Bluntnose sixgill is about 1.50× longer by these reference values.
Bluntnose sixgill uses a 4.8 m upper reference, compared with 3.2 m for Sand tiger shark. Bluntnose sixgill's weight reference is about 3.7× heavier.
ON THE SAME SCALE
Human. Bus. Whale.
Pick your reference.
Length bars use upper comparison values and do not show body depth, tail proportion or typical adult size. A long thresher tail, for example, does not equal whale-shark body mass.
THE NUMBERS
Side by side.
WHAT THE DATA CAN SAY
Size is not the whole animal.
Length and weight
Sand tiger shark is represented by reported to about 3.2 m / 10.5 ft; Bluntnose sixgill by reported to 4.8 m / 15.8 ft. Upper records vary by region and source. Deepwater sampling is difficult, so upper records are sparse.
Bite evidence
Sand tiger shark: A reliable comparable maximum was not found. Bluntnose sixgill: No standardized maximum is available.
Living versus extinct
Both species are living, but record-sized individuals are rare. These upper references should not be read as normal adult size.
Ecology changes the matchup
Its protruding teeth look dramatic, but appearance alone does not reveal bite force. Its six gill slits mark an ancient branch of shark diversity.
TRACE THE CLAIMS