size they've found, and then present the only one that remained XD But yeah, I wait for more fossils, I'm skeptical towards any size estimate based on a few vertebraes 😅
The supplimentary info has said the fossil was going into a small hill, so there may be a skull, just under ~2-5 tons of rock. so they could get to it eventually, but it'll take time.
The paper said they might be able to find that, but that it's under a hill, so will take time. It also may not be there, so it was only in the supplemental info. Fingers crossed they do.
You know a lot of ppl want dinosaurs bc they're cool, but like... We have whales man. And a whole bunch of other bizarre creatures that we see as mundane
whale ancestors evolved out of the water, then went back in lmao. imagine being a 4 legged mammal and just choosing to change your whole body plan again to live in the ocean. crazy
I think that even more remarkable than its bone density is the question of what did a basilosaur relative without baleen could have been eating that allowed it to reach and survive at such sizes.
This particular species may not be larger then the largest animal alive today. But there's so many possible species; sea creatures and sauropods, many of which still haven't been discovered yet, that the odds that the blue whale is the largest animal to ever exist is honestly still pretty low.
I think more fossils are needed to determine the size. I'm very curious about how this massive creature was able to sustain itself. The blue whale eats tons of krill in a single day. Filter feeders became so big because of how they eat.
Ich gucke normalerweise keine Videospiel-news oder Reviews auf Deutsch. Aber Respekt: Euren Content kann man sich seht gut anschauen. Großes Lob an Autor, Sprecher , und Schnitt/Produktion! Große Klasse! Hatte euch lange lange Zeit aus den Augen verloren, aber werde jetzt definitiv wieder regelmässig schauen!
Although much smaller the (I suspect) closely related Pachycetus also had very dense sirenia-like bones so (besides it's humungous size) it's not so unique as the scientists claim it to be.
I really want a documentary about South America from the Paleocene to Miocene and with this newly discovered whale I just thought of a scene that like the Alamosaurus death in the second season of Prehistoric Planet where it dies and becomes a host for all different scavengers like Sparassodonts and Sebecids. of course, this role could be filled by a Livyatan or Megalodon but you get what I'm saying.
There would be a ton of great stuff to do there. We have when dinosaurs roamed (the US) America, give me the same, but longer time frames in South America, so much neat stuff from there.
For a while, it’s been believed that whales only got truly massive quite recently, only a few million years ago. But look at the size of this humongous, slow, supposed scavenger. If it could reach such gargantuan sizes, imagine how big the corpses it ate were.
Then there's the times like dunkleosteus where the animal is much smaller than always thought. Being the only herbivorous whale isn't impossible, look at similar outliers like herbivorous theropods.
Humans have not been around for very long, I find it very interesting, that we would just happen to be alive at the same time as the largest animal ever.
The fingers were still moderately developed in whales from the period, and the head is based off of those in other basilosaurids. I think full flippers would be better, but the skull seems fairly consistent with other whales from the time.
The last I heard though is that this thing had been officially downsized already to less than 100 tons. But the big son of a gun still weighed well over 50 tons, which is still pretty freaking big. 🐋
This was based on the initial paper, and I have since done a shorter segment about it being smaller in one of my long form month in review videos, don't recall which one, but yes, smaller than 100 tons
It's crazy I was reading about the blue whale being the largest animal ever and the NEXT DAY news of this behemoth was released. Amazing and wonderful what a state of flux science is
Imagine scientists discovered a bony fish as big as this creature, it would the largest fish of all time. They would call it Deinoicthys collodi, meaning Collodi’s Terrible Fish, named after Carlo Collodi, who made the terrible dogfish in Pinocchio. This giant fish is actually a filter feeder, feeding on plankton, shrimp, fish, jellyfish and other tiny creatures during the early Cretaceous period. It is preyed upon by Kronosaurus and killer icthyosaurs, and prehistoric sharks. It’s a fanon creature.
What kind of crustacean this massive animal ate? Must be giant one also. Hard to believe how can they just feed tiny crustacean to support their massive? And what time it takes to ambush that tiny agile crustacean, and the number must be so abundant. My thingking they were herbivore much like dugong, so they didn't have to chase their foods.
There's a ton on the sea floor, and crustaceans wouldn't have been the only thing to be fair. Large clams, sponges, corals, and other things may have also been on the menu. But I also find that idea doubtful, and think the grey whale idea is the best comparison.
Probably fairly low. Whales from this time in general had very weak limbs, designed for movement in the water. The relatively small pelvis found is one case of this. If it were moving from land to water, even only occasionally we'd expect stronger limbs and pelvic/shoulder girdles to support its weight.
Thanks really interesting, hope they continue to find more fossil from these giants!! ...BTW just to note from the introduction- not sure where you came across the reason for mammals not getting too big is due carrying in baby inside but whoever said that didn’t have much idea about versions of mammals that live today. There most certainly are mammals that keep in young external pouches or, that even lay eggs....
so much fuss over a few vertebrae and a few ribs. there is absolutely no way they can conclude it had a small head nor if it even moved like a manatee. nor whether it was just a larger version of a blue whale or a sperm whale. In fact the vertebrae are about the same size as blue whale vertebrae. density of bone cannot be accurately measured because the bones are fossilized and there are many variables to account for as to its fossilization.
is it outlandish to say it could possibly have kept ite legs In another video i watched a guy compares the bones to that of a hippo and knowing that before the evolution into basilosaurs, their relatives did get around in this way. They could glide around the bottom and press off to ascend upwards and perhaps scavenge the bodies of other whales and other ocean life that was coming about in those days, and that could lead to it having such monsterous size? just a thought!
Animals don't get that big without a reason. Blue whales are so big because feeding on krill becomes more efficient if you have a large mouth (and proportionally large body because you do need to swim efficiently). Scavenging in the shallows, hunting in the shallows and similar things don't really need that size, and it sounds actually detrimental. There have to be better ways to hold your breath for a long time. Turtles manage 2 hours, how much more do you need?
@@Dr.Ian-Plect mesonychids are the only closest examples of "Terrestrial Whales" and whales are carnivores and swim with their long tails so they cannot be possibly related to herbivorous hippos with totally different teeth and who don't have tails an orca skull is nothing like a hippo skull and they are called wolves of the seas just like mesonychids are called wolves with hoofs
Can u explain why mamals can't grow bigger on land cause the joung need time to grow? Sorry if this sounds stupid i just can't rly understand ur reasoning here.
Since mammals give live birth their young need to be under a particular size to keep the population going. Elephants as an example breed super slowly, gestation is almost 2 years, and that will be for one offspring. With the resources on land being limiting, as well as just the physical effects of carrying around a large fetus at some point there is a functional limitation where mammals cannot get larger, because their offspring would become to heavy to carry/too resource heavy to develop. In the water the buoyant force helps with the weight issue, and there's more resources, especially along some of the richer areas of production, so those limitations can be avoided somewhat.
@@RaptorChatter Interessting, thanks for taking time to explain that. Can u give any sources? I would rly like to read up on that since as u know mammals rivaling the seizes of sauropods did certainly exist. Is there an equation that tells us which seize can be reached under which circumstances or is it just hard facts like land mammals just can't get bigger than a certain seize. I just think there is more to it. If larger seize would equal an advantage i think these animal could just have developed to give birth to smaler less developed young so that they wouldn't need to carry them around so much. Even in mammals today there are huge differences in terms of how far developed the joung are born.
What if it wasn’t a whale at all but an extinct behemoth relative of manatees and dugongs due to its dense bones and the depiction of resembling one? No one has even found its skull just yet
It may, there's seemingly a large hill overtop that portion of the skeleton, so it would require moving multiple tons of rock just to get to it, so hopefully there's another specimen somewhere.
0:25 that seems very unlogical and has to be wrong. 1.) There is no rule that says that mammals have to have giant offspring and "have to grow their young inside of their body". 2.) "that takes a long time" - also wrong. It is faster than in similar sized reptiles because at higher temperatures chemistry and therefore growth and developement works faster. 3.) There is no rule that says mammals have to care for their offspring after birth. Birds lay eggs and still do... So they could give birth to fully developed, selfsufficient young, if they were comparably smaller, which especially in giant species still resulted in pretty big newborns... There must be some other limiting factor, like brain developement.
Feeding the Almighty Algorithm, here. Just that. Life's just too painful right now for any more than that. Carry on. "And don't let it break your heart. I know it feels hopeless sometimes. But they're never really gone as long as there's a memory in your mind." _Hold On To Memories_ Dave Draiman, Disturbed 💙💙
I have only a basic education in geology, so I'm left wondering what the oceans receding away from the shores means. Does it mean a change in the amount or proportion of submerged continental shelf, is it about currents or salinity or something else? I know that isn't the main topic here but i'm intrigued by it. Can anyone help?
It can vary greatly and for a ton of reasons. A new mountain range being built between two tectonic plates in a shallow sea will displace that water and raise ocean levels other places. A major continental rift where plates are splitting apart will become flooded, and lower water levels elsewhere. Cold temperatures causes glaciers, which drop sea levels. Even locally at convergent boundaries the crust can bend into the sea. The Ghost Forest of the Pacific NW are a good example of that. In this case it's about the cooling of the environment causing less thermal expansion of water, mountains being raised making steeper coastal regions, and less shallow water for something like the basilosaurids to live.
Paraceratherium is the largest land mammal ever discovered. The shoulder height was about 4.8 metres (15.7 feet), and the length about 7.4 metres (24.3 feet). Its weight is estimated to have been about 15 to 20 tonnes. Also Platypus & Echidnas aren't placental mammals, they lay eggs. They are called "Monotremes" mammals. We are Placental mammals. The thing about holding a pregnancy with large mammals is that the gestation period becomes larger. An elephant is 2 years pregnant for example.
@@lagopusvulpuz1571 That Playtypus & Enchidnas are egg-laying is why I suggested they could get large than elephants. Thanks for the pointer to Paraceratherium. I see it is a placental mammal so 20+ is not out of the question for Monotremes.
Do to the artistic reconstructions I've taken to jokingly call Perucetus the "Basilosausage"
ME: that's a thicc whale
That sounds delicious
Basilosausage is the new species name. I heretofore certify it. Thank you. LOL!
Bros the whole hotdog💀
Nice, that name would mean "king sausage" or "king of the sausages"
While this was undeniably a massive animal, I'm taking the upper guesses on its size with a huge grain of salt given how little remains have actually been found and how common it is for paleontologists to overestimate the size of a newly-discovered species.
I'm similarly suspicious of the hypothesis of it being a scavenger- whales don't have a functional sense of smell and that would badly inhibit its ability to find carcasses to scavenge in the ocean.
I think that's reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised if it did rival the size of a blue whale, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was smaller. Still, the vertebrae are very different from other whales, so as someone without a super detailed knowledge of marine tetrapods I don't think it's that outlandish as far as just pure weight is concerned.
@@RaptorChatter I, too, don’t have super detailed knowledge of whales, but I know people who do, and everyone I’ve asked seems to agree Perucetus definitely was not larger than a blue whale, and most likely within the 70-80 ton range, making it in the same size range as a fin whale. It was definitely still a very large creature, but the estimates that the original study gives are a bit extreme.
what would it eat then?
@@scottthesmartape9151old squid
I was also under the impression that animals of that size need to filter feed to get enough energy. Maybe I’m wrong but I find it hard to imagine an animal close to or even heavier than a blue whale surviving on crustaceans.
