Talk:Largest prehistoric animals

Gastropods
I think the largest gastropod ever is the [Campanile giganteum]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campanile_giganteum

The largest gastropod ever is not Placostylus. It was link Campanile giganteum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Dung (talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Arctotherium
The Giant Short-Faced Bear did NOT stand 10ft at the shoulder. Someone must have confused the bear's shoulder height with its standing height. According to its very own wikipedia article the largest males would have been a maximum 5ft. 3in. (Although, even this is dubious considering the lack of citations for the article.) Anyway, at least for the meantime I'm going change the height to the far more realistic 5ft. 3in. at the shoulder.46.197.227.81 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

- Oops, I forgot to sign... Gilly of III (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Gah!!! I just read through more of the article and its full of mistakes and misinformation. Also, I just found out that the Giant Short-Faced Bear wasn't even the largest carnivore ever (Read "the largest carnivore extinct (and living)")in the first place, (at least of extant species) that would be the Elephant Seal. - How disheartening. I'm currently unsure as to which animal was the largest prehistoric carnivore. Anyway, whoever wrote this article needed to do more research. This entire article needs a massive cleanup in my opinion. Gilly of III (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote the article (or most of it anyhow) and I'm no expert on paleontology, so that's why I put the Cleanup tag on the article. If you find something wrong like that, go ahead and fix it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Arctotherium size
I keep hearing that Arctotherium angustidens actually weighed between 600-1000 kg and that the femur was overestimated, thus making it not the biggest land carnivores ever. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Mammals

 * Monotremes
 * The largest monotreme (egg-bearing mammal) ever was the extinct echidna species Zaglossus hacketti, known only from a few bones found in Western Australia. It was the size of a sheep, weighing probably up to 100 kg (220 lb). (note species placement uncertain due to lack of cranial material)


 * Marsupials
 * The largest belonged to the genus Diprotodon. These rhino-sized herbivores would have easily exceed 2 tonnes (4,400 lb), 3.3 m (11 ft) in length and 1.83 m (6 ft) in height.
 * The largest ever carnivorous marsupial to exist would have been the Marsupial Lion and the Saber-toothed Marsupial both ranging from 5 ft to 6 ft long and weighing between 100 kg to 160 kg.


 * Afroinsectiphilia
 * no entry


 * Artiodactyla
 * no entry


 * Carnivora
 * The extinct Giant Short-Faced Bear (Arctodus simus) may be the largest land carnivore in the order (as well as the largest bear) with an estimated average weight of 600-800 kg (1,320-1,760 lbs).
 * Even larger were the extinct American Lion (Panthera leo atrox) and the Smilodon populator, a saber-toothed cat.
 * The largest member of canidae ever is the extinct member of Borophaginae, Epicyon, which has had two different measurements-one at 101 kilos (224 lbs), and one at 85 kilos (188 lbs).


 * Cetacea
 * no entry


 * Chiroptera
 * no entry


 * Cingulata
 * Much larger prehistoric examples are known, especially Glyptodon, which easily topped 2.7 m (9 ft) and 2 tonnes (4,400 lb).


 * Dermoptera
 * no entry


 * Erinaceomorpha & Soricomorpha
 * no entry


 * Hyracoidea
 * no entry


 * Lagomorpha
 * no entry


 * Perissodactyla
 * The largest land mammal ever was Paraceratherium or Indricotherium (formerly known as the Baluchitherium), a member of this order. It stood up to 5.5 m (18 ft) tall, measured over 9 m (30 ft) long and may have weighed up to 20 tonnes (22 tons) though mass estimates vary widely.


 * Pholiodata
 * no entry


 * Pilosa
 * The sloths attained much larger sizes prehistorically, the largest of which were Megatherium which, at an estimated average weight of 4.5 tonnes (5 tons) and height of 5.1 m (17 ft), was about the same size as the African Bush Elephant.


 * Primates
 * Gigantopithecus is the largest known primate ever, probably averaged 3 m (10 ft) tall and weighing 300 to 550 kg (700 to 1,200 lb). It lived from around five million years ago to about 300,000 years ago in the region of India and China.


 * Proboscidea
 * Most extinct species in the order Proboscidea, such as mammoths and mastodons, did not dwarf the modern African Bush Elephant. The Imperial Mammoth, standing up to 5 m (16 ft) tall, and Deinotherium, which may have surpassed 14 tonnes (15.4 tons) are generally considered the largest species. However, recent evidence shows that the largest mammoth ever was the Songhua River Mammoth of China. Mammuthus trogontherii and Deinotherium were also enormous, rivaling the Songhua River Mammoth in size.


