Carcharodon plicatilis
Carcharodon plicatilis, also known as giant white shark, or broad-toothed mako, is an extinct species of giant lamnid shark that lived between the Late Miocene and Early Pliocene epochs, probably between 7.1 and 3.6 millions years ago. It is also considered one of, if not, the largest species of shark of the family Lamnidae, and is considered a related species to the modern great white shark, and possibly a direct ancestor to it, or a transitional species between C. hubbelli and C. hastalis.
The body size is estimated in 5.2 and 7.6 meters in length, with a possible average size of 5 meters in length. Fossils similar to C.plicatilis was also found dating to the Early Miocene and Late Pliocene epochs, between 20 and 3 million years ago in North America, Peru and Europe. The validity of this species is in dispute, it is often considered as a junior synonym of C. hastalis, but some studies have suggested that C. plicatilis is a valid species and very closely related to the former. C. plicatilis is also known as Isurus xiphodon, depending on the classification.
Taxonomy
History
The classification of C. plicatilis is in debate. It was originally named by Louis Agassiz as species of the genus Oxyrhina, as "Oxyrhina xiphodon" or "Oxyrhina plicatilis". Glickman reclassified this species in a separate genus, Cosmopolitodus. He named the type species C. hastalis, and three other species, C. plicatilis, C. xiphodon, and C. trigonodon. In 2017 the names C. plicatilis and C. xiphodon were recombined by Alberto Collareta as junior synonyms of Carcharodon plicatilis. The name C. trigonodon is considered a junior synonym of C. hastalis, in part.Today, the C. plicatilis is placed in the genus Carcharodon, and a possible synonym of C. hastalis or a nomen dubium. But some studies of 2021 and 2023 challenged this view, suggesting that C. plicatilis is a valid species, closely related to C. hastalis, C. hubbelli, and the modern great white shark.
Many paleontologists agreed with this view, but some raised concerns about this view, suggesting that the differences highlighted may be due to sexual dimorphism within the same species.