Don't mention it. I think it's super important to help show the diversity, and kind of kill, or at least dispel some of the ideas that sharks are "living fossils"
I've read that since Stethacanthus and Symmorium are very similar except for the brushes on Stethacanthus (that Symmorium lacks) and only male Stethacanthus and female Symmorium have ever been found, it's been hypothesized that they're the same species just different sexes. Is this still considered plausible?
As far as I know it's still plausible. It really just comes down to being able to prove them as the same genus, which is super hard to do in the fossil record. I am admittedly not super familiar with sharks & kin though. I'm going to try and find a Paleozoic chondrichthyes researcher to interview next year, and this question should be in there, which is a wait, but hopefully whoever I can interview has an answer.
The Carboniferous should change name from "The age of giant insects/arthropods" to "The age of Cartilaginous fish" since there are so many weird examples from that period
I mean that may actually work in the US. The US generally splits the Carboniferous into the Mississippian & Pennsylvanian. Of those I think (don't quote me on it) the Pennsylvanian has more odd chondrichthyes.
You’ve solved an itch in my brain that’s been bothering me for sooooooo long oh my god! I’ve been thinking about helicoprion and edestus a lot lately, when I was a kid one of my favourite books about extinct animals was an art book with the most striking illustrations of prehistoric fish! I could remember the not-sharks and the dunkleosteus in it (the piece that stuck most in my memory was some dunks swimming in the air above/around houses?), and I could remember the distinctive lighting the artist used, but I couldn’t recall the name or the author and I’ve tried multiple times this year to find the illustrations online but no combination of words would bring up anything that seemed right. Until this video! You showcased the art of the iniopterygiformes by Ray Troll and that instantly scratched the itch that’s been plaguing me all year! I finally found the book from my memory, it’s Raptors Fossils Fins & Fangs by Ray Troll and Brad Matsen :]! I couldn’t find many examples from the book online but the cover is burned into my memory and I’ve found a few other pieces with that very striking lighting style. Thank you so much I’m so happy to finally have figured it out! This guy really loves helicoprion, and I love looking at his illustrations of it. Beloved funky not-sharks
That fish had a paddle-tail, a different mode of travel, kind of. There are some new species (probably one of those beautiful ROV channels) of I don't know what type of critter I'm seeing. Some have paddle tails, it's like turboprop or jet? Deep water stuff, of course. Gravity, what's that?
Maybe. I'm not too familiar with any large algal or plant deposits that could indicate this, though I'm also not much of a marine fossil guy either, so there could be that kind of evidence somewhere.
I really like the video, but ur sizes r pretty off on some things. These were WAY larger than great whites... Dunkleosteus was generally accepted to have gotten “upto” about 30ft, and edestus upto 30ish ft too, but helicoprion is generally accepted to have gotten even larger! The specific fossil of the whirl that has the cartilage from around the whirl fossilized too, is a 1meter whirl, on an accepted to be 30ft shark, and there are whirls found upto 1.5meters!
Honestly that may not be entirely incorrect. There was only limited food on land around that time, so escaping predators seems like a fairly reasonable idea for moving to land.
As a russian (=non-native) speaker I understood that you should to say "weird" instead "wild" in 0:30 and this is a mistake. Did I understand correctly or not?
You are correct in your interpretation in general. Using wild is more of a slang term, and I use it fairly interchangeably with weird. So it's just a different usage of the word than is common.
I have never heard of Edestus, or those possibly flying sharks. Thanks for the information.
Don't mention it. I think it's super important to help show the diversity, and kind of kill, or at least dispel some of the ideas that sharks are "living fossils"
This is another great Shark Week paleontology video on some very *WEIRD* sharks.
Thanks!
Stethacanthus is one of my favorite sharks! A mystery fish!
I love the information.
I've read that since Stethacanthus and Symmorium are very similar except for the brushes on Stethacanthus (that Symmorium lacks) and only male Stethacanthus and female Symmorium have ever been found, it's been hypothesized that they're the same species just different sexes. Is this still considered plausible?
