Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Livyatan melvillei by theropod1 Livyatan melvillei by theropod1
Life reconstruction of this giant Miocene sperm whale, based on the related stem-physeteroid Brygmophyseter.
With proportions as restored here, the total length of the holotype individual is 15.4m. With the accompanying volumetric model yielding an estimated mass of ~51t, it turned out very robust in built, similar to some extant cetaceans.

Similar to extant orcas, these basal physeteroids were macrophagous predators of large vertebrate prey (e.g. other whales), and probably among the apex predators of their time.
This is supported by the presence of large, enamel-bearing teeth in both the mandible and the upper jaw, a robust cranial morphology and large temporal fossa, features on which they converge with extant macrophagous delphinids. The presence of exostoses adjacent to the teeth of the related Acrophyseter deinodon are signs of activity-related bone remodeling as a consequence of habitual powerful biting (Lambert et al. 2014).

Feel free to leave a comment and let me know your thoughts and suggestions!

Methods:
Modified skeletal and silhouette multiview restoration
I estimated postcranial axial length of the holotype of Brygmophyseter shigensis based on the table of vertebral measurements and the lateral-view photograph of the skeletal cast (p. 23, Plate 8) in Kimura et al. (2006).
The lengths of incomplete vertebrae were estimated based on the adjacent ones, or missing epiphyses were added based on the size of those in more complete vertebrae from adjacent positions. Intervertebral cartilage was measured as restored in the tail and lumbar region of the cast (where it was not obscured by ribs), and this percentage was applied to the entire post-cervical vertebral collumn in order to get an estimate of the in-vivo length that corresponds to the figured skeleton. Based on the above methodology, postcranial length (including the neck, also based on photo measurements) is about 4.2m.

Thanks to :iconblazze92: for providing valuable imput during this and later stages!
The ribs of the reconstruction were rotated for a more streamlined, life-like thorax, but space for the sternal complex (not figured) was left beneath the ventral end of the dorsal ribs.

The relative size of Livyatan, to which the postcrania of Brygmophyseter were fitted, bases on their relative bizygomatic skull widths. My measurements from fig. 5a and fig. 7a in Hirota & Barnes 1994 were within less than 1.5% of each other, at 70-71cm,consistent enough to suggest accuracy of the scalebars. Using the mean of those, Livyatan has a skull 2.79 times as wide (197cm, Lambert et al. 2010), and it is herein assumed that postcranium scales isometrically with bizygomatic width. The entire skeleton was scaled based on its digitally-measured axial length, and the skull replaced with that of Livyatan.

Soft tissue bases primarily on the extant Physeter macrocephalus, but with the addition of a larger fin and flippers, in a semblance of other active, macrophagous cetaceans (note that these were not included in the 3D model since their size and thickness would have been con. Their impact on the animal’s overall mass is unlikely to be significant).

Based on this reconstruction, and again incorporating data from extant sperm whales, I produced a 3D model in blender to estimate its body volume:
Blender model, multiview
The result being a volume of about 50.8m³, which,given a density of 1000kg/m³, as would be expected in aquatic animals, corresponds to the same number of tons (1t=10³kg).
A bulky bodied animal, with a mass[kg]/length[m]³-ratio of 14.01, it compares favourably to the largest macroraptorial animal alive today, Orcinus, where it averages ~15.04 (source), and to the related pygmy and dwarf sperm whales Kogia spp., whose published records (Long 1991, McAlpine et al. 1997, Scott et al. 2001, Stamper et al. 2006, link) indicate an average of ~14.63.

All in all, a considerable amount of work went into the research done for this reconstruction, and I am rather pleased with how it turned out, but I will continue to update this reconstruction and seek for ways to improve it. Any help doing so is appreciated. That doesn’t mean rude and baseless comments are, but I am not in the habit of deactivating comments just because some people can’t behave.

UPDATE: 14/10/2015: Adapted the dorsal view of the silhouette and 3D-model to match the proportions of Physeter. Drawing of dorsal view will also need an update based on that.

UPDATE: 11/12/2015: Finally came round to scanning my new reconstruction taking the aforementioned revisions into account, and also experimenting with an altered colour-scheme.

