5
$\begingroup$

The largest extant fish species is the whale shark (Rhincodon typus). With a length of 13 meters and a mass of about 20-30 metric tons, the whale shark is relatively small compared to the largest mammals, blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus, 180 tons) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus, 120 tons).

Is there a physical, physiological, or anatomical explanation why fish never reached the size of marine mammals?

Bigger isn't necessarily better, but I was wondering if there is a simple explanation why fish species are so much smaller than marine mammals.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

I'd suggest that one factor could be the difficulties of breathing water - it is highly inefficient. The following is a summary of this response to a TREE article.

Fish spend 10-30% of their energy on breathing because it is so inefficient to use gills because diffusion rates are much slower and oxygen is less abundant. Gills grow in proportionate scales to body size, generally for every 100% increase in body size there is a 50-90% increase in gill size. Thus the larger fish species are working on a lesser body mass/gill size ratio so they can't take up oxygen very easily.

From this I'd suggest it is difficult for fish to grow gill systems much larger than those of a whale shark as it would become to inefficient for them thrive. By comparison whales are air breathers so, despite "breathing" (collecting fresh air) less frequently they can get much more oxygen from it.

I'm sure there is more to it but at least this is a starting idea. If anyone has more then feel free to add to/edit this answer, I merely suggest this as one possible theory and it is not my field.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That is very interesting and definitely a possible reason. I was not aware of the fact that extracting oxygen from water was such an energy drain for fish. This might mean that larger fish species did exist at some point when the atmosphere (and the oceans) had a higher oxygen level. $\endgroup$
    – Bart Jacobs
    Mar 26, 2013 at 8:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ that is quite plausible: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/… $\endgroup$
    – rg255
    Mar 26, 2013 at 8:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But the metabolic rate of fish is a fraction that of mammals, so they don't necessarily require as efficient an oxygen delivery system. $\endgroup$
    – kmm
    Mar 26, 2013 at 15:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Moreover mammals have four-chambered heart which makes the cardio-vascular system more organized and efficient. Basically the mixing of oxygenated and de-oxygenated blood is prevented. $\endgroup$
    – WYSIWYG
    Apr 8, 2013 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ A nice point @WYSIWYG $\endgroup$
    – rg255
    Apr 8, 2013 at 19:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .