More Evidence for a Shrunk Dunk

[@IrishMcScottish]

Shrunkleosteus

[@flowerfaerie8931]

STOP THAT.

[@Albukhshi]

Any budding Paleontologists reading this:if you find a tiny relative of Dunkleosteus, please name it Shrunkleosteus :D

[@cobinasaur]

Dunklessteus

[@beastmaster0934]

It’s basically a Goliath grouper with a guillotine for a head.

[@Liethen]

Death-Tuna

[@ExtremeMadnessX]

Tuna is also a great predator.​@@Liethen

[@mr.jglokta191]

@@Liethen I was just about to drop a tuna comment

[@1998topornik]

Exactly!

[@42ZaphodB42]

It as big as a tiger shark though. And with its massive bones, it was probably also as heavy as a great white. So quite a big bigger then a goliath grouper.

[@MiguelWario05]

"The first apex predator ever" Anomalocaris in the corner: Am I a joke to you?

[@DrBunnyMedicinal]

Invertebrates don't get nearly the respect they deserve!

[@mhdfrb9971]

Should've add "vertebrate"

[@MarmotManIsCool]

omnidens: two steps ahead...

[@davidegaruti2582]

There was also omnidens amplus ...

[@davidegaruti2582]

​@@MarmotManIsCoolyeah lol ! Those are hella cool !

[@Smw006]

Shrunk dunk is scarier because it can fit in smaller bodies of water and as a time traveler you'd be less safe if you thought it was bigger than it was...

[@CaptainGuntu]

It's funny, as I was watching this, I kept thinking it's just a big tuna with a terrifying armored head and cleavers for teeth, and then near the end he talks about how it probably had a body form similar to a tuna. I wonder how fast Dunkleosteus could swim. If it was anywhere near as fast as a tuna, that would just add to the terror.

[@SlothOfTheSea]

“It is becoming increasingly obvious…. I CAN DENY IT NO LONGER!” “I am [a placoderm the size of a great white shark].”

[@timexyemerald6290]

actually smaller than great white. largest Great white is 6 meter long. heck above average 5 meter long great white is larger than the Biggest possible Dunkleosteus estimate that is 4 meter long. Dunkleosteus is closest to Tuna now

[@amertuco7725]

​@timexyemerald6290 not really, average GWS are about 4 -4.5m long. The 5 and 6m are rarity.

[@dinodude7290]

this is so funny lmao

[@kingzant99]

I saw the notification for this come up and shouted "CHUNKY DUNKY!" To which I had to explain this whole debate to my partner

[@leechild4655]

Honey! I shrunk the Dunk.

[@vojtechslezak4553]

Its a 3/4 meter pirana, how the f*ck is that less scary than the 9 meter monster? The jaws/head has not shrunk at all! Hell, its even faster then before!

[@HoveringAboveMyself]

Because 9 meter depictions never looked like they should, they had heads as big as the entire new Dunk, despite the real fossils being far smaller.

[@AtropalArbaal-dk8jv]

12' is still a fucking nightmare. It's a massive alligator gar, that eats by dismembering you.

[@Ryodraco]

I'm sure it's been said many times, but it's not like the main part of Dunkleosteus people care about (the head) got any smaller with this information. The rest of it just turned out to be shorter. Heck, I kind of wish this got recontextualized by saying Dunkleosteus had different proportions than we thought, rather than that it "shrank," but that makes for less eye-catching headlines.

[@HoveringAboveMyself]

In a sense it got way smaller, because popular depictions never showed the head at the real size of the fossils, just look at the drawing at 0:11, its head is over 2m long but the largest known Dunkleosteus head is only some 60cm long.

[@Ryodraco]

@@HoveringAboveMyself in that case it's the fault of artists misrepresenting the size of known fossils.

[@wmpx34]

That damn shrinkflation

[@veggieboyultimate]

What about its filter feeding relative, Titanichthys?

[@42ZaphodB42]

It was roughly the same size as dunk. The size model is universal, therefore it also got downsized.

[@RaptorChatter]

From discussion with Engelman, the author of this paper, it maybe could have gotten up to 5m in the largest specimens, though he hasn't had an opportunity to work with those fossils directly.

[@vincentx2850]

The mammal eye socket to skull base-length correlation is totally wild! I took a look at a few mammals with vastly different skull morphology, from pangolins to pumas, and it seems that this holds true!

[@Whayles]

No way did I just discover your channel through the size change video and you just uploaded. As well I was intrigued by you mentioning dunkleosteus

[@juanyusee8197]

Honestly the shrunken Dunk makes way more sense than the older estimates which made it look like a kaiju in size compared to its contemporaries.

[@commissargeko4029]

From now on I shall refer to the dunkleosteus as the murder goldfish.

[@jordandino417]

Admit it, guys, we’re overestimating the size of prehistoric animals. :(

[@madsgrams2069]

Except for T-rex. It seems it could get quite a bit heavier than the 7-8 tons initially estimated.

[@Ratty524]

Both yes and no. The more evidence gathered means we can be more accurate about sizes. Doesn’t help that a lot of fossils are fragmentary.

[@ISURAH-484]

Not with megalodon

[@42ZaphodB42]

People who get offensive about a scientific discovery are absolute fools. Without science they wouldn't be fans in the first place. It's just how it works. You have a model/theory and that stands until the next fits better. A 4m dunk is still a pretty big monster considering the kind of life that came before.

[@utoob7361]

Dunkleosteus kept on shrinking until it was only 3 feet long with one giant tooth, otherwise known as Megalodon.

[@MrMemelord00]

The remarkable shrunken dunken

[@voryndagothDL]

Bro is compact

[@paleoph6168]

Subcompact. Perfect for everyday carry.

[@DouglasHarveMarose]

Paleontology stans make me laugh. I know part of it is tongue in cheek, but it does seem funny to me that people are getting upset that their 30ft long murder fish is now only a 'paltry' 12 feet instead. Regardless of its length its still a giant murder fish that I wouldn't want to meet in real life.

[@oceansands]

Was Dunkleosteuses dorsal fin more towards the rear instead of directly on top?

[@Paintedfigs]

How can 12 the foot dunkers ask us 30 foot dunkers to just walk it off? You don't know our paleo-pain. Where is your osteo-empathy?

[@mivapusa]

As long as it is large enough to _bisect_ you with a single chomp of those meatcleaver jaws, it's still bloody fuckin scary

[@terrypitt-brooke8367]

Thanks for saying Dunkle osteus....most of the time. Great video as always!

[@jurassicswine]

I think the shrunk dunk looks awesome. The hunchback is weird, but that was an error if I remember correctly and other depictions of the shrunk dunk without it look so cool.

[@micahsmith4612]

I liked the weird Quasi-Moto guppy bod

[@phantafan7965]

While the oversized Dunkleosteus looks very cool, it doesn't really make that big of a difference in its role as an apex predator or its dangerous ability. In the end the jaws stay the same size and this is what makes the animal so interesting and dangerous to its prey.

[@FaerliKreepi]

I was originally so upset that Dunk was shrunk…but the more I’m seeing of the new size, the more I am enjoying the demon goldfish thing they have going on now

[@amertuco7725]

I don't like it, but it makes sense in the ecology. The animals where smaller back then, between 1 and 2 m mostly, Dunk didn't have to be this 6-9m monster. 3-4m where huge for the standard.

[@HoveringAboveMyself]

The funny thing about this is that the "new look" Dunkleosteus doesn't look very different from its popular depictions, proportions-wise, because no one ever tried to portray the creature with the proportions implied by the ass-pulled sizes and the actual fossils. It was like Dunkleosteus is 10m long with a 3m head and not Dunkleosteus is 10m and looks like a snake because its head is actually only 60cm long.

[@erichtomanek4739]

At this rate, adults of The Dunk, will end up as plankton!

[@vikrantpulipati1451]

4:16 Speaking of deep, narrow bodied oceanic predators, would swordfish/marlins/sailfish be a good comparison point?

[@Talonflamez]

More light on the dunk nerf 🗣️🗣️🗣️

[@urseliusurgel4365]

It is 'Dunkle-osteus', rather than 'Dunkleeosteus'. Dunkle is a surname, the fossil was named for a man called David Dunkle.

[@otodus2802]

It is not very surprising when you think about it, most organisms were pretty small during the Devonian. And i remember that in old dino books Dunkleosteus was described as a 3 meters fish.

[@thegametroll6264]

A lot of people want prehistoric creatures to be these real life toho godzilla monster creations roaming around fighting and devouring everything indiscriminately. This is simply not the case.

[@1998topornik]

Dunk remains shrunk.

[@cholulahotsauce6166]

Where'd you get your t shirt

[@godzillanerd9250]

Honey, I shrunk the Dunk!! Grew up with Chased by sea monsters and such, grew up with uber massive dunkleosteus, but a smaller dunk is still quite terrifying lol

[@raymoonstar13]

4:18 Aren't Tunas deep bodied? 🤔

[@celtofcanaanesurix2245]

7:05 so as it turns out, you can indeed tuna fish

[@montanapareso2823]

I definitely feel the smaller version is scarier. Those jaws are the same size, but it's less likely to finish the job than the old version. Something that leaves you hurting for years after is way worse. Also, I always get distracted by the fossils behind you. Seeing the eurypterid specimen compels me to ask.... Is there any chance we could get a tour of your collection?

[@gameandmoviecommunity5757]

The head is still the same size so

[@Sharauni]

Great video explaining all this! Yes, I was a little disappointed when the paper first came out, but I have to agree, a 12 foot fish that could still bite me in half in one go is still impressive and scary, lol! People need to relax, science is always changing as we get new and/or better ways of explaining things. It's similar to the people that griped about theropods having feathers...I'm sorry, but a 20ft critter with massive teeth is still terrifying even with feathers. Have you ever come up against a pissed off goose? Imagine that goose but T-rex sized and tell me that's not scary as all get out! XD

[@floflo1645]

Even at 3-4m Dunk is still huge compared to everything that lived beside it. Where 2m fish even common during the Devonian ? Too big of a size can become a detriment if you become too slow and less effective in hunting.

[@RaptorChatter]

In freshwater environments there were a few fish which could reach that size, but in the open ocean I am not aware of many.

[@snowcube_steel]

Awww man, one of my favorite armoured fish turned into a giant armoured goldfish. (Still my favorite though)

[@thetruesteel]

Personally I think it's even cooler to think that it was built like a brick shithouse.

[@tessalyyvuo1667]

Still very impressive. And would cause massive thalassophobia. I mean the jaws (business end) is still what it is. Also it makes me think of the lurker shark from the first Jax and Daxter game this way.

[@albatross4920]

Dunkin' donuts? Nah man, shrunken dunk'n 🐟

[@ruidecas5640]

Dunkly was a shortstack.

[@orionschuylar3488]

The video title gave me a stroke..

[@AtropalArbaal-dk8jv]

Hopefully, we get more than just a fossilized head...

[@alexanderbaca7352]

That shirt tho! Where can I get it? 😎

[@MarkVrem]

Dissapoint o saurus.

[@tmad-sb6mj]

Please stop picking on Dunkleosteus... 😭😭😭

[@mtylerw]

Where can I get a “Trilobites of Utah” shirt? TAKE MY MONEY!!

[@RaptorChatter]

Utah Fieldhouse Museum!

[@rickybryan1759]

I wonder what it tastes like

[@zipperman1448]

I like tuna. I would have some canned dunk.

[@eseguerito2629]

Dang the devs keep nerfing my boi😭 (All jokes aside, i know that’s not how it works. I don’t wanna be lumped in with the awesomebro Spinosaurus fans. And yes, that was also a lumper joke)

[@cybernetic_crocodile8462]

Damn it, science! Stop ruining my fantasy about gigantic, prehistoric beasts by providing evidence they were smaller and not so over the top as I think!!!

[@AntonRosier]

Stop nerfing him please!!!!!

[@flowerfaerie8931]

This is a genuinely good video but oh my god, I cannot take "Shrunk Dunk" seriously lmao.

[@sorryicanthearyouovermyfre8958]

Nooooo 😭😭😭😭

[@vladline1882]

Length nerf but not the power. 🤷

[@shadetreader]

The ridiculous objections to this remind me of the bozos who are still upset about the reclassification of Pluto.

[@Sirdilophosaurusthethird2.0]

Poor dunk

[@akashselvam]

We can accept the science of dunk and still be upset guys. We don't have to like it but we got to accept the science. For the people who are saying its cooler because it got shrunk are annoying. Come on guys people are entitled to their feelings there is no reason to invalidate our feelings. People are upset about recent megladon size estimations. People are emotional animals and that's ok though, that's reality

[@ISURAH-484]

Aamah bro indeed ..

[@sirsir8163]

#Skeletoncrew

[@TheAnticlinton]

This study does not aptly consider the palaeo biology of arthrodire vertebrae. Although Engelman compares Dunkleosteus to a Tuna, a Tuna has special ossifications in its tail which allow it to to swim at speed with such a short tail. Also no pelagic fish in known to science, including the most compact tuna, have the extreme level of postpelvic rounding seen in engelman's reconstruction. In addition, there are loads of animals that look "odd", and loads of animals with weird proportions. But they don't look "wrong", and they make sense when you factor in their lifestyle. The new dunk restoration definitely looks uncanny, like there's something missing (the "kink" posterior to the head and post pelvic rounding especially). In conclusion, engelmans 3.83m reconstruction of the dunkleosteus seems by far the most natural, with the 3.41m one having the aformentioned uncanniness. I am not disputing engelman's size estimate(though the 3.83m bauplan would indicate maximum size being 4-5m isntead of 3-4) but his bauplan reconstruction.

[@AncientWildTV]

As you said limitations of comparing Dunkleosteus with modern pelagic fish like tuna and the observed anatomical discrepancies in Engelman's reconstruction, are there any alternative methods or additional data sources could be utilized to refine the bauplan of Dunkleosteus?

[@RaptorChatter]

In my conversations with him he did mention the reconstruction would have had a notably small pelvic girdle, however, it was a very unique fish in an evolutionary sense when compared to those we have today, so it makes sense, it's just I am not a fish expert, so am explaining the best I can. So there is an explanation, but not one I am confident in being able to explain personally. Russell Engelman was very polite when I met him at a conference though, so reaching out would probably work to get a better answer.

[@elroboustein9102]

As the complete body of the dunkleosteus has not been found, this will still remain in great doubt no matter how many studies or calculations are made.

[@GoreGojiraGeneration]

It look like new species It probably,there’s another super size to new Dunkleosteus

[@CowboyPrestige101]

Why are we nerfing dinosaurs and prehistoric animals? Thats not cool. Give them mofos wings or something. Live a little. Live Mas. Taco Bell.

[@elroboustein9102]

Nerfs do not mean that they are 100% real, it is just an assumption that they actually possibly looked like this, we are talking about species of animals that only have a fossil fragment, you could not say that it was so small or larger because each author could consider it as far as he measured as long as the calculations do not look so exaggerated, But the case for the new Dunkleosteus estimate is "mm ok"

[@BarOk2-f2o]

Yet I will still know that dunkleostes is 10 to 11 meters

[@RaptorChatter]

Publish evidence then

[@elroboustein9102]

no, but 6 meters at most I would say is the most acceptable for a Dunkleosteus