![]() whale rib, which is clearly from a whale that survived for a significant span of time after the attack, otherwise it wouldn’t show such a degree of bone remodeling. Here too, we do not know whether the "intent" was to kill or to parasitise, rendering the distinction meaningless).Īnd then we have the Kallal et al. Same story with Pseudorca attacking Physeter (Note that Palacios & Mate 1996 do discuss the behaviour they observed as a possible case of predation, but "flesh-grazing" is neither mentioned nor discussed at all. So is that flesh-grazing or predation to you? Without reading it’s thoughts we can not be sure whether that shark had some notion of killing the whale, or whether it just wanted to feed on it without doing so, which it did (again, if that isn’t applying overly "human" concepts of life and death, which tiger sharks might not even have to begin with). More clearly so than Pseudorca, considering this shark is actually seen feeding, while the Pseudorca you consider to have been "flesh-grazing" have not (and both constitute prolonged attacks). ![]() Yes, large sharks have been observed doing this. We'll never know for sure just how it happened. Maybe juvenile mega-toothed sharks, being hard-wired to attack very large cetacean prey far more than modern day sharks, were more aggressive than modern day sharks in either solitary attacks on larger whales, or in forming groups and engaging whales in a group attack that would injure and finally kill the whale. I don't think the modern day accounts of sharks killing whales takes anywhere near several weeks, but then again the behavior has only been rarely observed. Of course, perhaps prehistoric sharks (and maybe even modern days sharks) sometimes follow injured whales for weeks at a time, taking bites at their leisure until the whale finally succumbs from its injuries. What might make this exact scenario somewhat less likely is that the whale apparently lived for several weeks after the bite, which doesn't suggest a terminally ill whale at the time of the fossilized bite to the ribs. It may have been an already sick/injured whale that a large group of sharks and/or other predators was attacking and this fossilized bite was but one of many feeding bites. Of course, this type of behavior may have been what motivated the attacker in the Kallal fossilized rib. The lion may leave the attack to feast on the part it procured on its own and not rejoin the fight, but you wouldn't call that lion a flesh grazer. Occasionally, a lion might rip off part of a large prey animal like a zebra or cape buffalo while the rest of the pride is pulling the animal down. ![]() You can even see similar behavior in land carnivores. I can't call such behavior pure fleshing grazing it seems more like a prolonged predatory attack. I think groups of grey reef sharks (or maybe its oceanic whitetips) have been recorded predating on juvenile whales in a similar manner, chasing the animal and attacking/feeding until the animal is dead, and then continuing to feed. In other words, the sharks aren't just taking a mouthful and going away content, they come back again and again to feed which also results in expediting the whale's death, thus making it even more easy to feed. ![]() I've heard of tiger sharks occasionally attacking injured/sick whales, but the "intent" seems to be both to feed and to kill. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |