Ancient Shark Attack Preserved in Whale Bone
My article suggests that sharks and whales at one time were very aggressive towards each other. In South Carolina a whale rib was found, it offers a glimpse on the interaction between prehistoric sharks and whales about 3 to 4 million years ago. On the link below the article will show a picture of a whale rib, that was severely bitten by a shark. The rib is bitten in 3 places, only a strong jawed animal could do that. Experts measure 6 centimeters from each tooth mark and conclude that the whale was most likely bitten by a Megalodon or any other large shark 3 to 4 million years ago. The whale found in North Carolina seems to be an ancestor of the pacific blue humpback whale. Scientists figured out the whale survived the attack but died 6 weeks later from disease.
If this article could have had images of the giant whale or shark at the time it would have been easier and maybe more enjoyable. Also this article could of had more facts on the interactions between sharks and whales that would have been nice. I felt that the author kept going on and on about the certain whale that was bitten I believe he should of focused on the areas these interactions were taken place and maybe why the shark attacked the whale and maybe it was because the whale wondered near its territory. The author left many questions unanswered.
This article was very interesting it grasped me unlike the rest of the articles out there. I enjoyed how this article had many of the experts opinions and the experts ideas. This article shows us the inside relationship of prehistoric dinosaurs it only leads me to wonder what other interactions other sea creatures could have had.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought Thomas did a good job at explaining the how scientists figured out that prehistoric sharks were aggressive towards whales. He went into detail that scientists were able to figure out a whale rib, that was bitten in three places could only be the result of a shark bite. Also he was as specific as possible about the species of shark, which is believed to be a megalodon and the species of the whale, which is believed to be a descendant of the Pacific blue humpback whale. Thomas then explained that the whale did not die from the shark attack, but died from infection six weeks later.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Thomas explains that the article he read did not answer all the questions he had about the incident, I thought either Thomas or the article could have explained the interaction between sharks and whales. Was their relationship hunter and prey or were they two competing predators. Also Thomas or the article could have said what species of shark is descended from the Megalodon like Thomas and the article said the whale is an ancestor of the Pacific Blue Humpback whale.
I thought the article Thomas read was interesting because I never thought of sharks ever hunting whales or possibly whales and sharks competing against each other. The interaction between sharks and whales in prehistoric times also shows us how much the relationship between animals has changed over the many years and how different the world was 3-4 million years ago.
By Ned Kister
Thomas did a very good job of summarizing the article. He gave us a strong overview of the article in his first few sentences, then went into the most important details later on in the summary. This helped me to understand the article better because he explained the key details, without going into the unnecessary details. I like how Thomas went in to detail about the shark bite, and thoroughly explained how scientists knew it was a shark bite and that it was not from another animal. I also liked how he named both of the animals that were involved in this attack. He said that the shark was most likely a Megalodon and the whale was most likely an ancestor of the blue humpback whale.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Thomas could have done some outside research on this incident. I agree with him on many of his concerns, but i feel that he could have made an attempt to answer them. I also would have liked it if Thomas would have gone into some more detail about each of the species.
Overall I thought the Thomas's review was very good. I found it amazing how scientists could know so much about an incident like this just form a few tooth marks on a bone.
I think Thomas did a good job presenting this article, and he chose a very interesting article. In his first paragraph, he did a good job explaining how scientists figured out that sharks and whales were aggressive toward each other. I believe it was important that he included how the scientists came to this conclusion and where they found the bone. Another important factor in his article was that he included the species of the whale and shark, which helped him, make his summary more detailed. Overall, I believe he used a good amount of description on the two species and did an excellent job explaining the discovery.
ReplyDeleteTo improve this article Thomas should’ve included more information about the reason for the shark’s attack. If it was not in the article, he could’ve done some outside research. I think this would make the summary a little more understandable. Also by explaining the shark’s reason for attack it would be easier to comprehend who was the one attacking and he was the one defending and for what purposes. Another thing Thomas could’ve done was explain how the interaction between sharks and whales is today and how different it is from 3 to 4 million years ago.
In general Thomas’s article is eye catching. It is exciting to learn the recent discoveries and how species change over time. It is fascinating to see the differences today between a certain species and 3 to 4 million years ago. Also, I never thought it would be possible for sharks to be so aggressive towards whale and I wonder what the size difference was. This article shows how the world changes over time.
I think that Thomas did a fairly good job with his article review. He did a nice job in choosing the topic, as it was a very interesting one. I also liked how he gave a lot of detail on the specific types of the shark/ whale in question. I think that Thomas’s writing flowed very well, was easy to read, and sounded nicely.
ReplyDeleteI think that Thomas could have given a broader range of details about the relationship between the two specimens, as that is he real importance to the article. Also, it felt a little short and rushed, so the information did not really have a chance to sink in.
The review was very interesting. I have heard of Megalodon sharks before, in picture, so I know how strong the whale must have been in order to hold off such a massive predator, and if so, I would like to know what adaptations the whale had made tin order to compete with a Megalodon.