 * Rodentia
 * The largest known rodent ever is Josephoartigasia monesi, an extinct species known only from fossils. It was approximately 3 m long and 1.5 m tall, and is estimated to have weighed around 1 tonne. Prior to the description of J. monesi, the largest known rodent species was Phoberomys insolita. However, this species is known only from very incomplete remains and so its size cannot be estimated with any precision. An almost complete skeleton of its slightly smaller Late Miocene relative Phoberomys pattersoni was discovered in Venezuela in 2000; it was 3 m (10 ft) long, with an additional 1.5 m (5 ft) tail, and probably weighed around 700 kg (1,540 lb).


 * Scandentia
 * no entry


 * Sirenia
 * no entry (Hydrodamalis gigas being a modern extinction caused by humans dos not qualify as a prehistoric organism)

Reptilia

 * Squamata
 * The largest-ever member of the order was probably one of the giant mosasaurs, such as Hainosaurus, Mosasaurus, or Tylosaurus, all of which grew to around 15 m (50 ft). Some prehistoric snakes such as Gigantophis and Madtsoia are thought to have been as big as or bigger than anacondas and pythons, but the fossil remains are too incomplete for accurate determination of the size of the complete snake. They may be superseded by the 2009 discovery of the Titanoboa, a snake that scientists believe can grow to a length of 13m (42 ft) on average. The prehistoric Megalania prisca (or Varanus priscus) is the largest terrestrial squamate known, but the lack of a complete skeleton has resulted in a wide range of size estimates. Molnar's 2004 assessment resulted in an average weight of 320 kg, and a maximum of 1940 kg at 7 m in length, which is toward the high end of the early estimates.


 * Plesiosauria
 * The largest known plesiosaur was Mauisaurus haasti, growing to around 20 metres in length.


 * Ichthyosauria
 * The largest of these marine reptiles (extinct for 90 million years) was the species Shonisaurus sikanniensis, at approximately 21 m (70 ft) long.


 * Sphenodontia
 * no entry


 * Testudines
 * (Aquatic) There are many extinct turtles that vie for the title of the largest ever. The largest seems to be Archelon ischyros, which reached a length of 4.84 m (16 ft) across the flippers and a weight of 2,200 kg (4,500 lb).
 * (Terrestrial)A much larger tortoise survived until about 2000 years ago, Meiolania at about 2.5 m (8.4 ft) long and well over a ton.


 * Pterosauria
 * A dinosaur-era reptile (although not technically a dinosaur) is believed to have been the largest flying animal that ever existed: the pterosaur Quetzalcoatlus northropi. The maximum size of this soaring giant was believed to have been about 127 kg (280 lb) and 12 m (40 ft) across the wings. Another possible contender for the largest pterosaur is Hatzegopteryx, which is also estimated to have had a 12 m wingspan.


 * Dinosauria


 * Now extinct, except for theropod descendants, the Aves.




 * All of the largest dinosaurs, and the largest animals to ever live on land, were the plant-eating Sauropoda. The tallest and heaviest sauropod known from a complete skeleton is the Giraffatitan which was discovered in Tanzania between 1907 and 1912, and is now mounted in the Humboldt Museum of Berlin. It is 12 m (38 ft) tall, and probably weighed between 30,000 – 60,000 kg (30 – 65 tons). The longest is the 25 m (82 ft) long Diplodocus which was discovered in Wyoming, and mounted in Pittsburgh's Carnegie Natural History Museum in 1907.


 * There were larger sauropods, but they are known from only a few bones. The current record-holders were all discovered since 1970, and include the massive Argentinosaurus, which may have weighed 80,000 – 100,000 kg (90 to 110 tons); the longest, the 35 m (112 ft) long Supersaurus; and the tallest, the 18 m (60 ft) Sauroposeidon, which could have reached into a 6th-floor window. Diplodocus hallorum (formerly known as Seismosaurus) was once thought to have been about 50 m (170 ft) long, making it the longest known vertebrate, but later reconstructions estimate the length at 35 m (115 ft).


 * Less well described finds may exceed this. Bruhathkayosaurus may have approached the weight of a Blue Whale, and Amphicoelias fragillimus would have been longer still, at an estimated 60m (200 ft), but considerably lighter. However, Bruhathkayosaurus is based on very poor material, and the only fossil of Amphicoelias was lost.


 * Theropods (Theropoda)

The longest and heaviest theropod is estimated to be the Spinosaurus, at 15 to 17.4 metres (49.2 to 57.1 ft) in length and a weight of up to 9 tons. This is significantly more massive than other contenders such as the Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Spinosaurus is notable for having been the largest terrestrial predator known to exist.

The longest and heaviest theropod known from a complete skeleton is the Tyrannosaurus specimen nicknamed "Sue", which was discovered in South Dakota in 1990 and is now mounted in the Field Museum of Chicago. It is 12.2 m (40 ft) long, and probably weighed 6,800 kg (6.8 tons).
 * Armored Dinosaurs (Thyreophora). The longest of the Thyreophorans were Ankylosaurus and Stegosaurus, both of which measured up to 9 m in length.
 * Cerapods (Cerapoda)

The largest Cerapods were the hadrosaurids Zhuchengosaurus and Lambeosaurus laticaudus. Both species are known from fragmentary remains but are estimated to have reached over 15 m (50 ft) in length and weighed over 23 tonnes (50,700 lb).
 * Ceratopsians

The largest Ceratopsian was Triceratops. Triceratops is estimated to have reached about 8 m (26 ft) in length and weighed 6.1 tonnes (13,400 lb). The recently discovered Eotriceratops had a skull estimated to be longer than 3 m, and may have been larger than Triceratops.

Aves

 * Moas, eleaphant birds and mihirungs don't qualify as they went extinct from human activity.
 * The largest carnivorous bird was the phorusrhacid Brontornis, an extinct flightless bird from South America which reached a weight of 350 to 400 kg (770 to 880 lb) and a height of about 2.8 m (9.2 ft).
 * The largest bird ever capable of flight was Argentavis magnificens, a now extinct member of the Teratornithidae group, with a wingspan of up to 8.3 m (28 ft), a length of over 3 m (10 ft) and a body weight of 80 kg (176 lb.).


 * Anseriformes
 * Dromornithidae (possibly)


 * Apodiformes
 * no entry


 * Caprimulgiformes
 * no entry


 * Charadriiformes
 * no entry (Great auk a human caused extinction so not included here)


 * Ciconiiformes
 * Most of the largest flying birds in the fossil record, including the largest, Argentavis magnificens, were members of the Ciconiiformes.


 * Coliiformes
 * no entry


 * Columbiformes
 * no entry (Dodo human extinction not included)


 * Coraciiformes
 * no entry


 * Cuculiformes
 * no entry


 * Falconiformes
 * no entry (Harpagornis moorei not included human caused extinction)


 * Galliformes
 * A prehistoric, flightless family, sometimes called (incorrectly) "giant megapodes" (Sylviornis) were the biggest galliformes ever, having reached 1.70 m (5.6 ft) long and weighed up to about 30 kg (66 lb).


 * Gaviiformes
 * no entry


 * Gruiformes
 * The largest ever gruiform was a species of "terror bird", highly predatory, flightless birds of South America: Brontornis burmeisteri. This species stood about 2.8 m (9.2 ft) and weigh up to about 400 kg (880 lb).


 * Passeriformes
 * no entry


 * Pelecaniformes
 * A pelecaniform of the late Miocene, Osteodontornis, was among the largest flying birds ever, at up to 2.1 m (7 ft) long with a wingspan of 6 m (20 ft).


 * Phoenicopteriformes
 * no entry


 * Piciformes
 * no entry


 * Podicepiformes
 * no entry


 * Procellariiformes
 * The largest-ever tubenose (though it is sometimes classified in the order Pelecaniformes) was the albatross-like Gigantornis eaglesomei, with a wingspan of about 6 m (20 ft).


 * Psittaciformes
 * no entry


 * Pterocliformes
 * no entry


 * Sphenisciformes
 * At one time, possibly competing with the mammalian pinnipeds, a number of giant penguins existed. The largest is believed to be Anthropornis nordenskjoeldi, having reached a height of nearly 2 m (6.7 ft) and a weigh of up to 135 kg (300 lb).


 * Strigiformes
 * The largest owl known to have existed was Ornimegalonyx oteroi of Cuba, having measured over 1 m (3.3 ft) tall.


 * Tinamiformes
 * no entry


 * Trogoniformes
 * no entry

Amphibia

 * Before amniotes became the dominant tetrapods, several giant amphibian-like tetrapods existed. The largest known was the crocodile-like Prionosuchus, which reached a length of 9 m (30 ft).


 * Anura
 * However, the extinct Beelzebufo ampinga could grow to be 40 cm (16 in) long and weigh up to 4.5 kg (10 lb).


 * Caudata
 * no entry


 * Gymnophiana
 * no entry

Actinopterygii

 * Much larger bony fish existed prehistorically, the largest ever known having been Leedsichthys, of the Jurassic period. Estimates of the size of this fish range from 13.5 m (45 ft) to 30 m (100 ft), but a maximum size of 22 m (72 ft) seems most realistic.


