Talk:Leedsichthys

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leedsichthys article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Geologic time scale#Period definitions|period]] The anchor (#Period definitions) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Size[edit]

Here's a link with more realistic size estimates and comments concerning higher claims. It's true size was 12.6–16.9 m (41¼–55½ ft) in length – including the "22 metre" 2002 Peterborough specimen. This is quite close to modern estimates of the length of Carcharocles megalodon, and since I haven't seen any weight estimates for Leedsichthys, I'm not that sure which was the largest fish that has ever lived. Both exceeded the maximum length (12.65 m/41 ft 6 in) of the Whale Shark, the largest extant fish species. For certain Leedsichthys was the largest known bony fish of all time. --Anshelm '77 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharks are cartilaginous, not bony...I thought. Isn't the largest bony fish the ocean sunfish? Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, so the BBC super sized not only Liopleurodon, but Leedsichthys too. The message is clear: never listen to the BBC! Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Here's another good overview: [1] Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonite[edit]

Is the ammonite in the picture really in the background? I don't know how big an ammonite was, but judging by the size of L. problematicus, I'm beginning to wonder if it is in fact in the foreground for scale. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be either. Ammonites had a vast size range, and while most didnt get more then maybe 2ft in diameter, some of the Cretaceous genera were enormous. One of the largest was Parapuzosia seppenradensis from Germany. --Kevmin (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know of one Jurassic genus (I forget the name, though) that was at least 1 meter in diameter.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be Perisphinctes, this genus was about 100 cm or more long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.215.229 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction with Bowfin[edit]

For more on this matter, see this on the talk page for Bowfin. • Rabo³ • 11:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Change[edit]

I made a minor edit and changed: "Like the largest fish today, the whale and basking sharks..." to "Like the largest fish today, the whale sharks and basking sharks..." Maybe it's just because I'm not very bright, but the first time I read it, I read it as calling whales fish. The link and, well, thinking, cleared this up, but I thought the clarification might be nice for fellow readers who haven't had any coffee yet.66.77.144.5 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate reconstructions[edit]

As pointed out in the article here [2], the recons in this article are pretty inaccurate. Removing them for now, not sure if they can be modified. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have access to the original papers? Could be some nice PD images there... FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A confusion?[edit]

The original text read: "There is little direct evidence for predation as opposed to scavenging on Leedsichthys remains, but specimen P.6924 in the Natural History Museum of London shows signs of bites from a Liopleurodon-sized pliosaur. These bites have then healed, indicating that Leedsichthys could even escape the top predator of the Oxford Clay seas, probably as a result of its powerful tail". I have no access to the Martill 1986 article and so am unable to check whether this claim in fact refers to the Metriorhynchus tooth. I have found no further reference to pliosaurid biting-marks. Should anyone be able to clear this up, I would be much obliged!--MWAK (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This blog post by Darren Naish goes into that, also states the bite marks weren't healed after all: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/02/biggest-ever-fish-has-been-revised/ FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Naish states that the Martill article was about a specimen in the Peterborough Museum, so this couldn't then be NHM P.6924 which is listed in the literature as an authentic Leedsichthys specimen in the collection of the Natural History Museum...Perhaps there are real, but unhealed, bitemarks on P.6924 and this was mixed up with the claim in Martill (1986). Or Martill mentioned two specimens. Or it might be an instance of OR. Or I should read the literature better :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouh, sounds complicated. I don't have access to any of it! But I'm thinking some of the older papers must have public domain images we can use? Anyhow, good work so far! FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images from Woodward's publications are likely public domain by now — but probably not easily accessible. Another source of images might consist in photographs taken before 1987 at the British Museum of Natural History, when the Leedsichthys specimens were still exhibited. So, if anyone has some old pics, don't hesitate to upload them!--MWAK (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a picture of the specimen in question- Ctrl+F 6924 in "Leedsichthys problematicus: Arthur Smith Woodward’s ‘most embarrassing enigma’", J. J. LISTON. Not sure how to sign this off or otherwise edit the information into the page, but it's very convincing of an attack on a live Leedsichthys (though probably not specialised given mechanical studies on pliosaurs' jaws). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.246.250 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weight[edit]

How heavy was Leedsichthys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.147.242 (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* bigger than a whale shark—and faster than scientists ever imagined (Science)[edit]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/ancient-fish-was-bigger-whale-shark-and-faster-scientists-ever-imagined

Not sure how much of this is already incorporated. So here it is. Also note the nice life recon we could use as a link here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leedssicthys flavor profile[edit]

Did these fish taste good? I would like to try one batter dipped and fried with chips.

--2600:1700:B450:7500:E97B:85B5:2008:DE6E (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]