Talk:Dunkleosteus

Panzerfische!

I see that the Germans refer to the Placodermi as Panzerfische.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkleosteus

http://www.joergresag.privat.t-online.de/mybk4htm/chap54.htm

Sounds about right to me! :-) -- 201.51.221.66 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that, Dunkleosteus is a heavily-armoured fish so I can see why it is called "Tank fish", also I am wondering what our relation to the Placoderms is, are they cousins, brothers or what? Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor

Bite force

Corrected to 8,000 from 80,000 lbs per square inch. Added Quirks and Quarks interview audio link.

that isn't stronger than a megalodon, which registered at 18.2 tons max. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1509266/megalodons_bite_strongest_according_to_computer_models/

Ameratsu (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't contribute very often to the talk pages, so I'm positive I'm doing several things wrong. But I did some digging that will likely help anyone attempting to sort out the business of this fish and its biting force.

So for starters, yes, there appears to have been some misinformation that circulated at one point, I'm uncertain if that in and of itself is worth talking about on the main page, but it seems to have confused quite a number of people.

The misinformation likely started with an article from Science Daily. I have a source from where the misinformation appears to have largely circulated from, an academic correspondence sharing the misinformation, and finally the original trust-worthy scholarly source from which the misinformation incorrectly cites as its origin point. The original source appears to elucidate the truth of the matter.

---

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061129094125.html

The misinformation that seems to have been circulated the most appears to have stemmed from the following claim, "Dunkleosteus terrelli may have been the world's first apex predator. The force of its bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition of this 400-million-year-old extinct fish focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch. This is the strongest bite force of any fish ever, and rivals the bite of large alligators and T. rex." - This is appears to be categorically false. See Science Daily and their attached source for the claim.

---

http://reptilis.net/DML/2006Nov/msg00338.html

Not entirely certain how I found this, Googling I guess. But this email provides a link to the Science Daily article linked above, and whose content reads, "Dunkleosteus terrelli lived 400 million years ago, grew up to 33 feet long and weighed up to four tons. Scientist have known for years that it was a dominant predator, but new embargoed research to be published in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters on November 29 reveals that the force of this predator's bite was remarkably powerful: 11,000 pounds. The bladed dentition focused the bite force into a small area, the fang tip, at an incredible force of 80,000 pounds per square inch. Even more surprising is the fact that this fish could also open its mouth very quickly--in just one fiftieth of a second--which created a strong suction force, pulling fast prey into its mouth. Usually a fish has either a powerful bite or a fast bite, but not both."

---

Upon review of the original source, which appears to be a trustworthy source, we find that the abstract states the following, "Jaw closing muscles power an extraordinarily strong bite, with an estimated maximal bite force of over 4400 N at the jaw tip and more than 5300 N at the rear dental plates, for a large individual (6 m in total length). This bite force capability is the greatest of all living or fossil fishes and is among the most powerful bites in animals." - Its abstract makes no mention of pounds per square inch, which would make sense given the origin of the Journal, and no other mention of the 80,000 figure.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rsbl.2006.0569

Hope this helps anyone looking to improve the article! 2601:14A:C100:D:6974:F57C:4C6C:492A (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

http://www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Wroe2008GreatWhiteSharkBiteForce.pdf

This was linked in the Megalodon article here on wiki and is expanded expanded upon some detail. It describes a research that lists a specimen of Dunkleosteus as having a bite force of 7,400 N, and then proceeds to estimate a bite force of a small adult specimen Megalodon as being 108,514 to 182,201 newtons (24,395 to 40,960 lbf), in a Megalodon's posterior bite, which it then compares to the 18,216 newtons (4,095 lbf) bite force of the largest confirmed great white shark.

These are interesting numbers, and they appear to conflict with lots of claims being made by various articles. Some of which appear to be cited for Dunkleosteus. Even the "trustworthy source" I listed above seems confused. As, "This bite force capability is the greatest of all living or fossil fishes and is among the most powerful bites in animals" must clearly be wrong, I should think, considering the existence of otodus megalodon.

Like, I'm not even going to pretend like these numbers make sense to me. 182,201 N for the megolodon. Even the random 80,000 figures that were being tossed around for Dunkleosteus are less than half of what Megalodon supposedly had going on with its mouth.

Its very confusing, when a research journal publishes an article that describes a fossil specimen as having the strongest bite of any animal that has ever lived, and the bite force it purports the specimen to possess is stated to be less than two and half times that of an animal that is currently alive today and studied frequently. And it is somewhat worrisome, when even the embellished exaggerations are coming up short.

Hope someone makes sense of this for me one day, because this is all I got! 2601:14A:C100:D:6974:F57C:4C6C:492A (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hm?

Where does uts name come from?DS 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point! I added Dr Dunkle in. --Wetman 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More Info Needed!

There especially needs to be a bit of history as to where and when the first fossils were found and why the name has been changed. CFLeon 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Source

From which source comes this: "The discovery of Dunkleosteus armor with unhealed bite marks strongly suggest that they cannibalized each other when the opportunity arose."? Dropzink (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tone

I have tagged the 'Description section for editing to improve encyclopedic tone. It tends to be too informal and has too many unscientific asides such as as stating that Dunleosteus was "highly evolved" for the Devonian. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tone?

I've read encyclopedias, encyclopedias have long been chatty and informal, assuming you weren't brought up on modern anti-formal English. Is it that the Dunk article isn't encyclopedic enough, or that it's not scientific paper enough?

Encyclopedias are published for the general public. For that reason they must be informal to some extent. They must be, in a word, accessible. That doesn't mean badly written. It certainly doesn't mean colloquial. It does mean the wording has to be couched such that people can understand it and gain from it.

Dunk's story on Wikipedia is accessible, and it informs. So it aint as formal as some would prefer, it doesn't have to be all that damn formal to do its job.

BTW, I have read a number of authors refer to Dunk as being highly evolved for the Devonian. Maybe true, maybe not, but calling any such claim unscientific without proof does not make for scientific discourse.

One last thing: Death to passive voice in scientific writing!

mythusmage (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "highly evolved" even mean? Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm willing to clean up the article. given time. ResMar 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Trivia section removed:

In popular culture

• Dunkleosteus was the main apex predator of the fifth most dangerous sea in Sea Monsters. The show counted down the top 7 most dangerous seas in history. Dunkleosteus was depicted as being cannibalistic and capable of bending metal.
• In the Dinotopia books and movies a massive Dunkleosteus dubbed the "Fish" by the Kraabs', Lee and his son, Cyrus guards the underwater entrance to the subterranean caves that contain the strutters and sunstones.
• The Devonian predator also made a brief appearance in the video game ParaWorld.
• In the video game E.V.O. Search For Eden, Dunkleosteus appeared as an enemy creature in the first time period, and the player could evolve its jaws and body, both being the strongest in those categories.
• China Miéville's novel The Scar features Dunkleosteus, where they are also referred to as "bonefish".
• In Ecco the Dolphin, Dunkleosteus appeared as an enemy in the prehistoric levels. Ironically the Dunkleosteus existed in the Devonian period and the prehistoric levels takes place 55 million years ago. They were already extinct during that time. Even its echolocation sprite resembles a shark.
• The early Playstation game Aquanaut's Holiday features at least two of these animals. One in the far north, within a 'den' and one in the extreme southeast.
• Dunkleosteus was featured in the second episode of Animal Armageddon.
• A Dunkleosteus is rumored to appear in the upcoming season 3 of the ITV television show "Primeval"

Totally unreferenced.

Bite force

Something is wrong with the reference used for bite force in the article. In the main text of the reference is says 1,100 and 8,000 pounds respectively but in the text below the photo it says 11,000 and 80,000! I don't know which is correct, but in the wiki article we use 8,000 pounds (=matching main text in reference) and 11,000 ponds (=matching text below photo in reference). Additionally, someone indicated the convertion to Newtons in the wiki article don't match, but corrected the wrong numbers (the numbers used in the reference instead of correcting the Newton). That clearly is wrong so I reverted it but will leave it to someone else to sort out this mess. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's one good reason why conversions should be in parentheses, following the original units, which should come first. Don't pretend like the conversion is in the opposite direction. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if the latter part was directed at me, but I didn't add the measurements/convertion and don't pretend anything. Rather, I corrected what clearly was a mistaken edit done without checking if it matches the associated reference. As anyone on this site, you're free to switch the convertions. WP:UNITS arguably suggests SI units (i.e., newton) are most appropriate as the primary units in an article like this, though this is contradicted by the following MOS:CONVERSIONS (not totally sure this is what is ment by "direct quatations", or if that is aimed at longer passages where the measurement only is a part). Regardless, that doesn't solve the mess of the different figures (8,000/80,000 and 1,100/11,000) used in the reference. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus versus Chondrichthyes