 * Acipenseriformes
 * no entry

Anguilliformes
 * no entry


 * Atheriniformes
 * no entry


 * Aulopiformes
 * no entry


 * Batrachoidiformes
 * no entry


 * Beloniformes
 * no entry


 * Beryciformes
 * no entry


 * Characiformes
 * no entry


 * Clupeiformes
 * no entry


 * Cypriniformes
 * no entry


 * Cyprinodontiformes
 * no entry


 * Gadiformes
 * no entry


 * Gonorynchiformes
 * no entry


 * Lampriformes
 * no entry


 * Lepisosteiformes
 * no entry


 * Lophiiformes
 * no entry


 * Myctophiformes
 * no entry


 * Ophidiiformes
 * no entry


 * Osteoglossiformes
 * no entry


 * Perciformes
 * no entry


 * Pleuronectiformes
 * no entry


 * Salmoniformes
 * no entry


 * Scorpaeniformes
 * no entry


 * Siluriformes
 * no entry


 * Stomiiformes
 * no entry


 * Syngnathiformes
 * no entry


 * Zeiformes
 * no entry

Chondrichthyes

 * Carcharhiniformes
 * no entry


 * Lamniformes
 * An even larger lamnid, generally regarded as the largest predatory fish ever, is the Megalodon, Carcharodon megalodon, an ancient relative of the great white shark. It probably reached 18.2 m (60 ft) and weighed over 63 tonnes (70 short tons).


 * Myliobatiformes
 * no entry


 * Pristiniformes
 * no entry


 * Rajiformes
 * no entry


 * Squaliformes
 * no entry


 * Squatiniformes
 * no entry

As shown above there is little overlap in the material that is covered by the articles Largest organisms and Largest prehistoric organisms. The only entry for fish is mention of Carcharodon megalodon with no coverage of extinct groups! Here is what [|Largest organisms without prehistoric taxa] looks like. Largest prehistoric organisms has a wider range of coverage that largaest organisms, including completely extinct hight taxa such as trilobites, and including invertebrates which largest organisms does not cover at all. Neather goes into depth on Plants and so neather actually fully fills the oraganism part of the name. I have removed the entries from LPO that are not in the scope of the article, namely recent extinctions caused by man (Dodo etc...). There are a couple of enties from LO that are beter referecned and should be integrated into LPO. The easy way to handle these to articles is to remove the prehistoric entries from largest organisms and have links to the related sections in each article. In other words "see also:largest extinct mammals" and "see also:largest living mammals" links in the heading of each mammal section along with a short segment of prose explaining the overall biggest member the group ever. This also shows that there is a large amount of informatio that shuld be researched and included into the LPO article for many groups what are no covered at all.--Kevmin (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This all sounds like a compelling case for merging the two articles. It can be divided by taxonomic categories if the result is too large. If you go ahead with your plan, though, please rename Largest organisms - right now it is about the largest organisms and you're proposing that it no longer be about the largest organisms. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fossil whales
This is an explanation for my edit today regarding the giant Pliocene rorqual. The cited source Deméré 2005 says of Balaenoptera sibbaldina that "its recognition as a valid taxon is suspect" because there's no type specimen. The material clearly indicates a blue-whale sized animal, though, so it warrants inclusion here even if the name is doubtful.Cephal-odd (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Livyatan
Livyatan was only 17.5m but also on the list, so why not Physeter? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not prehistoric. Ashorocetus (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure it is. What definition of "prehistoric" are you using that would exclude, say, 50k years ago?  There were certainly sperm whales around then that were larger than any credible size estimate for Livyatan that I am aware of.  I'd fix the page if the page had any hope of being something other than an incoherent list of large critters.  (Hint: if the largest taxon in a group is extant, then it is also almost surely the largest prehistoric taxon.) ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "There were certainly sperm whales around then" But were they Physeter? The Sperm whale article lists a number of relatively recently extinct stem-sperm whales classified in different genera. It doesn't mention any fossils of Physeter itself. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Physeter was around 50,000 years ago; but you know this, so I must be missing your point or something? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Yes, Physeter was around 50,000 years ago; but you know this" No I don't, because there's no source listed anywhere for 50k year old fossils classified in the genus Physeter and species P. macrocephalus. What source are you using for the 50k year date? It's entirely possible for a species to have arisen in the last 50k years and it's entirely possible for people to restrict the name Physeter macrocephalus to this crown clade. I don't know if they do or not because there are no sources. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, (ed. Perrin, etc, 2009) p.212: at least 2 million years. I am bewildered that we are even talking about this.  Is there seriously a discussion going on here about whether sperm whale ancestors 50k years (or even 200k) ago were so much smaller than today's sperm whales that they were actually smaller than Livyatan?  Is that seriously something we're discussing?  Are there any examples of anything like that happening ever that we know of? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the real problem here is the differing uses of the term "prehistoric": "Prehistory refers to the period of human existence before the availability of those written records with which recorded history begins. More broadly, it can refer to all the time preceding human existence and the invention of writing." Under the first definition, many modern species would also be considered prehistoric except those that result from speciation events in regions where the dominant human culture had already developed writing at the time of speciation (which would be pretty rare). There are regions today where the dominant culture still does not use writing, therefore any areas of e.g. the Amazon which have not been explored by recording cultures are currently prehistoric. It seems to me the second definition is the one intended by the use on this page, that is, the period before the existence of anatomically modern humans. That would set the cutoff for this list at 200k years old. If any Sperm whale fossils are known that can be dated to before 200k years, it should be included. If not, I think we're getting a little off topic from the spirit of the article.. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I asked "What definition of 'prehistoric'" are we using. Yours doesn't really help here, though.  "Under the first definition, many modern species would also be considered prehistoric" – under the second definition, too; or at least the modern species' immediate ancestors would be, and those are generally not going to be THAT much smaller.  Generally.  I noted this in my first post in this section: when the largest species for a given group is extant, then the "largest prehistoric animals" in that group are pretty much going to be that same extant group.  This page isn't very meaningful for such groups. ErikHaugen (talk about&#124; contribs) 17:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition of prehistoric we use for this article is extinct2601:405:4A80:B950:4099:EEB6:A541:D029 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Ishan87 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

December 6th, 2011 changes
I made some changes to the Dinosauria section, all of which I'll summarize bellow. Sauropoda: Removed mention of Bruhathkayosaurus as there are no actual published size estimates and there's uncertainty as if it even was a dinosaur; Added Futalognkosaurus and Puertasaurus. Therapoda: Removed this line "There is some controversy upon determining the largest theropod that ever existed due to preservational bias of fossils." as is a inherent problem of all taxa known from only fossil material and its inclusion exclusively on the Therapoda section is unnecessary; removed Deinocheirus as recent estimates from Gregoy Pauls puts it at 10m and only 2tonnes /Paul, G.S., 2010, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Princeton University Press p. 112/ as well as Utahraptor as is not in the intend of the section to show the biggest member of every branch or family within Therapoda but the largest overall. Cerapotsia: Removed mention of the old estimate of Eotriceratops, it now has the more recent estimate of 9m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.BRZ (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Megaloceros giganteus is the tallest deer ?
Cervalces latifrons is the largest deer (its antlers are smaller than those of Megaloceros giganteus). Sorry for my English^^... 77.201.134.13 (d) March 3, 2013 at 21:04 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.201.134.232 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. On the Cervalces latifrons click here says Cervalces latifrons is twice as heavy as Megaloceros giganteus click here. I have no idea that why it is not on the page. Change it? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC) I'll do that. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If sources confirm the record for Cervalces latifrons, we must of course corrected. But this does not preclude a reference to the Megaloceros because it remains "historically" the largest deer. --109.219.252.59 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