I love how I can describe this creature to my friends with no trouble since I just tell them to imagine a comically fat basilosaurus.
The idea Perucetus was too slow to hunt is almost certainly false, as it ignores that other slow-swimming, coastal basilosaurids were definitely not too slow to hunt and were raptorial predators.
The study also used questionable methodology to estimate the size of Perucetus (namely, they massively overestimated how much soft tissue the thing would have had, ignoring that other dense-bones basilosaurids like Antaecetus did not follow the same bone mass:soft tissue mass ratios as living cetaceans).
Kinda makes me think they added a few kg just to be able to say it's bigger than a blue whale...
Wonder if Perucetus had the dentition of other basilosaurids. As most basilosaurids were predators.
I would guess not since many paleontologists believe it would have swam in a manner similar to manatees, but maintaining the predatory nature of it's basilosaurid relatives.
I really would love to see that. Basilosaurus also had teeth with many points, which could have been used to slightly filter feed. So I would imagine it's an extreme version of that.
@@aceundead4750 personally I believe that it would have been a scavenger and bully potentially as it likely occupied shallower waters just like basilosaurus itself and other basilosaurids like Durodon etc, to me at least - it seems that the Eocene epoch oceans would have been highly active with massive predators such as the otodus sharks too.
@@RaptorChatter That reminds me of what Leopard Seals do, with their multipurpose, jagged, trident-shaped cheek teeth, which are used to both suction- and filter feed on krill, as well as chew up larger prey like fish, penguins and even other seals. Basilosaurids seem to have those peculiar jagged carnassials which, with a few adaptations, could have served a similar filter feeding function.
I took one look at thethumbnail and darn near skipped past it assuming it was clickbait. As I always do. Then I realized it was Raptor chatter. A trusted source.👍
Yeah, my wife, the editor, said she was going for the "great old one" style art on the thumbnail. Which clicks are good, but I really want to be reasonably accurate if I do get them.
Yeah, I saw this vid yesterday and didn’t watch it because I thought it would be something moronic like ‘ThE bLoOp (and I mean the conspiracy about it being an animal) HaS bEeN pRoVeN tO eXiSt’. But then I saw again, today, and I was too interested to ignore it. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised about how good this is. I’ll check out your other videos because I am very interested in marine life, extinct and living, and you’ve definitely found a new subscriber; not that one person will mean much.
No matter if it is or is not bigger than the blue whale, my man is an absolute unit of an animal.
Why do I feel like a future study will drastically change our current knowledge of this cetacean (if there isn't one already)?
Unfortunately, it is possible. This species is only known by a few bones so the size reduction is plausible
Do you know what they did to Dunkleosteus?
@@mauretaniafan1133 I know and it is horrible
@@mauretaniafan1133 Yes.
@@mauretaniafan1133I hope this study was more serious than the studies that made Dunkleosteus a giant, because what they "did"vto Dunkleosteus is just discard all studies that didn't gave a justification for the size they've found, and then present the only one that remained XD
But yeah, I wait for more fossils, I'm skeptical towards any size estimate based on a few vertebraes 😅
Perucetus was the ultimate Periwinkle Predator.
Daintily slurping them out of their shells, one at a time.
I have no proof of this.
It's crazy to think about how, right now, there are huge blue whales swimming in the ocean. A veritable giant of the sea!
Cetacean branch of evolution is endlessly fascinating
The guess on the skull shape, isn’t new to paleontology, but I’d love to see one found in the fossil record!
The supplimentary info has said the fossil was going into a small hill, so there may be a skull, just under ~2-5 tons of rock. so they could get to it eventually, but it'll take time.
@@RaptorChatter oh that’s great! I hope there are many more bones and that some are even in articulation!
the ape lucy had fewer bones to go by..... and no skull either.
A skull and some teeth from this thing would really clear a lot of this up.
The paper said they might be able to find that, but that it's under a hill, so will take time. It also may not be there, so it was only in the supplemental info. Fingers crossed they do.
@@RaptorChatterI really hope they find some! I’m really curious
You know a lot of ppl want dinosaurs bc they're cool, but like... We have whales man. And a whole bunch of other bizarre creatures that we see as mundane
Yeah if dinosaurs were still around we wouldn't actually care that much.
@@crappyanimations9992 We’d definitely be deep fat frying their legs 🤤 👀
Ye, like, look at that horse... It decided he wanted to become a fish, and look at them now
@@marcoasturias8520 right? Like it has flippers. And no hair.
whale ancestors evolved out of the water, then went back in lmao. imagine being a 4 legged mammal and just choosing to change your whole body plan again to live in the ocean. crazy
I think that even more remarkable than its bone density is the question of what did a basilosaur relative without baleen could have been eating that allowed it to reach and survive at such sizes.
This thing is the embodiment of OH LAWD HE COMIN
If this came out a few years ago I would have included a big chungus meme.
This particular species may not be larger then the largest animal alive today. But there's so many possible species; sea creatures and sauropods, many of which still haven't been discovered yet, that the odds that the blue whale is the largest animal to ever exist is honestly still pretty low.
Iirc Basilosaurids as traditionally defined is probably paraphyletic and neocetes (modern whales) seems to be nested in there
Perucetus really is a creature, I absolutely adore it so much
And this video was pretty awesome
Oh how I love hearing about new discoveries in the paleo community - thank you so much for keeping us up to date!! :D
I think more fossils are needed to determine the size. I'm very curious about how this massive creature was able to sustain itself. The blue whale eats tons of krill in a single day. Filter feeders became so big because of how they eat.
Cotylorhynchus of the Sea!
oh yeah!
Basilosaurus: ""Eel like body""? Man, I hate bad reviews.
Ich gucke normalerweise keine Videospiel-news oder Reviews auf Deutsch.
Aber Respekt: Euren Content kann man sich seht gut anschauen. Großes Lob an Autor, Sprecher , und Schnitt/Produktion!
Große Klasse! Hatte euch lange lange Zeit aus den Augen verloren, aber werde jetzt definitiv wieder regelmässig schauen!
Kleinigkeit: du hast das falsche Video kommentiert
I look forward to your updates!!! Thanks for a great video!!! 😊❤
That's a lot of sushi.
Although much smaller the (I suspect) closely related Pachycetus also had very dense sirenia-like bones so (besides it's humungous size) it's not so unique as the scientists claim it to be.
So it was basically just a big fat overweight basilosaurus.
Basilosaurus itself already impressive and this things already part of family
Rod Reiss abnormal titan 😂
I really want a documentary about South America from the Paleocene to Miocene and with this newly discovered whale I just thought of a scene that like the Alamosaurus death in the second season of Prehistoric Planet where it dies and becomes a host for all different scavengers like Sparassodonts and Sebecids. of course, this role could be filled by a Livyatan or Megalodon but you get what I'm saying.
There would be a ton of great stuff to do there. We have when dinosaurs roamed (the US) America, give me the same, but longer time frames in South America, so much neat stuff from there.
@@RaptorChatter right on it.
Big boi
OK. We’re getting into Kaiju territory here.
I'm cautiously excited for this. I'll get really excited for this thing when they find a skull
You should put credit for Joschua Knüppe's artwork in the thumbnail
We did in the upper right corner 👍
Always gotta be sceptical of claims of a strange animal when all you have is some vertebra and ribs.
they need to make a Pokemon of Perucetus
For a while, it’s been believed that whales only got truly massive quite recently, only a few million years ago. But look at the size of this humongous, slow, supposed scavenger. If it could reach such gargantuan sizes, imagine how big the corpses it ate were.
Considering it swam in relatively shallow water not much
It probably wasn’t a scavenger. Keep in mind that all other slow-swimming basilosaurids were predatory.
Whales can't smell underwater so highly unlikely it was an "scavenger".
I surmise that with its body mass, the time in geologic history, and the alleged diet of crab: it may have been a species for very cold conditions.
Then there's the times like dunkleosteus where the animal is much smaller than always thought.
Being the only herbivorous whale isn't impossible, look at similar outliers like herbivorous theropods.
Humans have not been around for very long, I find it very interesting, that we would just happen to be alive at the same time as the largest animal ever.
What an absolute UNIT!!!!
OH LAWD HE COMIN'
This sounds like the set up for "your mom joke"
They should've renamed Basilosaurus Basilocetus
Nah
The name was already well established, so it's hard to change, but yeah, one of the blunders of early paleo.
Agreed but there's weird rules that establish permanence in names so in this case, they were stuck with it
@@RaptorChatter
I don't blame the ones who discovered the fossils and mistake it for a giant sea lizard
@@mamboo0743Especially when basilosaurus and mosasaurus (scientifically accurate) look so similar.
why did the artist give it a tiny little head and hands? Is that a feature from related, more complete fossils?
The fingers were still moderately developed in whales from the period, and the head is based off of those in other basilosaurids. I think full flippers would be better, but the skull seems fairly consistent with other whales from the time.
@@RaptorChatter Thanks! I hope they find a big ol' skull too someday.
Big prehistoric hot dog.
Needs mustard.
Nice video
Even if it wasn't THAT huge, I think we can still safely speculate that Perucetus was one THICC boi.
That's a Prehistoric caseoh
Perucetus be like: No diabeto roll back to kitchen
when i go too the beach, I see a lot of thick, dense boned mammals struggling in the shallows.
The thumbnail looks like the whale is about to give the diver some profound wisdom or teaching.
00:24
Probably the mammal would rather starve to death since they cannot eat as fast as they have to metabolize.
The last I heard though is that this thing had been officially downsized already to less than 100 tons. But the big son of a gun still weighed well over 50 tons, which is still pretty freaking big. 🐋
This was based on the initial paper, and I have since done a shorter segment about it being smaller in one of my long form month in review videos, don't recall which one, but yes, smaller than 100 tons
It's crazy I was reading about the blue whale being the largest animal ever and the NEXT DAY news of this behemoth was released. Amazing and wonderful what a state of flux science is
Imagine scientists discovered a bony fish as big as this creature, it would the largest fish of all time. They would call it Deinoicthys collodi, meaning Collodi’s Terrible Fish, named after Carlo Collodi, who made the terrible dogfish in Pinocchio. This giant fish is actually a filter feeder, feeding on plankton, shrimp, fish, jellyfish and other tiny creatures during the early Cretaceous period. It is preyed upon by Kronosaurus and killer icthyosaurs, and prehistoric sharks.
It’s a fanon creature.
Leedsichthys, was a giant bony fish, possibly the largest ever existed and it was probably longer than whale shark and some whale species.
I want it as a plush, why is it cute?
It does make you wonder how many men were picking into a stone column that was really a dinosaur bone
Absolute unit.
Looking at how they depicted it, it reminds me of the cotylorhynchus. Massive body, tiny head.
What kind of crustacean this massive animal ate? Must be giant one also. Hard to believe how can they just feed tiny crustacean to support their massive? And what time it takes to ambush that tiny agile crustacean, and the number must be so abundant. My thingking they were herbivore much like dugong, so they didn't have to chase their foods.
There's a ton on the sea floor, and crustaceans wouldn't have been the only thing to be fair. Large clams, sponges, corals, and other things may have also been on the menu. But I also find that idea doubtful, and think the grey whale idea is the best comparison.
If we have any teeth of these creatures we would a better idea what this whale been eating.
thank you for the video bro! I enjoyed it and hope you make more videos!"
Dolphin chungus
L a r g e
T H I C C B O I
Mmm what are the chances it could have hunted like some kind of mammalian crocodile/alligator?
Probably fairly low. Whales from this time in general had very weak limbs, designed for movement in the water. The relatively small pelvis found is one case of this. If it were moving from land to water, even only occasionally we'd expect stronger limbs and pelvic/shoulder girdles to support its weight.
Thanks really interesting, hope they continue to find more fossil from these giants!! ...BTW just to note from the introduction- not sure where you came across the reason for mammals not getting too big is due carrying in baby inside but whoever said that didn’t have much idea about versions of mammals that live today. There most certainly are mammals that keep in young external pouches or, that even lay eggs....
Maybe one day paleontologists will discover a titanosaur sized monothreme.
Damn I never knew some whales filter sand and silt for crustaceans, that’s dope asf
*Aw lord, he swimming*
Perucetus looks like it ate a blue whale like the hell!? 💀
so much fuss over a few vertebrae and a few ribs. there is absolutely no way they can conclude it had a small head nor if it even moved like a manatee. nor whether it was just a larger version of a blue whale or a sperm whale.
In fact the vertebrae are about the same size as blue whale vertebrae. density of bone cannot be accurately measured because the bones are fossilized and there are many variables to account for as to its fossilization.
is it outlandish to say it could possibly have kept ite legs In another video i watched a guy compares the bones to that of a hippo and knowing that before the evolution into basilosaurs, their relatives did get around in this way. They could glide around the bottom and press off to ascend upwards and perhaps scavenge the bodies of other whales and other ocean life that was coming about in those days, and that could lead to it having such monsterous size? just a thought!
if we dont have a skull of the creature, how do we already know what the thing looks like, let alone how it eats??
That's big chungus's ancestor
peruchungus
The mouth seems to small to feed such a huge animal.
Animals don't get that big without a reason. Blue whales are so big because feeding on krill becomes more efficient if you have a large mouth (and proportionally large body because you do need to swim efficiently). Scavenging in the shallows, hunting in the shallows and similar things don't really need that size, and it sounds actually detrimental. There have to be better ways to hold your breath for a long time. Turtles manage 2 hours, how much more do you need?
How can they figure on how the head looked ? Without finding one
It's based on other basilosaurs from around the same time. It could very well be different, but it's the best guess we have right now
nice video
Great video
peru
close to the location of the bloop?
Absolute unit
Smallest head to body ratio
No, whales didn't evolve from mesonychids.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect mesonychids are the only closest examples of "Terrestrial Whales" and whales are carnivores and swim with their long tails so they cannot be possibly related to herbivorous hippos with totally different teeth and who don't have tails an orca skull is nothing like a hippo skull and they are called wolves of the seas just like mesonychids are called wolves with hoofs
@@Dr.Ian-Plect but mesonychids are the only best closest examples of "Terrestrial Whales" wolves with hoofs are related to wolves of the seas
NAH BRO THAT'S GODZILLA💀
Very interesting.
No way! Team Blue Whale FOREVER!
There must have been somebody who wanted to name this guy Perucetus chungus
origins of big chungus
The current being that can say it's big boned, literally.
Lmao they found ur mom's remains
Cringe
😭😭
You can do better. You’re like the 12th comment I’ve seen that’s made this joke
Comedy genius.
I called it perucetus chonkulus
Can u explain why mamals can't grow bigger on land cause the joung need time to grow? Sorry if this sounds stupid i just can't rly understand ur reasoning here.
Since mammals give live birth their young need to be under a particular size to keep the population going. Elephants as an example breed super slowly, gestation is almost 2 years, and that will be for one offspring. With the resources on land being limiting, as well as just the physical effects of carrying around a large fetus at some point there is a functional limitation where mammals cannot get larger, because their offspring would become to heavy to carry/too resource heavy to develop. In the water the buoyant force helps with the weight issue, and there's more resources, especially along some of the richer areas of production, so those limitations can be avoided somewhat.
@@RaptorChatter Interessting, thanks for taking time to explain that. Can u give any sources? I would rly like to read up on that since as u know mammals rivaling the seizes of sauropods did certainly exist. Is there an equation that tells us which seize can be reached under which circumstances or is it just hard facts like land mammals just can't get bigger than a certain seize.
I just think there is more to it. If larger seize would equal an advantage i think these animal could just have developed to give birth to smaler less developed young so that they wouldn't need to carry them around so much. Even in mammals today there are huge differences in terms of how far developed the joung are born.
I want to take it seriously but I can’t stop making memes out of the big fellow
Is this one or many what about a deformity or morphology?
I wish I could taste the flesh of these creatures. That’s the one thing that bothers me about these ancient beasts. I’ll never know their flavor.
What if it wasn’t a whale at all but an extinct behemoth relative of manatees and dugongs due to its dense bones and the depiction of resembling one? No one has even found its skull just yet
I'm not entirely opposed, but I also don't know their anatomy that well, so I will wait for more research on it.
Learn more about Livyatan, Megalodon's arch enemy: czcams.com/video/U3J5A9XPuH0/video.html
I imagine it was something like those funny lazy squishy seal videos...but BIG.
Maybe a skull will turn up one day?
It may, there's seemingly a large hill overtop that portion of the skeleton, so it would require moving multiple tons of rock just to get to it, so hopefully there's another specimen somewhere.
0:25 that seems very unlogical and has to be wrong.
1.) There is no rule that says that mammals have to have giant offspring and "have to grow their young inside of their body".
2.) "that takes a long time" - also wrong. It is faster than in similar sized reptiles because at higher temperatures chemistry and therefore growth and developement works faster.
3.) There is no rule that says mammals have to care for their offspring after birth. Birds lay eggs and still do...
So they could give birth to fully developed, selfsufficient young, if they were comparably smaller, which especially in giant species still resulted in pretty big newborns... There must be some other limiting factor, like brain developement.
Feeding the Almighty Algorithm, here. Just that. Life's just too painful right now for any more than that.
Carry on.
"And don't let it break your heart. I know it feels hopeless sometimes. But they're never really gone as long as there's a memory in your mind." _Hold On To Memories_ Dave Draiman, Disturbed
💙💙
I hope things start looking up for you soon.
I have only a basic education in geology, so I'm left wondering what the oceans receding away from the shores means. Does it mean a change in the amount or proportion of submerged continental shelf, is it about currents or salinity or something else? I know that isn't the main topic here but i'm intrigued by it. Can anyone help?
It can vary greatly and for a ton of reasons. A new mountain range being built between two tectonic plates in a shallow sea will displace that water and raise ocean levels other places. A major continental rift where plates are splitting apart will become flooded, and lower water levels elsewhere. Cold temperatures causes glaciers, which drop sea levels.
Even locally at convergent boundaries the crust can bend into the sea. The Ghost Forest of the Pacific NW are a good example of that.
In this case it's about the cooling of the environment causing less thermal expansion of water, mountains being raised making steeper coastal regions, and less shallow water for something like the basilosaurids to live.
So land mammals are limited to elephant size by live birth does that mean we could have giant echidnas or maybe 20-ton platypus? 😃😃
Paraceratherium is the largest land mammal ever discovered. The shoulder height was about 4.8 metres (15.7 feet), and the length about 7.4 metres (24.3 feet). Its weight is estimated to have been about 15 to 20 tonnes. Also Platypus & Echidnas aren't placental mammals, they lay eggs. They are called "Monotremes" mammals. We are Placental mammals. The thing about holding a pregnancy with large mammals is that the gestation period becomes larger. An elephant is 2 years pregnant for example.
@@lagopusvulpuz1571 That Playtypus & Enchidnas are egg-laying is why I suggested they could get large than elephants. Thanks for the pointer to Paraceratherium. I see it is a placental mammal so 20+ is not out of the question for Monotremes.