Re: Dunkleosteus confusion and a reiterated question

[Pieter.Depuydt@rug.ac.be]

Larry asked:
> This leads to a question I've asked before but never got a reply to: 
> Wiccart's model will be 1/35th scale and assumes D. reached lengths 
> of 30' or more.  They are modeling it on the more traditional 
> rendition of D. rather than the new sharklike trend (there's a 
> picture of this on the Wiccart website in case you're interested).  
> Is this length estimate in line with the current thinking of those 
> who disagree with the shark body-form?  Should he say it's 1/12th 
> scale instead?  Length estimates I've seen recently all top out at 
> about 16' but they assume the more compact sharklike form.

In the two most recent textbooks dealing with placoderms (John Long's 
'The Rise of Fishes' and Philippe Janvier's 'Early Vertebrates', both 
of which I can strongly recommend to anyone with more than a marginal 
interest in early fishies), the largest Dinichthyids (Eastmanosteus, 
Gorgonichthys, Dunkleosteus) are mentioned as reaching total lengths 
of 6-8m (meters). They give no specification about a whether or not 
shark-like postcranium however. The largest placoderm was probably 
the giant Titanichthys, which seems to have been a detritus 
feeder, in contrast with the rather piscivorous habits of the 
Dinichthyids.

Pieter Depuydt.