giant icthyosaur?
Isn't there a unnamed ichthyosaur larger than Shastasaurus? It is up to 95 feet. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Fascinating! Where did you hear about it? I can't confirm or deny until I know where the information comes from. Ashorocetus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the 95 feet may be wrong, but I'm sure it is larger the Shastasaurus. I first saw it when a user in Carnivora forum made a top 10 heaviest prehistoric marine predators and someone gave a comment about the ichthyosaur. Okay, here's a link to the blog: http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/3838574/41999/ The 95 feet I saw was in answers.com but it may be wrong. I more correct estimate may be 80 something. I don't know a lot about this ichthyosaur so I don't have too many sources. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. I found this paper which describes a Shastasaurid vertebra roughly 45.7 cm across. Assuming linear scaling, that's an ichthyosaur much bigger that 95 feet we're talking about, but I'll have to look into it more. Ashorocetus (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. It actually says 45 mm... Ashorocetus (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I found this topic: http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/10052873/24/ the ichthyosaur can kill Megalodon. I do disagree it was 40m and 300t! Impossible! It said that it should only be 30m-the length of a blue whale. And no creature will reach 300t to surpass the blue whale. The blue whale shall keep the heaviest. So I don't know the weight. Is this the larger than 95 feet you are talking? It is about 99 or 100 feet. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just realized the paper I read actually says 45.7 mm... actually does mention a vertebra 45 cm across. I don't think we can rule out the possibility of an ichthyosaur bigger than a blue whale a priori, but 300t does seem absurd. On the other hand, if 450 mm is accurate, and isometry holds, we could potentially be talking about a 40m ichthyosaur here. I'll do a little more research and see what I can find, right now I'm a little busy. Ashorocetus (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I just realized the disagree to 300t on the topic is wrong. I didn't read the bottom! It said it may have reached 533t. If it is only 30m, then 240t. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I hate to admit it, but I don't think that the evidence is sufficient to say with any certainty that this ichthyosaur was not over 500 tonnes, but given all the uncertainty it's possible this creature saw no bigger than Shonisaurus. It seems we have even less evidence to determine the size of this ichthyosaur than we do for Amphicoelias fragillimus. Ashorocetus (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Largest prehistoric animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090617095747/http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org:80/science/bulletins/35/sci_bulletin35_29.pdf to http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/science/bulletins/35/sci_bulletin35_29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Largest prehistoric animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525202625/http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Largest prehistoric animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110150125/http://www.intechinc.com/disappeared-species/giant-camel.html to http://www.intechinc.com/disappeared-species/giant-camel.html
 * Added tag to http://www.tesorosnaturales.es/en/catalogo.php?categoria=9&producto=141
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/456.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011174114/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/12/cumnor_monster_mandible.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/12/cumnor_monster_mandible.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216074438/http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/7.pdf to http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/7.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Largest prehistoric animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607150621/http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/science_under_sail/biodiversity.html to http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/science_under_sail/biodiversity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Stethacanthus
There is no reference cited for this entry. Additionally, most references (including Wikipedia itself)give this creature's size at around 70 cm, not a couple meters in length. If this is an upper estimate, it would be interesting to know from whence it came. The only reference I can find to a 2-meter long Stethacanthus is a page at the BBC, also uncited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.130.37 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Page views
Leo1pard (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Page contents don't match title
What is the topic of this page supposed to be? The title says "prehistoric" but many of the animals listed are recently extinct, eg. the Norfolk Island Kaka, the Imperial woodpecker, and the Aurochs. If any recently extinct animal will do then perhaps the title should change. If only (sub)fossil animals were intended then perhaps the page contents should be pruned to reflect that. It feels like a bit of a free-for-all right now. 209.136.39.130 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an inherently incoherent article, so nonsense like that abounds. IOW, I don't think there's any way to fix it. Another example: Is Livyatan melvillei the largest prehistoric whale? Of course not. There is no definition of "prehistoric" for which that is true. There was no time in which Livyatan melvillei was the largest whale. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The formatting looks weird
I have no idea how to fix this, but the overview sits side by side by the article text which makes both almost impossible to read. If some one knows how to fix this my ocd would be grateful. Pussilago (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

On Galliformes !
I leave this here : (Sylviornis is an extinct genus of stem galliform bird containing a single species "New Caledonian giant megapode". Technically, the latter is incorrect because it has recently been found not to be a megapode, but one of two genera in the family Sylviornithidae; at the time of its description, it was believed to be a ratite. Sylviornis was never encountered alive by scientists, but it is known from many thousands of subfossil bones found in deposits, some of them from the Holocene, on New Caledonia and the adjacent Île des Pins. Recent morphological studies indicate that it was a sister taxon of Megavitiornis, in a clade outside of the Galliformes crown group)

This i copied from Sylviornis Page, However If this was correct than Sylviornis Is not related to Fowl and it's should be removed from here ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.36.21.79 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Citation needed"
There is a lot of "citation needed" addition on this list. But why add a citation when the name of the species is also a hyperlink, and a single click will lead you to the article which will contain the required citation? 46.212.103.44 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Largest prehistoric animals
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Largest prehistoric animals's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Wood": From Stethacanthus:  From Largest organisms: Wood, Gerald The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats (1983) ISBN 978-0-85112-235-9 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was the latter. I've fixed the error. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes)
There seems to be a dispute. Perhaps those involved could explain why they think that their version is best. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Source 13 says: "C. megalodon is widely regarded as the largest shark to have ever lived. Based on tooth crown height (CH), this giant reached a total length (TL) of more than 16 m." That is an important hedging phrase: "Based on tooth crown height", which should not be omitted if you want to use source 13 to justify the 16 m figure. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Source 2 says: "the most commonly cited maximum size range of O. megalodon in scientific literature is 18–20 m in total length... This study combined with previous studies suggests that the presently verifiable maximum TL estimates of O. megalodon (i.e. scientifically justifiable account based on museum specimens) are 14.2‒15.3 m TL, where individuals of O. megalodon exceeding 15 m TL must have been exceptionally rare." -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Otodus or Carcharodon : Megalodon says:
 * Megalodon is now considered to be a member of the family Otodontidae, genus Otodus, as opposed to its previous classification into Lamnidae, genus Carcharodon. Megalodon's classification into Carcharodon was due to dental similarity with the great white shark, but most authors currently believe that this is due to convergent evolution. In this model, the great white shark is more closely related to the extinct broad-toothed mako (Isurus hastalis) than to megalodon, as evidenced by more similar dentition in those two sharks; megalodon teeth have much finer serrations than great white shark teeth. The great white shark is more closely related to the mako shark (Isurus spp.), with a common ancestor around 4 mya. Proponents of the former model, wherein megalodon and the great white shark are more closely related, argue that the differences between their dentition are minute and obscure.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In the light of the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, please could you should explain why this revert of 14:51, 5 December 2021 was right. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, so the size and weight estimation range he gave are based on earlier studies and some links he shared are not even included in the megalodon page even. The estimates I shared is based on the newer, more reliable studies as you can see from the parent page as well. The links I provided are accepted and present there as well. I also updated infos of other animals as well, unlike him who's stuck with that 1 particular section. My changes has nothing to do with him, so accusing me of edit war is also very unfair to me. Hope you get my point. Thank you Ishan87 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Please can you explain here why you think that your revert of 15:03, 5 December 2021 was right. In fairness, your edit summary does help. (Undid revision 1058772571 by Ishan87. Well, how about that? Otodus megalodon. Average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters, not 10.5 meters. And largest size Megalodon is 20.3 meters.) What do the sources cited actually say? One of them sources cited for the "average length of more than 16 m" says "Based on tooth crown height (CH), this giant reached a total length (TL) of more than 16 m." Note that it does not say average size, so it does not support the claim; it supports a claim that the maximum length was more than 16 m. It also has hedging phrase giving the basis of the estimated maximum total length. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Look he changed back once again! The way he's claiming and average weight and weight of an extinct animal is simply unscientific. There are multiple estimations which keep updating based on newer more reliable studies. I used Megalodon's recent length and weight estimations, on the contrary he's using much earlier, outdated speculations of the animals size. His edits are clearly based on his own likings and not science. He also used too many spaces in the end for no reason. He definitely doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, so he should be banned from undoing people's hardwork, even though it's just one section in his case which's just sad. Ishan87 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(Correction) Ishan87 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * an average length and weight

I don't think he's ever going to respond though. I doubt he even knows how to respond here. Only thing he does is to undo other people's edits on that section. That's exactly why I want actions to be taken against him. Ishan87 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have many evidences can prove I'm right.

1)Average size adult Megalodon is not 10.5 meters. Is size of juvenile Megalodon. Yep, Juvenile Megalodon is 10.5 meters. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/megalodon-shark-nursery-discovered/ “Our study suggests the specimens represent mostly juveniles with lengths between 2 and 10.5 meters,” https://cdn.britannica.com/51/200251-050-79878ECB/Studies-body-mass-megalodons-females-males-sharks.jpg http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/m/megalodon.html

2)Average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/03/world/megalodon-shark-scli-intl-gbr-scn/index.html

3)Megalodon maximum size is 20.3 meters. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2021/3284-estimating-lamniform-body-size DinosaursKing(talk) 16:11, 5 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Well, because you wrong. You better to reread accurate knowledge sources which I showed you. DinosaursKing(talk) 17:04, 5 December 2021‎ (UTC)


 * DinosaursKing. (1) The www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu citation supports that juveniles had lengths between 2 and 10.5 metres. (2) The edition.cnn.com does not support the statement that the average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 metres. What it does support is that the maximum size was 18 metres, which they believed would result in a weight of 48 LT. (3) 20.3 metres is not justified by the source. The palaeo-electronica.org citation says "TL estimates for the largest associated dentition of O. megalodon, UF-VP-311000, using the 17 modern individuals of C. carcharias as analogs, ranged from 15.1 to 20.3 m, with a mean estimate of 17.3 m.... The range of estimates largely reflects the natural intraspecific variation exhibited in the modern Carcharodon carcharias used as analogs." Cherry-picking the largest number misrepresents the source. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(1)Average size adult Megalodon is not 10.5 meters. Juvenile Megalodon is 10.5 meters. My accurate knowledge sources already show it. (2)Yes, average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters. This source never said Megalodon maximum size is 16 meters. So, are this diver is tallest human? Well, I don't think so. (3)Yes,Megalodon maximum size is 20.3 meters. My accurate knowledge sources already show it. DinosaursKing(talk)
 * For (2) and (3) please quote the words in the sources that support what you say. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, you asked back again? Well, my accurate knowledge sources already show you. And you better to reread my accurate knowledge sources again. Yes. Average size adult Megalodon is not 10.5 meters. Juvenile Megalodon is 10.5 meters. Average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters. Megalodon maximum size is 20.3 meters. If you have questions, then reread my accurate knowledge sources again. DinosaursKing(talk)
 * But the sources you cited do not support this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@DK just because you claim something doesn't make it accurate. Like I said, your links are useless unless those are accepted in the main page of Megalodon. So let go of your obsession with this one page and grow up for once. Ishan87 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC) I have replaced File:Megalodon scale.svg with File:Megalodon scale1.png in the article. I looked at the history in Commons and File:Megalodon scale.svg was created between 2013 and 2019 based on File:Megalodon scale1.png. File:Megalodon scale.svg appears to have been created to promote a POV about the size of Megalodon. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, page of Largest prehistoric animals and page of Megalodon are so terrible now. Well, again, my links are accurate knowledge sources. These sources are accurate for Megalodon. Is how sad you are doing wrong. Well, you better to stop your obsession and grow up for once. Got it? Kid? LOL DinosaursKing(talk) 08:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@User:DinosaursKing Try trolling somewhere else. I'm not bothered even in the slightest by your childish behavior. Maybe you should keep your opinion to yourself. Trying to abuse or insult others might cost you a permanent ban, so be warned. Ishan87 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, kid, you made Wikipedia so terrible now, so don't doing your childish behavior in Wikipedia and anywhere next time. And again, you better to stop your obsession and grow up for once, don't make any trouble. OK? Kid? DinosaursKing(talk) 08:29, 24 December 2021‎ (UTC)


 * I know this discussion is long ago, but from my point of view, the source from Toddy1 is much more accurate. Looking at the sources posted by DinosaursKing, the news website that put together the paper is still better, the BBC documentary, Britannica known with a featherless Velociraptor reconstruction, and Prehistoric Wildlife which includes really outdated and inaccurate informations. To be honest, they can't be treated as a source, as accuracy is clearly inferior to actual academic papers. Nevertheless, I can't understand why you treat the other person as a child, claiming your sources to be "accurate knowledge sources". Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the more important things about the size of Megalodon is the great uncertainty about the size estimates. Scientists are estimating the size of a fish from the size of its teeth by assuming that its body shape is much the same as various modern fish, only larger.  It is very misleading to present information about Megalodon with without explaining this.  With respect of size estimates, it is misleading to over-emphasise the claim that Megalodon might have been as large as 20.3 meters (67 ft) long.  There are a range of size estimates. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Secondary citations
I really don't see the point in demanding citations behind every animal if this information is already available on the article about the animal. All these "citation needed" were added by someone calling himself "ComicsAreJustAllRight", an editor that was rightfully blocked indefinitely for following reason: "it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia". I'm mentioning this because anyone who have added information only to see it removed should try to add it again, this time without anyone interfering unless there is a good reason for it. First he adds "citation needed", and when people really do add citations and also fill in with further information, he would often revert the edit because in his eyes it was "poorly written". You know, instead of making a little effort and rewrite it himself rather than undoing everything. Including removing the citations he demanded in the first place when the problem (again, in his eyes) was "poor wording" and not the sources that supported the information! And in case there are similar editors that's still around, one could try and contact some administator if they behave in a similar manner. Just mentioning it. 46.212.117.57 (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality of this article
Having quickly skimmed through this article, it seems that a lot of its sources are unreliable, and its information often times outdated. Perhaps a rework is in order? --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Or we could delete it; it is not a coherent category to make a list from. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Headings
MOS:HEADINGS says that section headings should not contain wikilinks. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, I was just doing like done with other headings. Thank you for notice. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As main editor, should see that as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes transition to another articles more difficult... But I won't make those errors again. Thanks for notification. Xiphactinus88 (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Weights
Currently, for some animals the article is giving weights in tonnes and short tons. A short ton is significantly less than an avoirdupois ton. It looks wrong saying that a Freda is 5.5 tonne. One solution is to spell out tonne: 5.5 tonne. Another solution is not to convert to short tons, and convert to a more universal measure such as pounds: 5.5 tonne. Do people prefer pounds or short tons? I suspect that pounds would be better.

There are also some things where the avoisdupois measure is first. This looks odd in an article where the decimal measure is generally first. There is an |order=flip command, that produces the following from an input figure of 12000 lb: 12000 lb. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Largest ancient modern human?
I really wanted to add "Giant of Castelnau" here but sources are very old so it is likely a hoax. Are there any confirmed huge ancient anatomically modern humans? Xiphactinus88 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus
No, there are no other sauropods that could exceed argentinosaurus in size, why? Because argentinosaurus is in fact the largest sauropod and in extension the largest land animal of all time. stop saying that there are other sauropods that're bigger than argentinosaurus, like seriously patagotitan is smaller than argentinosaurus and even if there are sauropods that're longer and taller they're still not larger than argentinosaurus. This same goes for tyrannosaurus, like no, no other theropods that could exceed tyrannosaurus in size, why? Because tyrannosaurus is in fact the largest theropod and in extension the largest terrestrial carnivore of all time. Just stop it, dinosaur size, overall, is determined by mass, not length and not height. tyrannosaurus is larger than both Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus because it's the truth. Touch some grass (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)