• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.
  • Super Maintenance

    Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates.

    Starting January 9th, site maintenance is ongoing until further notice, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into.

    We apologize for the inconvenience.

  • X/Twitter

    Due to recent news involving X, formerly Twitter and its owner, the staff of SuperHeroHype have decided it would be best to no longer allow links on the board. Starting January 31st, users will no longer be able to post direct links to X on this site, however screenshots will still be allowed as long as they follow Hype rules and guidelines.

    We apologize for any inconvenience.

Carnivorous sponge found in deep sea bed

It's amazing to still be finding new species down there.
 
I don't even want to think what creatures are in the deep trenches in our oceans.

I bet there are things down there that would make a great white shark poop its pants if it wore pants.
 
There's really no telling whats down there. Probably huge sea creatures too
 
There's really no telling whats down there. Probably huge sea creatures too
Eh...maybe. Granted, there's still a lot we have to learn about deep-sea ecosystems, but they tend to be low-energy in ecological terms. This could effectively limit the size of organisms at higher trophic levels (e.g., top predators), especially if they live exclusively in these deep-water regions. It really depends on the availability of food from the surface, as I'm not convinced that chemoautotrophs (vent organisms and bacteria) could support high-energy ecosystem structure.
 
Last edited:
It's already here!

[YT]SQmFWYWqTZA[/YT]

Search for rednecks blowing up the poor things too on google
 
Someone has done their reading. :up:
And got a degree in marine biology. :cwink:

Expanding upon what I wrote before, that really applied to organisms at higher trophic levels. The lower down on the food-chain/web you feed, the more efficiently you use energy available in the system (lower trophic levels contain greater biomass). So if we're talking about, say, the equivalent of a grazer/herbivore in terrestrial systems (most large whales also feed at a lower trophic level - they're usually secondary consumers, at about the third level), there may be something there. My money would be on large colonial organisms (like sponges, corals, bryozoans, etc.) with low metabolic rates and high levels of metabolic efficiency, which would allow them to grow to considerable size. But then again, I'm not sure this fits with your definition of a "huge sea creature."

Also, again, this applies to organisms living exclusively in these deep-sea environments. If we have an organism that makes periodic migrations to more shallow habitat, that would change many of these considerations with respect to access to food/energy. But it would also probably increase the likelihood of its discovery up until this point (then again, this assumption may be flawed).
 
Last edited:
AHCt4.jpg
 
And got a degree in marine biology. :cwink:

Expanding upon what I wrote before, that really applied to organisms at higher trophic levels. The lower down on the food-chain/web you feed, the more efficiently you use energy available in the system (lower trophic levels contain greater biomass). So if we're talking about, say, the equivalent of a grazer/herbivore in terrestrial systems (most large whales also feed at a lower trophic level - they're usually secondary consumers, at about the third level), there may be something there. My money would be on large colonial organisms (like sponges, corals, bryozoans, etc.) with low metabolic rates and high levels of metabolic efficiency, which would allow them to grow to considerable size. But then again, I'm not sure this fits with your definition of a "huge sea creature."

Also, again, this applies to organisms living exclusively in these deep-sea environments. If we have an organism that makes periodic migrations to more shallow habitat, that would change many of these considerations with respect to access to food/energy. But it would also probably increase the likelihood of its discovery up until this point (then again, this assumption may be flawed).

... I like cookies, and shiny buttons ... :csad:
 
And got a degree in marine biology. :cwink:

Expanding upon what I wrote before, that really applied to organisms at higher trophic levels. The lower down on the food-chain/web you feed, the more efficiently you use energy available in the system (lower trophic levels contain greater biomass). So if we're talking about, say, the equivalent of a grazer/herbivore in terrestrial systems (most large whales also feed at a lower trophic level - they're usually secondary consumers, at about the third level), there may be something there. My money would be on large colonial organisms (like sponges, corals, bryozoans, etc.) with low metabolic rates and high levels of metabolic efficiency, which would allow them to grow to considerable size. But then again, I'm not sure this fits with your definition of a "huge sea creature."

Also, again, this applies to organisms living exclusively in these deep-sea environments. If we have an organism that makes periodic migrations to more shallow habitat, that would change many of these considerations with respect to access to food/energy. But it would also probably increase the likelihood of its discovery up until this point (then again, this assumption may be flawed).
Well wow, thanks.
gi_joe_-_knowing_is_half_the_battle.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"