According to Carr, R.K. & W.J. Hlavin, 2010: Two new species of Dunkleosteus, the type species of Dinichthys, Di. herzeri, is rescued from synonymy and is the sole member of Dinichthyidae. All the other species of Di. herzeri are considered to be either synonyms of it, or of Dunkleosteus. Furthermore, according to the Carr and Hlavin paper, all of the other former members of Dinichthyidae are either moved to Dunkleosteidae, their own family, or to basal Pachyosteomorpha.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

- er, well technically Dinichthys cannot be rescued from synonymy since it is senior to Dunkleosteus. But yeah, its long been hinted that Dinichthyidae was polyphyletic and was about to be severely pruned.Ozraptor4 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Potaeto, potahto, Hlavin and Carr just took a chainsaw to Dinichthyidae. Should we start adjusting the template to reflect this?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. We should also have a page for Dinichthys itself since it is a valid taxon of giant arthrodire, albeit one known from pretty cruddy remains.Ozraptor4 (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was Dinicthys redirected here in the first place? FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Partial synonyms

The taxobox reads that Dinichthys is a synonym of Dunkleosteus "in part", which is taxonomically nonsensical. The Type species is the name-bearing one, so if the type species of Dinichthys is not a synonym of Dunkleosteus, the genus Dinichthys is in no way a synonym of Dunkleosteus (and it's the senior name either way, so if true it would be the correct name). Just because other species previously classified in Dinichthys have been transferred to Dunkleosteus does not make the former a partial synonym of the later because those species were not the type of the genus. That's just how taxonomy works. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dinichthys page still redirects here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If the Dinichthystype specimen was a chimera of a Dunkleosteus and something else then it could legitimately be called a synonym in part. I have no idea if that's the case, though. Abyssal (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The paper said that Dinichthys was a synonym of Dunkleosteus "in part" in order to say that only the type species of Dinichthys was a separate species, and all subsequent species attributed to Dinichthys were/should be attributed to Dunkleosteus, instead.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If the type species isn't a synonym, it's not a synonym :) This would be like saying Oviraptor is a synonym of citipati "in part" because most specimens now referred to Citipati were once referred to Oviraptor. Again, that's not how synonymy works. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify things a bit =

1868 = Newberry erects Dinichthys herzeri based on incomplete (but by no means undiagnostic) remains of a whopping big arthrodire.

1873 = Newberry describes fossils of another big arthrodire and calls it Dinichthys terrelli.

1900s = A bazillion other big arthrodires from around the world are dumped into Dinichthys (today the genus is monotypic - ie. all spp. but herzeri are invalid or transferred to other genera). As complete skeletons of Din. terrelli are found and mounted, this species becomes the standard representation for the genus (instead of the type D. herzeri that remains imperfectly known).

1956: Lehman notes that Dinichthys herzeri and Dinichthys terrelli are not at all similar - separates Din. terrelli into the new genus Dunkleosteus.

Thus Dinichthys and Dunkleosteus are two completely different and valid arthrodire taxa.Ozraptor4 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice, that info should be in the article! FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the information, and stuck it into Dinichthys: could I get some help with more sources for it?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the story is with Ponerichthys. The type species appears to be Ponerichthys terrelli (formerly Dinichthys), which would mean it has a long priority over the name Dunkleosteus. However searching on Google Scholar reveals a snippet from this paper I don't have access too: "The latter species was made the type of the genus Ponerichthys by Miller (1892), and until recently Ponerichthys would have been a senior synonym of Dunkleosteus. But Ponerichthys was proposed explicitly as a substitute name for Dinichthys, ..." So close! Was Ponerichthys assigned as a replacement for Dinichthys without being assigned a type species? Did Miller simply assume D. terrelli was the type (or is the solution that some other species was the original type, and breaking it out of Dunkleosteus has saved that name)? Does it even matter? IIRC if a genus is named with no type species, any subsequent assignment of one will stick (see Pterodactylus antiquus), with the later author treated as first revisor. So the reasoning in the source may be invalid, whatever it is. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Variscan orogeny in Morocco ??