As far as I know it's still plausible. It really just comes down to being able to prove them as the same genus, which is super hard to do in the fossil record. I am admittedly not super familiar with sharks & kin though. I'm going to try and find a Paleozoic chondrichthyes researcher to interview next year, and this question should be in there, which is a wait, but hopefully whoever I can interview has an answer.
The Carboniferous should change name from "The age of giant insects/arthropods" to "The age of Cartilaginous fish" since there are so many weird examples from that period
I mean that may actually work in the US. The US generally splits the Carboniferous into the Mississippian & Pennsylvanian. Of those I think (don't quote me on it) the Pennsylvanian has more odd chondrichthyes.
No let's not
Great video, really enjoyed this content would love to see a future video about the Snaggletoothed sharks in the genus Hemipristis
You’ve solved an itch in my brain that’s been bothering me for sooooooo long oh my god! I’ve been thinking about helicoprion and edestus a lot lately, when I was a kid one of my favourite books about extinct animals was an art book with the most striking illustrations of prehistoric fish! I could remember the not-sharks and the dunkleosteus in it (the piece that stuck most in my memory was some dunks swimming in the air above/around houses?), and I could remember the distinctive lighting the artist used, but I couldn’t recall the name or the author and I’ve tried multiple times this year to find the illustrations online but no combination of words would bring up anything that seemed right.
Until this video! You showcased the art of the iniopterygiformes by Ray Troll and that instantly scratched the itch that’s been plaguing me all year! I finally found the book from my memory, it’s Raptors Fossils Fins & Fangs by Ray Troll and Brad Matsen :]! I couldn’t find many examples from the book online but the cover is burned into my memory and I’ve found a few other pieces with that very striking lighting style. Thank you so much I’m so happy to finally have figured it out! This guy really loves helicoprion, and I love looking at his illustrations of it. Beloved funky not-sharks
I love this content!!
Thanks!
Squalus acanthias is the happiest of all the early shark relatives 😄
That fish had a paddle-tail, a different mode of travel, kind of. There are some new species (probably one of those beautiful ROV channels) of I don't know what type of critter I'm seeing. Some have paddle tails, it's like turboprop or jet? Deep water stuff, of course. Gravity, what's that?
Maybe those rounded tails are for swimming through dense stringy stuff which could get stuck on a pointy tail
Maybe. I'm not too familiar with any large algal or plant deposits that could indicate this, though I'm also not much of a marine fossil guy either, so there could be that kind of evidence somewhere.
_Where Is The Eagle Shark?_
Duncleosteus jaws and eyes in 2:08 similar on an insect head with mandibles.
So helicoprions teeth were not a buzz saw, they were a shellfish shucker
Honestly, that's a pretty great description.
I like fossils
I really like the video, but ur sizes r pretty off on some things. These were WAY larger than great whites...
Dunkleosteus was generally accepted to have gotten “upto” about 30ft, and edestus upto 30ish ft too, but helicoprion is generally accepted to have gotten even larger! The specific fossil of the whirl that has the cartilage from around the whirl fossilized too, is a 1meter whirl, on an accepted to be 30ft shark, and there are whirls found upto 1.5meters!
1:02 Triassic/Jurassic would be the time.
WAIT... wait wait... so you're saying that land critters exist because at some point some fish yelled "SHARK! EVERYBODY OUTTA THE WATER!"
Honestly that may not be entirely incorrect. There was only limited food on land around that time, so escaping predators seems like a fairly reasonable idea for moving to land.
As a russian (=non-native) speaker I understood that you should to say "weird" instead "wild" in 0:30 and this is a mistake. Did I understand correctly or not?
You are correct in your interpretation in general. Using wild is more of a slang term, and I use it fairly interchangeably with weird. So it's just a different usage of the word than is common.
@@RaptorChatter, thanks for correction!
Tequila Don Julio
Dunkle, not dunkley. ;)
*donkey.
Cladoselache not Cladosache
Yep I mistyped it in my script and never caught it, so it went live with the mistake. My bad!
@@RaptorChatterDon’t worry about it, everyone mispronounces something here & there, regardless of how well studied they are.