lambertiana
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2000
- Messages
- 9,592
Yes, I would be open to others joining the group.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
The NEW Post Your Campsite/gear/knife/hiking/anything Outdoorsy Pic Thread!
- Thread starter Esav Benyamin
- Start date
Yes, I would be open to others joining the group.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,702
Great. I'll send you an email.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,132
Anything Outdoorsy, here we go again. Today was a busy day collecting firewood for when winter strikes again next year. A farmer nearby had to cut down a lot of Populus canadensis some time ago, but he couldn't use the wood, so we were free to get out there and take as much as we could.
It's a nice and wide open area, lots of grass, nice pasture land, close to the local river... It was a sunny day as well, no noise except for the birds (of which we've seen quite a lot of species) and the chainsaw of course
. It was a nice day, despite the hard work. All quiet, nice chats in between, being outdoors...that's pretty much all I need from time to time. There's still a lot of wood left, so we'll be going back. Already looking forward to it.
My dad taking some blocks of wood to the trailer while the husband of my niece continues to saw the wood into manageable pieces. We transported 6 of these trailers to the house of my niece today.
This one was with me the whole time, but it didn't see a lot of action since I was to busy. Only thing I used it for was to make some wooden curls on a stick with which the kid of my niece played a bit after she got tired of playing with snails in the grass/on some of the rotten wood. It's nice to see some kid being happy with something that isn't really anything
Nothing much, but I liked it so I hope you guys like it as well.
It's a nice and wide open area, lots of grass, nice pasture land, close to the local river... It was a sunny day as well, no noise except for the birds (of which we've seen quite a lot of species) and the chainsaw of course
. It was a nice day, despite the hard work. All quiet, nice chats in between, being outdoors...that's pretty much all I need from time to time. There's still a lot of wood left, so we'll be going back. Already looking forward to it.
My dad taking some blocks of wood to the trailer while the husband of my niece continues to saw the wood into manageable pieces. We transported 6 of these trailers to the house of my niece today.
This one was with me the whole time, but it didn't see a lot of action since I was to busy. Only thing I used it for was to make some wooden curls on a stick with which the kid of my niece played a bit after she got tired of playing with snails in the grass/on some of the rotten wood. It's nice to see some kid being happy with something that isn't really anything
Nothing much, but I liked it so I hope you guys like it as well.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,702
Love it. Great score and seems like a nice relaxing day outside, GS :thumbup: Nice to have simple days as well as adventures in the outdoors
Looking for bald eagles this morning. Beautiful sunrise lighting up the lake.
Looking for bald eagles this morning. Beautiful sunrise lighting up the lake.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,132
I like the bits of fog in that picture! Great picture, Mano;-). Did you see some eagles?
Yesterday, I received a good tip from a fellow fossil-hunter at about 6.15PM. At 6.30PM I was already in my car driving towards the spot, I still had 2 hours untill sunset so it was a bit of a race against the clock to go check that site out to see if it deliverd adequate amounts (or quality) of fossils. When me and my dad arrived at the site, it was clear that the material consisted of massive piles of suppleted sands from the Pliocene era that will probably be used to elevate the industrial zone. It consisted of marine stuff, so that meant there was a whole bunch of shells and a limited number of vertebrate remains. Since the Pliocene in Belgium was getting cooler, a lot of the more tropical shark species and whale/dolphin species migrated south into the Atlantic, to the Meditteranean. Only a few shark species survived in the Belgian Pliocene and hence, occurence of their teeth is quite limited (in numbers and in species). The most sought after species is of course Carcharodon carcharias, a.k.a. the Great White (which doesn't live in the North Sea anymore up to date, it also moved away dring the Pleistocene).
Anyway, after close inspection, I could see this material came from a layer called the Oorderen Sands, member of the Piacenzian (substage of Pliocene), ranging from about 3.6 to 2.59 myo. This definately meant: 'not a lot to see here, but if you're lucky, you might find a tooth of a great white and some smaller stuff'.
Anyway, this is how it looked like:
Little sun left:
The occasional shark tooth:
The booty of the day (sorry for pic quality, was taken indoors yesterday evening):
AND, last but not least, these two as well (happy, happy!). Two upper-jaw teeth of the Great White shark, measuring approx. 6cm in length.
Just took pictures of these two again, the artificial light from yesterday evening didn't do them any justice at all.
Gonna go back at the end of the week. They're expecting quite some rain this week, so that might increase visibility on the spoil heaps at the end of the week.
Yesterday, I received a good tip from a fellow fossil-hunter at about 6.15PM. At 6.30PM I was already in my car driving towards the spot, I still had 2 hours untill sunset so it was a bit of a race against the clock to go check that site out to see if it deliverd adequate amounts (or quality) of fossils. When me and my dad arrived at the site, it was clear that the material consisted of massive piles of suppleted sands from the Pliocene era that will probably be used to elevate the industrial zone. It consisted of marine stuff, so that meant there was a whole bunch of shells and a limited number of vertebrate remains. Since the Pliocene in Belgium was getting cooler, a lot of the more tropical shark species and whale/dolphin species migrated south into the Atlantic, to the Meditteranean. Only a few shark species survived in the Belgian Pliocene and hence, occurence of their teeth is quite limited (in numbers and in species). The most sought after species is of course Carcharodon carcharias, a.k.a. the Great White (which doesn't live in the North Sea anymore up to date, it also moved away dring the Pleistocene).
Anyway, after close inspection, I could see this material came from a layer called the Oorderen Sands, member of the Piacenzian (substage of Pliocene), ranging from about 3.6 to 2.59 myo. This definately meant: 'not a lot to see here, but if you're lucky, you might find a tooth of a great white and some smaller stuff'.
Anyway, this is how it looked like:
Little sun left:
The occasional shark tooth:
The booty of the day (sorry for pic quality, was taken indoors yesterday evening):
AND, last but not least, these two as well (happy, happy!). Two upper-jaw teeth of the Great White shark, measuring approx. 6cm in length.
Just took pictures of these two again, the artificial light from yesterday evening didn't do them any justice at all.
Gonna go back at the end of the week. They're expecting quite some rain this week, so that might increase visibility on the spoil heaps at the end of the week.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,702
Looks like you had a successful hunt, GS! And you found two Great White teeth at that. Thanks for the background too :thumbup: Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but are you able to extrapolate the size of the shark(s) who owned those teeth?
I did! There was one female, or what was thought to be the female, sitting in a newly constructed nest across the reservoir in a Douglas Fir. The reservoir is a fish and wildlife fefuge, so you can't get closer to the nest (to the eagle's luck and benefit). I don't have quality binoculars (actually, I don't have any binoculars yet for that matter), and even if I did, it'd be hard to view from across the lake. Luckily, the guy who originally spotted the eagles and their nest and volunteers from the local Audubon Society were there with high powered spotting scopes. It was my first time seeing an eagle in the wild. I stayed for a couple of hours hoping to catch a glimpse of the male, but no luck. Apparently this breeding pair is the first to build a nest in my county for something like a century. The eggs are expected to hatch by the end of this month, so I'll be going back and hope to see more.
The location of the nest is marked below, just so you have an idea of how far away it was.
Today, I went for a little stroll/hike in the hills. It was a bit hazy, so views were a little obscured, but it was still nice to get out.
Pacific Ocean is in the background, just hard to see with crappy P&S pic + haze.
Parting Poppy shot from cellphone.
I did! There was one female, or what was thought to be the female, sitting in a newly constructed nest across the reservoir in a Douglas Fir. The reservoir is a fish and wildlife fefuge, so you can't get closer to the nest (to the eagle's luck and benefit). I don't have quality binoculars (actually, I don't have any binoculars yet for that matter), and even if I did, it'd be hard to view from across the lake. Luckily, the guy who originally spotted the eagles and their nest and volunteers from the local Audubon Society were there with high powered spotting scopes. It was my first time seeing an eagle in the wild. I stayed for a couple of hours hoping to catch a glimpse of the male, but no luck. Apparently this breeding pair is the first to build a nest in my county for something like a century. The eggs are expected to hatch by the end of this month, so I'll be going back and hope to see more.
The location of the nest is marked below, just so you have an idea of how far away it was.
Today, I went for a little stroll/hike in the hills. It was a bit hazy, so views were a little obscured, but it was still nice to get out.
Pacific Ocean is in the background, just hard to see with crappy P&S pic + haze.
Parting Poppy shot from cellphone.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,132
Great pictures as usual, HikingMano. Thanks for the info as well, it must be a thrill to experience the possible spread of that species in your area!
On the extrapolation of tooth length to body length of great whites... First of, this is different for every shark ànd this method is never completely correct. For great whites, it is measured using the 2nd anterior tooth of the upper jaw and then putting this measurement into a linear regression. The first tooth I've shown is a lateral tooth. Since these lateral teeth are usually smaller than anteriors, the anterior teeth of this individual must have exceeded 6.5 cm in height. For great whites, you can pretty much say (with a relatively wide standard deviation) that you can multiply approx x100. The individual that used to be the owner of the left tooth MIGHT have been approx 6.5 metres. The right tooth is in fact an upper anterior tooth and this one measures 6cm, so it came from an individual that is slightly smaller than the individual that owned the left tooth, measuring approx 6 metres.
This extrapolation is however, rather problematic. The problem can be explained by the fact that Great Whites have a minimum of 5 rows of teeth behind each other. So they have at least 5 2nd upper anteriors in each jaw segment, so one left segment and one right segment, that makes 10 2nd upper anteriors. However, teeth of the final couple of rows aren't as developed as the ones in row 1 and 2, so they don't have roots. My examples have roots so they atleast originate from row 1 or 2. However, there is a small difference in size of teeth between row 1 and 2... That's difficulty 1.
Second difficulty is that teeth can be pathological, they can deform in the jaw. This makes for teeth that don't fit inside the linear regression model. Luckily, none of my teeth has any abnormal deformities.
Third difficulty is the fact that there is some kind of sexual dimorphism. However the difference is small, male Great Whites don't get as big as female Great Whites and their teeth are a bit more elongate and slender.
I hope you see that extrapolation of tooth size to body size isn't that easy and a lot of factors come into play. 6.5 and 6 metres is therefore a rather wild guess with some theoretical background.
EDIT:
Got 2 regression models. First one is by Gottfried et al. (1996). He measures vertical max height of crown+root of 2nd upper jaw anterior teeth, had an n of 73 animals (and an r of 0.980) and came up with: Total Length (in cm) = 22 + 9.6 X, where x is max crown+root height in mm. For my anterior, this would mean: 22+9.6x56 = 515.6 cm, or in other words, a Great White of approx 5.15 metres. I cannot give an answer to the estimated size of the individual of the lateral tooth.
The second method is by Shimada (2002) but is a bit unclear, and based upon crown height only. Measurements for crown height aren't very well explained so I don't rely on this method very much, eventhough it does give regression models for each position. On top of this, it's a bit more conservative in its estimates. Body size estimates are usually lower than in the previous model.
I'm not going to get into this one in depth because I find this one tricky and open to discussion. But anyway, using the same tooth as in the above method, this regression model would give a total length of 4.94 metres for the individual that used to own the anterior tooth. This is a difference of 20cm...
The lateral tooth (the left one in both pictures) would have belonged to an individual of 5.6 metres using the method of Shimada. Since we've seen that the difference between both methods was approx 20cm for the anterior tooth, this could mean a rise in Total Length of approx 20cm for the individual of the lateral tooth, so this could have belonged to an individual of roughly 5.8 metres according to the first method.
All in all a bit less than my first guess, but still impressive.
On the extrapolation of tooth length to body length of great whites... First of, this is different for every shark ànd this method is never completely correct. For great whites, it is measured using the 2nd anterior tooth of the upper jaw and then putting this measurement into a linear regression. The first tooth I've shown is a lateral tooth. Since these lateral teeth are usually smaller than anteriors, the anterior teeth of this individual must have exceeded 6.5 cm in height. For great whites, you can pretty much say (with a relatively wide standard deviation) that you can multiply approx x100. The individual that used to be the owner of the left tooth MIGHT have been approx 6.5 metres. The right tooth is in fact an upper anterior tooth and this one measures 6cm, so it came from an individual that is slightly smaller than the individual that owned the left tooth, measuring approx 6 metres.
This extrapolation is however, rather problematic. The problem can be explained by the fact that Great Whites have a minimum of 5 rows of teeth behind each other. So they have at least 5 2nd upper anteriors in each jaw segment, so one left segment and one right segment, that makes 10 2nd upper anteriors. However, teeth of the final couple of rows aren't as developed as the ones in row 1 and 2, so they don't have roots. My examples have roots so they atleast originate from row 1 or 2. However, there is a small difference in size of teeth between row 1 and 2... That's difficulty 1.
Second difficulty is that teeth can be pathological, they can deform in the jaw. This makes for teeth that don't fit inside the linear regression model. Luckily, none of my teeth has any abnormal deformities.
Third difficulty is the fact that there is some kind of sexual dimorphism. However the difference is small, male Great Whites don't get as big as female Great Whites and their teeth are a bit more elongate and slender.
I hope you see that extrapolation of tooth size to body size isn't that easy and a lot of factors come into play. 6.5 and 6 metres is therefore a rather wild guess with some theoretical background.
EDIT:
Got 2 regression models. First one is by Gottfried et al. (1996). He measures vertical max height of crown+root of 2nd upper jaw anterior teeth, had an n of 73 animals (and an r of 0.980) and came up with: Total Length (in cm) = 22 + 9.6 X, where x is max crown+root height in mm. For my anterior, this would mean: 22+9.6x56 = 515.6 cm, or in other words, a Great White of approx 5.15 metres. I cannot give an answer to the estimated size of the individual of the lateral tooth.
The second method is by Shimada (2002) but is a bit unclear, and based upon crown height only. Measurements for crown height aren't very well explained so I don't rely on this method very much, eventhough it does give regression models for each position. On top of this, it's a bit more conservative in its estimates. Body size estimates are usually lower than in the previous model.
I'm not going to get into this one in depth because I find this one tricky and open to discussion. But anyway, using the same tooth as in the above method, this regression model would give a total length of 4.94 metres for the individual that used to own the anterior tooth. This is a difference of 20cm...
The lateral tooth (the left one in both pictures) would have belonged to an individual of 5.6 metres using the method of Shimada. Since we've seen that the difference between both methods was approx 20cm for the anterior tooth, this could mean a rise in Total Length of approx 20cm for the individual of the lateral tooth, so this could have belonged to an individual of roughly 5.8 metres according to the first method.
All in all a bit less than my first guess, but still impressive.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,702
Excellent, thanks for taking the time for that thorough explanation :thumbup::thumbup: With the average great white of today coming in at 4-5m, those two were some big boys if they were indeed >=6m. I wonder if the species has shrunk a little over time. Need a larger n; we need more samples GS! 
Cool stuff! Learn something new every day
Cool stuff! Learn something new every day
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,132
I'm working on that larger n for sure! Don't think the species shrunk, IMO the sharks not getting as big in the same large numbers as they used to (according to fossil data) has something to do with us, humans, interfering in their natural habitat (interfering with food sources or disrupting habitat by boat traffic or capturing Great Whites eventhough it is internationally forbidden... or maybe a combination of these ànd maybe other reasons). I'll try to look up the exact linear regression, then I'll edit the above post ;-).
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,702
I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
Thanks again for the info!
Thanks again for the info!
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,132
'Vast' and 'wide' seems to be an understatement :thumbup: Great pic!
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,020
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,132
Didn't find any Great White teeth today, bummer. Did have a blast again though. Just a few pics:
First of all, a groundshot of a worn tooth from the Eocene. During the Pliocene (when these Oorderen Sands were deposited), a large transgression/regression phase took place, resulting in massive erosion of the landscape. Because of this event, older layers containing fossils were disturbed and reworked. Therefore you can find some of the older fossils that were hard enough to withstand the strong eroding forces. Diagnostic features to determine species or even genus are often completely worn away though... as with this one.
I walked a few hundred metres further than the suppleted sand heaps I went to last time. This material consisted of the same Pliocene layer of Oorderen sands, but you could see that these heaps have been exposed to the weather for a longer period. A lot of moss and other small plants are starting to grow in between the (broken) fossil shells, as can be seen here between the remains of a member of the Pectinidae family.
Last but not least, pretty much the find of the day, a groundshot of a broken (it's only one half) vertebra from a small whale species.
First of all, a groundshot of a worn tooth from the Eocene. During the Pliocene (when these Oorderen Sands were deposited), a large transgression/regression phase took place, resulting in massive erosion of the landscape. Because of this event, older layers containing fossils were disturbed and reworked. Therefore you can find some of the older fossils that were hard enough to withstand the strong eroding forces. Diagnostic features to determine species or even genus are often completely worn away though... as with this one.
I walked a few hundred metres further than the suppleted sand heaps I went to last time. This material consisted of the same Pliocene layer of Oorderen sands, but you could see that these heaps have been exposed to the weather for a longer period. A lot of moss and other small plants are starting to grow in between the (broken) fossil shells, as can be seen here between the remains of a member of the Pectinidae family.
Last but not least, pretty much the find of the day, a groundshot of a broken (it's only one half) vertebra from a small whale species.
Nice job on the dead fall trap!
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,702
Travis, awesome pic! :thumbup:
CombatJJ, that's some hefty work for a lil slipjoint
What's the OAL on that slipjoint? Trying to get an idea of the size of the deer.
GS, there's always next time
CombatJJ, that's some hefty work for a lil slipjoint
What's the OAL on that slipjoint? Trying to get an idea of the size of the deer.GS, there's always next time
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,020
Swayback jack is 5.50" Mano
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,020
Took a little walk today
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,702
Thanks man :thumbup: So maybe a doe or a young buck, I'm guessing.
Not my pic, but too cool not to share. From our lil storm last night here in the Bay Area:
Not my pic, but too cool not to share. From our lil storm last night here in the Bay Area: