That was what I read, mostly, but the hypoxia in question was 0.5 ml O2/L. Furthermore, I seem to remember that the limit was a reference to a different study, and was not part of the study I linked to. I didn't check the citation of those figures, nor the cetacean for their figures.A study of 2 sharks, 114 cm (baby) and 191cm (adolescent) is hardly enough evidence to make that conclusion; moreover, they even presented data that the sharks did swim in very low oxygenated waters where levels were less than 1.5 ml O2/L for 20 minutes meaning that the study actually indicated that sharks can tolerate low oxygenated waters. Moreover the paper goes on to say that while it used to be thought that highly aerobic fish such as billfish and tuna had a lower tolerance of 3.5 ml O2/L "recent information from archival tagging indicates that many highly aerobic tuna and billfish species, such as bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin tuna, and swordfish, are capable of occasional deep vertical excursions that can expose them to oxygen concentrations below 1.5 ml/L." As a result I am not even convinced that low oxygen concentrations are a problem for highly aerobic fish and sharks.
Sometimes a picture IS worth a thousand words, but not necessarily if the picture is posted by fishermen. There is a tendency to make "glamour" poses of sharks that tend to distort realistic physiology. What I was getting at is that any jaw, whether a real jaw, or any other kind of gripping device of that nature, will have a certain size object that it can't pick up. For instance, my hands are large enough to palm a basketball, so I can pick up a sphere of that size with one hand. However, given a firm balloon of just slightly larger size, I can't pick it up with a single hand because the gape width between thumb and fingers doesn't encompass enough of the curvature to be able to get a purchase. Similarly, a sufficiently large cylinder would appear as a flat surface to a jaw, and a jaw can't normally bite into a flat surface. That wouldn't be the case if the teeth can be projected, which may be the case for sharks, but, just as our own noses would get in the way if we tried to take a bite out of a wall, the nose of a mako would be even more problematic.Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Structurally it is almost identical to the jaw of a Great White Shark meaning there should be no problems biting anything larger than itself.
Not sure what you mean, see the dead Makos at the bottom of the link I posted to see that the nose is not very large and would not obstruct feeding in any way meaning they should be able to feast on whales of any size.
You have consistently discounted orcas eating makos because they appear to do so only in packs, yet when it comes to other fish, that doesn't cause you any concern at all. You speculate as to what other non-pack hunting fish would be able to do if they worked as a pack, yet reject what orcas do because they work as a pack (though it isn't clear that they worked in a concerted fashion to kill any of the sharks mentioned in the articles, and only worked in concert to consume the shark once dead).Don't forget fish such as Wahoo and tuna or other similarly fast fish with teeth strong enough to cut through mammal flesh capable of cooperating to devour Orcas and even Blue whales if found in large enough concentrations. Then you have to go up the food chain to get to the sharks and then to the apex shark which is almost certainly the Mako. Also the Catchalot is another potential Orca predator theoretically capable of using the largest teeth in the animal kingdom, a weight advantage, and great deep diving abilities to ambush the Orcas from below.
You really shouldn't, as I was clearly correct.I disagree with you there Shaggy.
No doubt. There is nothing like reality to make a fiction of your fantasy.At this point I am happy with it as is thank you Shaggy.
And with that, I'm into the woods.