References:
Hirota, Kiyoharu; Barnes, Lawrence G. (1994): A new species of Middle Miocene sperm whale of the genus Scaldicetus (Cetacea; Physeteridae) from Shiga-mura, Japan. The island Arc, 3 (4), pp. 453-472.
Kimura, Toshiyuki; Hasegawa, Yoshikazu; Barnes, Lawrence G. (2006): Fossil sperm whales (Cetacea, Physeteridae) from Gunma and Ibaraki prefectures, Japan; with observations on the Miocene fossil sperm whale Scaldicetus shigensis Hirota and Barnes, 1995. Bulletin of the Gunma Museum of Natural History, 10 pp. 1-23.
Lambert, Olivier; Bianucci, Giovanni; Beatty, Brian L. (2014): Bony outgrowths on the jaws of an extinct sperm whale support macroraptorial feeding in several stem physeteroids. Naturwissenschaften, 101 (6), pp. 517-521.
Lambert, Olivier; Bianucci, Giovanni; Post, Klaas; Muizon, Christian de; Salas-Gismondi, Rodolfo; Urbina, Mario; Reumer, Jelle (2010): The giant bite of a new raptorial sperm whale from the Miocene epoch of Peru. Nature, 466 (7302), pp. 105-108.
Long, Douglas J. (1991): Apparent predation by a white shark Carcharodon carcharias on a pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps. Fishery Bulletin, 89 (23) pp. 538-540.
Mcalpine, Donald F.; Murison, Laurie D.; Hoberg, Eric P. (1997): New Records for the Pygmy Sperm Whale, Kogia Breviceps (physeteridae) from Atlantic Canada with Notes on Diet and Parasites. Marine Mammal Science, 13 (4) pp. 701-704.
Scott, M. D.; Hohn, A. A.; Westgate, A. J.; Nicolas, J. R.; Whitaker, B. R.; Campbell, W. B. (2001): A note on the release and tracking of a rehabilitated pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3 (1) pp. 87-94.
Stamper, M. Andrew; Whitaker, Brent R.; Schofield, T. David (2006): Case Study: Morbidity in a Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps due to ocean-bourne Plastic. Marine Mammal Science 22 (3) pp. 719-722.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2016
i like bothe the version you replaced with this and this :D
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
And thanks for the faves and the watch btw!
Reply
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2016
np ;)
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
Thanks! Yeah, I sort of like the new colouring better, it somehow looks more realistic to me.
Reply
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2016
hey i using the livyatan shilluete you made to draw a lyviatan is it ok that i post it with a link to the shiluette?
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
Sure, totally fine!
Reply
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2016
k first im drawinga nother cute alpha predators with megalodon and livyatan
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
Cool, I’m curious to see what these two look like in cute :D
Reply
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2016
yeah probaly done today i hopeBucktooth 
Reply
:iconkaprosuchusdragon:
KaprosuchusDragon Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2016
i like the new colours they are cool
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2015
Nice color scheme.

I still think it would be slimmer though, like a sperm whale, but that's just my opinion.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Edited Dec 12, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Thanks.

A reconstruction based on Physeter is being planned, I just couldn’t find the time so far. This one is also like a sperm whale; a pygmy sperm whale, which has proportionately long ribs similar to Brygmophyseter.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2015
I'd like to see what you come up with :) (Smile)
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Have a look! :)
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2015
I just did. I fully agree with it. ~14ish meters and ~30-40 tonnes seem just about right.
Reply
:iconcenozoic-studios:
Cenozoic-Studios Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015  Professional Filmographer
Livyatan wouldn't have been able to close it's mouth the way you drew it. The lower jaw is considerably thinner than the upper jaw and can't cover the greater surface area of the upper jaw. I will create a more realistic depiction
Reply
:iconshaochilong:
Shaochilong Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2016
Are you sure you know what the cranium of Livyatan looks like? Because when you described it as having a "lower jaw considerably thinner than the upper jaw", it sounds like you're thinking of the skull of Physeter. Which is not the same as the skull of Livyatan 
the skull of Livyatan actually has a fairly large mandible relative to the cranium : img4.hostingpics.net/pics/5433…

And here is the much narrower cranium of Physeter:
 upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…;

I'd sure like to see your more "realistic depiction" of Livyatan with a deformed and dislocated mandible. 
Reply
:iconcenozoic-studios:
Cenozoic-Studios Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2016  Professional Filmographer
There's nothing deformed about a depiction having a smaller lower jaw. It's simply how the animal evolved and the skeleton proves it. However, most people jump to the conclusion that both the cranium and mandible are equally massive and often depict it as such in their drawings.
Reply
:iconcenozoic-studios:
Cenozoic-Studios Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2016  Professional Filmographer
Take a look at the actual skull. that 3d model says nothing. Look at the real jaws of livyatan. The lower jaw is considerably smaller.
Reply
:iconovleg:
Ovleg Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2016
I still can't buy the reconstruction based on the guessed fleshed unreliable mount of Brygmophyseter. There is a reason why Lambert et al. didn't reconstruct Livyatan with it despite the availability of this mount.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Have fun. I'm looking forwards to seeing your vision of an animal closing its mouth with it's jaw in disarticulation...
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Edited Nov 13, 2015
I have more questions (sort of relevant).

How much ramming is required for an odontocete to kill something similar in size to themselves? It takes some amount of time, doesn't it? Also, do you think it would be as effective on a much smaller size scale?
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Yes, it seems to take some amount of time. When killer whales use it for killing large whales, they ram their prey repeatedly.

I think it becomes potentially more potent the larger the animal gets, due to the square cube law (kinetic energy grows to the third power given that the animal doesn’t get slower, which it doesn’t necessarily do in water, while the tissue’s resistance to rupturing or fracturing only grows to the second power).

As long as its head is still capable of adapting to cope with the stresses that is, which I think is the case in large otontocetes (looking at sperm whales, of course).

E.g. No matter its adaptions for doing so (which wouldn’t even be necessary on such a small scale), one guinea pig ramming another guinea pig won’t really do any damage, but one orca ramming another orca or one sperm whale ramming another sperm whale is a different story.
Reply
:iconasari13:
asari13 Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
nice
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Thanks!
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Sep 17, 2015
Finally, a Livyatan that isn't showing off it's teeth...

Nice drawing.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Sep 17, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Thanks!
Yeah, I must admit to being guilty of that too, my earlier Livyatans were crap. Somehow we have the instinctive urge of showing big toothy things with their jaws wide agape. But when you look at extant odontocetes, they have their mouths closed almost always, simply for hydrodynamic reasons.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2015
Yeah, aquatic animals only open their mouths when they feed. It's not like they vocalize from their mouths like a terrestrial animal after all...
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Terrestrial animals (especially carnivores) are also portrayed with gaping jaws far too often.

Many aquatic animals do need to keep their mouths open for respiration or feeding. Water gets in through the open mouth and passes through the pharynx and gills, where it supplies them with oxygen and/or nutrition. Most sharks are examples of this, as are many actinopterygians.

Obviously this doesn’t apply to raptorial cetaceans, and even baleen whales, despite being suspension feeders, have developed a very different mode of feeding that relies on taking big gulps, not letting in a continuous stream of water the way a whale shark or Leedsichthys would do.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2015
Yeah, I've been trying to depict carnivores with closed or barely-opened mouths more often nowadays. I'm doing an update sweep on my life restorations to correct inaccuracies and add a little more detail, and one of the things I'm gonna do is close the mouths of most of my carnivores.
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2015
How heavy would C. megalodon be by comparison?
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Edited Sep 14, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
That depends on what you use as an indicator of the species’ size. Some people (I guess we both know them) will go by the size of the biggest isolated fragment (i.e. single tooth) they can find and say that C. megalodon was even bigger than this.

We can go by the average size, which would be about 14m for adults of both sexes combined (based on data from Pimiento & Balk 2015). There are various published regression equations available to estimate the mass of a great white shark from its total length, so lets assume megalodon fits one of them (implying slight positive allometry in terms of bulk, as is commonly envisioned in the many reconstructions that show it like a bulked up great white).

The lowest results I know is yielded by Casey & Pratt’s equation: mass(kg)=4.80376E-6*TL(cm)^3.09497. For a Tl of 1400cm the mass estimate is 26.2t.
The highest one is yielded by Kohler et al.’s: 7.5763E-6*FL(cm)^3.0848, where FL= fork length=0.9442*TL-5.7441. at 1400cm TL, FL is about 13.2m and body mass is 31.8t.
Here’s how they compare
There are surprisingly many such equations for great whites, and some other sharks, but all the ones I know give results somewhere in between these two.

Based on the tooth figured by Bendix-Almgreen (1983), I tried to produce a size estimate, since this is one of the largest specimens in the literature, and certainly the largest with an associated fragmentary skeleton. Here’s the full explanation

In a nutshell, for this one I’m getting a mean estimate of 16.8m, based on either or both of Shimada’s and Lowry et al.’s methods (which is a strange coincidence, but I suspect it does a lot to silence people who have a problem with either of the approaches). Based on the aforementioned regressions, the estimated mass would be 46.1t and 55.9t respectively.

So the average megalodon is considerably smaller than this estimate for Livyatan, and a large specimen is similar. A handful of the very largest meg specimens are probably bigger.

This is of course not the only estimate there is for the physeteroid. If you use the lower estimate, based on Physeter instead of Brygmophyseter, the body mass will end up closer to the average megalodon.
Isometric scaling yields 29.6t, though that is based on slightly underweight, stranded Physeter specimens (see here) and Livyatan was a bit more robust than Physeter due to the proportionately shorter skull and its hence wider-body at a given total length. So if you prefer that one, it would probably end up in the lower 30s of tons, but I haven’t produced a more refined estimate yet).

References:
Casey, John G.; Pratt, Harold L. (1985) Distribution of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, in the Western North Atlantic. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 9 (Biology of the White Shark, a Symposium.), pp. 2-14.
Kohler, Nancy E.; Casey, John G.; Turner, Patricia A. (1995): Length-Length and Length-Weight Relationships for 13 Shark Species from the Western North Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin, 93 pp. 412-418.
Pimiento, Catalina; Balk, Meghan A. (2015): Body-size trends of the extinct giant shark Carcharocles megalodon: a deep-time perspective on marine apex predators. Paleobiology, 41 (3), pp. 479-490.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
Download JPG 4775 × 3257





Details

Submitted on
September 13, 2015
Image Size
4.3 MB
Resolution
4775×3257
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
1,151 (1 today)
Favourites
28 (who?)
Comments
33
Downloads
12

Camera Data

Make
Canon
Model
MP190 series
Software
GIMP 2.8.14

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×