Inferring the size of extinct animals is fraught with danger, especially when they were much larger than their modern relatives. Such extrapolations are particularly risky when allometry is present. The extinct giant shark †Otodus megalodon is known almost exclusively from fossilised teeth. Estimates of †O. megalodon body size have been made from its teeth, using the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) as the only modern analogue. This can be problematic as the two species likely belong to different families, and the position of the †Otodus lineage within Lamniformes is unclear. Here, we infer †O. megalodon body dimensions based on anatomical measurements of five ecologically and physiologically similar extant lamniforms: Carcharodon carcharias, Isurus oxyrinchus, Isurus paucus, Lamna ditropis and Lamna nasus. We first assessed for allometry in all analogues using linear regressions and geometric morphometric analyses. Finding no evidence of allometry, we made morphological extrapolations to infer body dimensions of †O. megalodon at different sizes. Our results suggest that a 16 m †O. megalodon likely had a head ~ 4.65 m long, a dorsal fin ~ 1.62 m tall and a tail ~ 3.85 m high. Morphometric analyses further suggest that its dorsal and caudal fins were adapted for swift predatory locomotion and long-swimming periods. Estimating the body size of exceptionally large extinct taxa is a difficult task because the fossil record is inherently incomplete and because allometry, if present, can make extrapolations hard to model. Palaeontologists therefore have to rely on the relationships between often isolated and fragmented body-part remains and length in extant relatives to estimate the body size of extinct giants 1, 2. The extinct †Otodus megalodon has been estimated to be the largest macropredatory shark known to have existed 3. Based on its fossil teeth and using the modern great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) as an analogue, it has been calculated that it reached a maximum total length (herein, TL) of ~ 15 to 18 m 3-5. †Otodus megalodon was originally classified in the family Lamnidae (order Lamniformes) with C. carcharias considered its closest living relative 3, 6-8. This classification was based on similar tooth morphologies 3, 7, 8 , which also implied that the two species shared an ecological function as apex macropredators. Carcharodon carcharias has therefore been widely used as the main modern analogue of †O. megalodon 3, 4, 9, 10. Accordingly, linear relationships between tooth crown height and TL recorded in C. carcharias 5, 11 have been used extensively to infer the size and skeletal anatomy of †O. megalodon 3-5, 9, 12-14. A detailed examination of tooth morphology challenged the relationship between C. carcharias and †O. megalodon, revealing that C. carcharias descended from a lineage that includes the mako sharks (Isurus spp.) and other closely related taxa (i.e. †Cosmopolitodus) rather than †O. megalodon 15. This hypothesis has further been supported by the fossil record of Carcharodon 16-...

Although shark teeth are abundant in the fossil record, their bodies are rarely preserved. Thus, our understanding of the anatomy of the extinct Otodus megalodon remains rudimentary. We used an exceptionally well-preserved fossil to create the first three-dimensional model of the body of this giant shark and used it to infer its movement and feeding ecology. We estimate that an adult O. megalodon could cruise at faster absolute speeds than any shark species today and fully consume prey the size of modern apex predators. A dietary preference for large prey potentially enabled O. megalodon to minimize competition and provided a constant source of energy to fuel prolonged migrations without further feeding. Together, our results suggest that O. megalodon played an important ecological role as a transoceanic superpredator. Hence, its extinction likely had large impacts on global nutrient transfer and trophic food webs.

Modern sharks have an evolutionary history of at least 250 million years and are known to play key roles in marine systems, from controlling prey populations to connecting habitats across oceans. These ecological roles can be quantified based on their functional traits, which are typically morphological (e.g., body size) or behavioural (e.g., feeding and diet). Nonetheless, the understanding of such roles of