Newly discovered ancient creature may have been the heaviest animal ever

www.cnn.com...

Excavations in southern Peru’s Ica Valley have turned up massive bones that belonged to what may have been the heaviest animal to have ever lived on the planet.

The colossal ancient whale, which swam the seas about 39 million years ago, likely weighed two to three times more than the blue whale.

It took years for researchers to pry the giant fossils out of rock and determine what they belonged to — a whale they dubbed Perucetus colossus.

With such enormous body mass, the creature likely patrolled shallow waters and used an undulating swimming style.

Separately, scientists found remarkably well-preserved fossils of 505 million-year-old jellyfish high in the Canadian Rockies, revealing a previously unknown species with 90 fingerlike tentacles.

For comparison adult blue whales can weight between 150-200 tonnes, with females being heavier than males, and their size varies between 80-100 feet or even longer sometimes. So we're talking about a creature that weighted at least 300 tonnes and could have been as heavy as 600 tonnes!!! It's length seems to have been similar or even surpassed that of a blue whale.

a reply to: AlienBorg

You're gonna need a bigger boat.

a reply to: watchitburn

Good sport on a medium fly rod?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: watchitburn

Good sport on a medium fly rod?

I don't think fiberglass is gonna do the job on this one.

a reply to: Klassified

Carbon kevlar, mate. What could possibly go wrong?

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: AlienBorg

You're gonna need a bigger boat.

And new "Yo Mama" jokes.

a reply to: Klassified

Maybe might need a bigger kayak?

a reply to: Klassified
It's when you get out the TNT but in this case:

Thermo-nuclear fishing whaling

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Klassified

Carbon kevlar, mate. What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe might need a bigger kayak?

Now you're talking.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: Klassified
It's when you get out the TNT but in this case:

Thermo-nuclear fishing whaling

Maybe some well placed Tannerite. Don't want to ruin the meat.

a reply to: Klassified
Your local thermonuke fishing club may have some tips and tricks to prevent the spoiling.

a reply to: Klassified

OK. May need a few barrels, too.

a reply to: AlienBorg

It's Whales all the way down and we live inside the eye of a tiny fish.

You would need a massive freezer to put that fish meat in. I usually stock about twelve whitefish filets and ten pounds of cod, pollack, or haddock in the freezer for the winter. If I find a good sale, I will buy a few sockeye salmon filets too. I suppose there were no freezers back in the time that lived, I wonder if any animals ate the meat from that at all when it got beached.

a reply to: AlienBorg

It's interesting.

Considering the maximum size and weight of animals on Earth are constrained by a few factors.

Including gravitational force, the structural limitations of biological materials, and the availability of food resources to support the creature's nutritional requirements.

The largest animals we see today, like the blue whale, are apparently already close to those limits.

So any significantly larger animals in the region of 300 tons, that existed in the past, would have faced numerous challenges in terms of support, energy requirements, and ecological interactions.

As to anything weighing 600 tonnes!

That seems to be beyond what most would consider possible unless the likes of our gravitational force were somehow significantly less in the past.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

It's interesting.

Considering the maximum size and weight of animals on Earth are constrained by a few factors.
...

As to anything weighing 600 tonnes! That seems to be beyond what most would consider possible unless the likes of our gravitational force were somehow significantly less in the past.

Gravity would have little impact on ocean life as far as constraints. Bouyancy and being held together is very easily regulated by gas content within the creature for sea-dwelling creatures. The other factors would have to simply be balanced with the ecosystem. In other words, if it fed on the same things as blue whales, there would have to be 1/2 to 1/3 the population in the same area.

a reply to: Halfswede

Granted gravity impacts ocean life less so than with animals that dwell on land.

But gravity still affects the size of aquatic animals.

Primarily through it's influence on the animal's body weight, and the buoyant force exerted in the water.

The constraints of biology, including the need for food, energy, and efficient movement in the water also impose limits on the size of marine animals.

In the natural world animals tend to evolve to sizes that are sustainable within their ecological niches.

And extreme sizes like the one suggested, 600 tons, would indeed present quite a challenge to nature.

39 million years ago though so i suppose we can only ever really speculate as to the conditions around back then.

a reply to: andy06shake

While your other constraints are valid, a bit of research shows that gravity is not a factor in size of sea animals according to most literature on the subject and physics. Bouyancy simply overcomes gravity by regulating gas content within the cell or in a bladder organ. Bouyancy of an aircraft carrier is no more constrained by gravity than a dinghy (though other stresses due to torsion and fatigue of ocean swells are a thing).

Issues of surface area to volume, metabolism, etc are real, but at the same gravity we currently have, there is no constraint relative to the existing animals. Under extreme gravity (increase in fluid column pressure) there would be relative overall constraints to cell design etc. That said, even metabolism isn't typically linear in most animals. A blue whale doesn't eat the equivalent in weight of a tuna its same size, for example.

There isn't a lot that flies in the face of science on this discovery. It's just big. Additionally, imagine the amount of sea life (food) available at the time without commercial fishing of today (imagine the shrimp eaten every day by the billions of humans alone)

a reply to: Halfswede

There isn't a lot that flies in the face of science on this discovery. It's just big. Additionally, imagine the amount of sea life (food) available at the time without commercial fishing of today (imagine the shrimp eaten every day by the billions of humans alone)

Well, either way, Halfswede.

I'm just picturing the size of the thing now myself.

An old fisherman sitting in the pub(39 million years ago ) saying "I once caught a fish this big" with outstretched arms.

I'm still hard-pressed to believe nature managed to produce a 600-ton ocean-going mammal Halfswede, but it would most assuredly be quite the sight to see, that's a given.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

It's interesting.

Considering the maximum size and weight of animals on Earth are constrained by a few factors.

Including gravitational force, the structural limitations of biological materials, and the availability of food resources to support the creature's nutritional requirements.

The largest animals we see today, like the blue whale, are apparently already close to those limits.

So any significantly larger animals in the region of 300 tons, that existed in the past, would have faced numerous challenges in terms of support, energy requirements, and ecological interactions.

As to anything weighing 600 tonnes!

That seems to be beyond what most would consider possible unless the likes of our gravitational force were somehow significantly less in the past.

It's only....39 million years ago!
So in terms of the gravitational force there would be negligible differences. The important detail is that the creature seems to have lived in shallow water.

Consider the dinosaurs for example.
Their weight varied from a few tonnes to maybe 70-80 tonnes for the heaviest of their species. Weight, resources, interactions, would have always major issues for such creatures. The difference is one lived in land and the other in the sea.