How could Dunkleosteus have swam over Morocco 360-380Ma, amidst the Variscan orogeny, which uplifted the Atlas mountains, throughout the region ?? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That is what the fossils there suggest. A lot of placoderms were much more competent swimmers than what a lot of humans realize, Dunkleosteus included. Having said that, what is your point? Fossils in the Fammenian portions of Late Devonian Moroccan strata show that the formation of the Variscan orogeny was no barrier to Dunkleosteus or the other placoderms found there. Disbelief that they could is not a good reason to believe they couldn't, especially in the face of fossil evidence.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

According to "The Cleveland Museum of Natural History PALEOECOLOGY OF DUNKLEOSTEUS TERRELLI (PLACODERMI: ARTHRODIRA)", and "Ecomorphological inferences in early vertebrates: reconstructing Dunkleosteus terrelli (Arthrodira, Placodermi) caudal fin from palaeoecological data", Dunkleosteus is thought to be a rather large, pelagic cruiser, with good swimming. Due to the lack of of benthic trace fossils in the Cleveland Shale, and the deadly conditions that formed the black shales, and Dunkleosteus's dry and wet weights, it is believed that Dunkleosteus couldn't settle on the seabed (because the unsettled fine silt could clog the gills), or get near the anoxic benthos, even if it wanted to. And recently in 2022, a new selenosteid arthrodire, Amazichthys, has preserved postcranial remains showing features consistent with fast swimming pelagic sharks.[1] In conclusion, not just the fossil evidence, but articles regarding the swimming habits of these early jawed vertebrates suggest pelagic habits, and morphologies consistent with other pelagic animals (e.g sharks, tuna, ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs.) PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This post is over 10 years ago anyway. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"Up to 10m"

Any evidence of this other than TV programs? I've only found one paper mentioning 10m, Anderson & Westneat (2009), but only in the abstract, in the paper itself the same specimen mentioned to be 10m long in the abstract is said to be estimated to be 6m, which makes much more sense considering it has an skull 72cm long, it is considered to be a large individual, also, Carr (2010) paper on the paleoecology of Dunkleosteus says that known specimens go in estimated length from 25cm to 6m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Anderson & Wesneat (2207) [2] also indicates that a large specimen of Dunkleosteus measures 6 meters in length and a metric tonne in weigth. In the list provided by Albert et al. (2009) [3] the length is 800 cm; and finally, Anderson (2008) [4] cites 6-10 meters as the size range of Dunkleosteus.--Rextron (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

800cm is the average of 6m and 10m, could it be that both are citing the same source? Fossil Atlas Fishes by Frickhinger, from 1995 (I don't have access to Anderson (2008) to verify if it does) which I don't have access to in order to see how he arrived to that range, could it be just outdated information? how can a 6m specimen be considered large when 8 and 10m ones will be 2.4 and 4.6 times as massive?

PS: I forgot to watch the page that's why it took me so long to respond. Mike.BRZ (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've found the book, this is everything it has about Dunkleosteus:

Genus: Dunkleosteus LEHMAN, 1956. Synonyms: Dinichthys. Horizon: Upper Devonian. Geographical distribution: Western and eastern Europe. North Africa, North America. Features: Very large placoderms with massive skull. Maximum length about 6-8 m. Skull alone may be 65 cm long. Together With reduced body armour, may reach 110 cm. Enormous jaws toothless but strongly serrated. Eyes relatively small. Remarks: Free-swimming, dangerous predators which need not even have feared sharks. Recent relatives: None. Died out in Upper Devonian.

Since it doesn't mention a bigger skull nor bigger fragmentary specimens, is that skull the basis for the 6-8m estimate? Anderson & Wesnet (2007) doesn't mention any specimen with a 65cm long skull, it might be an older reconstruction of CM5768, the 72cm long skull, anyway, while lengths over 1m are possible for the skull if the thoracic armor is included, total body lengths over 6m are not realistic unless an eel-like body is assumed, original research, I've done a body outline reconstruction based on Coccosteus, making even the 72cm skull fit in a 6m long body already results in an elongated fish, most reconstructions out there wouldn't even get a length over 4m for that skull. IMO, we should go with Carr (2010), up to 10m seems to be a claim without evidence, though, since we are not supposed to make that distinction, should the "up to 10m" stay? Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I made this image to illustrate how a 10m Dunkleosteus would look like based on published fossil evidence: Link, a 72cm long skull. Does anyone know of any larger skull? Frickhinger (1995), the source of the 8m mentioned by Albert et al. (2009) only mentions an skull 65cm (is he suggesting a serpentine body?), Anderson (2008) does mention 6-10m but it has no citation nor is an specimen in particular mentioned. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why present tense?

Why do we use the present tense, as in "is a genus of prehistoric fish existing during the Late Devonian", to refer to an animal that seems to have died out millions of years ago?

Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Among other things, they still belong to a valid genus even if they're all paperweights. Using the past tense may confuse some readers into thinking that the genus is no longer valid.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As user:Apokryltaros noted, the genus is still valid and accepted, past tense in biology would make it seem that the genus was no longer accepted, or that the information in discussion was not accurate anymore. --Kevmin § 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't "a genus of extinct (insert qualifier here) fish" be more explicit?

Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like whats already being used in the article though? are you suggesting just taking out the "is" in the lead?--Kevmin § 03:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, rather suggesting making explicit that the species is extinct.

-Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the end of the opening sentence does make that clear though "that existed during the Late Devonian period, about 380–360 million years ago".--Kevmin § 11:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, once the reader has reached the end of the sentence, assuming that they are familiar with geological ages. I think that the single qualifying word "extinct" would add helpful clarity for lay readers at the risk of a trivial degree of redundancy for the expert audience. After all, other living fishes may also be termed "prehistoric".

Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

How about this: "Dunkleosteus is an extinct genus of placoderm fish that existed during the Late Devonian period, about 380–360 million years ago." Im not really a fan of the easter-eggy nature of the "prehistoric fish" link, so this may clarify the sentence better.--Kevmin § 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

size conflict between this article and the "Evolution" section of the Shark article

20' length here, 33' length there - should be synched 98.67.182.246 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Media depictions

PRIMAL S2E1. Drsruli (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The animal is featured in a recent episode of acclaimed PRIMAL. Drsruli (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What are the criteria for a "Media depictions" reference for this article? (The article does have a "media depictions" section, with what seemed to be analogous references.)Drsruli (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:IPCEXAMPLES. I don't see how important or noteworthy it is to mention Dunkleosteus' appearance in that episode when it is the catch of the day and has no bearing on the plot, let alone how that appearance impacting how the public sees Dunkleosteus.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a nice rendering, identified and identifiable as. Also, it is, at least, part of the story, and not just a background element. The media itself is on the one hand, current and "hot"; on the other hand, aside from the juxtaposition, it is a faithful representation. (Again comparing with other sources that made the cut.) Drsruli (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer my question about notability or impact on public perception.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability and impact on public perception on the order of representation in Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Hungry Shark Evolution, Ark: Survival Evolved. (Note that no representations are currently included of a fictional TV or film context.) Primal has won three Emmys so far, other awards and critical recognition. It's still pretty new, I suppose that impact would tend to accrue. Considering impact relative to the other Dunkleosteus representations, I think that we could make a case for the mention. Drsruli (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Coccosteus as a comparison to draw body plans for Dunkleosteus reconstructions

(Copy/Pasted over from my user talk in Wikimedia Commons)

1. Coccosteus has a different niche, ecology, and lifestyle to Dunkleosteus. According to this publication, Dunkleosteus was a pelagic organism, and an actively-swimming one at that, according to this publication from 2017. It could probably pursue its prey. Coccosteus on the other hand, was, albeit capable of free-swimming, inhibited demersal habits by ambush hunting from the sea floor, too. It was also incredibly tiny, at less than a foot long. Even an adult Coccosteus would be an easy snack for even a juvenile Dunkleosteus.

2. The two are from different clades. Coccosteus hails from Coccosteomorphi, while Dunkleosteus hails from the clade Pachysteomorphi. If anything, Coccosteus is closer related to Coccosteomorphs like Plourdosteus and Incisoscutum than the Pachysteomorphs like Dunkleosteus and Titanichthys.

3. We have better references. As of the time I'm typing this, we now have a magnificently preserved selenosteid from Morocco named the genus "Amazichthys". It has fins preserved, including a lunate, heterocercal caudal fin (the tail), and a larger dorsal fin than once thought for arthrodires. Amazichthys is believed to have been an active swimmer, and a high-speed predator, or a pursuit predator, making Amazichthys a way better comparison to Dunkleosteus, morphologically, and ecologically, than Coccosteus is. Amazichthys is also closer in phylogenetic relation to the mighty Dunk, as it's in the sister group to Dunkleosteiodea, Aspinothoracidi.

Conclusion: Dunkleosteus reconstructions don't have to end up like this, and they shouldn't, unless you purposefully want an inaccurate depiction for the fun of it. That, I'm okay with. But if you want to make scientifically accurate Dunkleosteus, or at least accurate to what we know, then publications like the ones I found, and comparisons to Amazichthys should give you a good clue as to Dunkleosteus's ecology, and morphology really was. Also, are you surprised that an arthrodire with similar ecology to Dunkleosteus has a caudal fin similar to what was predicted for Dunkleosteus in a publication published on December 6th, 2017, almost 5 years ago? PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Engelman

Y'all really revising all the size estimates because of a single study? Im not even questioning the study itself, it jus seems extremely irresponsible to rewrite because of one study by a single researcher instead of waiting to see how this affects broader scientific consensus. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 02:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Its a peer reviewed article, not just one lone guy, not to mention the second time we get a size of less than 3.5 meters for CMNH 5768. (also, not an argument for anything but this isn't exactly anomalous behaviour when it comes to keeping paleontology articles up to date) SunlightBlade (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

In any case, we shouldn't simply replace estimates with others, but explain in depth that different estimates have been made and on what grounds. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"The largest species, D. terrelli, typically grew to 3.1–3.5 metres (10.2–11.5 ft) in length" How can we say "typically" as if this is anywhere exact? We need to give these measurements with much more cautious phrasing. Like "study x gave this estimate based on this methodology" etc. Never present it as just facts. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

If this study has passed the peer review (it has) then it is extremely unlikely that it follows a questionable methodology. I know it's a pretty long article but before asserting that basing wikipedia's voice about it is "extremely irresponsible" you should read its methodological section and compare it with previous studies leading to conclusions contradicting this article's conclusion, if any. Overlooking this article because it dramatically changes our knowledge is the actually irresponsible thing. As of today, the state of the art knowledge - which is not the same thing as truth - is that Dunkleosteus was a tuna-sized fish. Now the burden of the proof is up to those who aim to assert that previous size estimations are reliable. Leonardo Cefalo (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer review doesn't equal new truth or dogma, that depends on how other researchers receive it. In this case, it is one possibility that differs from previous ones in having a more well constructed methodology, but other mythologies in the future might very well suggest new lengths or confirm older estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

In the future we may even find new specimens or remains of its cartilage - who knows?. It is utterly impossible to predict how future findings are going to evolve. The best of our knowledge is the state of the art. And the state of the art estimates are those carried out by Engelman. Scientific truth is temporary but not relative. I agree that if somebody is capable of disproving the OOL approach then it is necessary to wait the time required to formalize the results, submit the paper, carry out its review etc. before such a study comes out. But, again: should we overlook the latest research developments only due to this possibility? How much time should we wait befor recognising these findings as valid? Leonardo Cefalo (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What is overlooked? The new study is covered in the article, along with other estimates, as it should be. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Engelman's size estimate is one of the most rigorous and methodical amongst those currently available, but we need to take a wide look at all the current size estimates, given the recent nature and therefore lack of reaction to the publication, and the long history of widely varying size estimates for this taxon, and see how other researchers react to it in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)