Search the Community

I found this item On Sunday while walking the small beach at Cherry Point. Shaped similar to tooth with the ridge on lateral surface but matrix is adhered tightly and hides the contours in pictures. Any help greatly appreciated! 3 inches by 2 inches

Good afternoon, I went out to the beach by the old scout hut at Cherry Point and found several interesting items. I believe two of the pieces are fragments of a mastodon tooth. I will try to post as many pictures as possible. Thank you

This was a prep I've last year, but for some reason I've never posted it on the forum. So I thought I might change that. Last year I was fortunate enough to take a visit to the Ernst Quarries and dig for some shark teeth. Although most of the fossil I've taken home are either bones, four partial regular-sized teeth, and mostly tiny partials (some of which I accidentally damaged while digging ), the biggest find of the day was this large Cosmopolitodus hastalis tooth with its crown partially sticking out of the matrix. When Rob noticed the tooth, he initially estimated it to be ~2 inches long and insisted that I keep the tooth in the matrix, saying something like "The tooth itself is worth about $15. If you keep the tooth in the matrix, it'll be worth $60". Although my reason for visiting the Ernst Quarries was to find shark teeth to keep rather than to sell, I for some reason decided to keep the tooth in the matrix. However, I still had to prep this baby when I got home! Below is the tooth how I found it. This was going to be my first (and so far only considerate) prep I've ever done. Rob told me that the matrix can easily be scratched away using a fingernail and so taking his words and some advice I've gotten from the forum regarding something else, I grabbed one of my mom's needles and started quite literally digging off the siltstone. After around 10 minutes, a perfect root base showed up. This tooth is obviously going to be a perfect whole, so you just gotta keep scraping off the matrix. One really helpful thing I've realized at this point is that the needle I was using was perfect for such beginner's prep- it was strong enough to remove matrix effectively but not enough to do any damage to the tooth itself.

Unfortunately I am still waiting to be called back to work. I have been trying to find things to do to occupy my time. Last week was tough due to brutally cold temps. Finally we have hit a warm spell as yesterday and today hit somewhere in the 50's. I tried fishing for a few hours, but the snow melt raised the water levels and made the creeks muddy. Atleast it was a beautiful day to be outdoors. When I got home I decided to finish looking through some Permian micro matrix from Waurika, Oklahoma. I got this from @Fossildude19 who got some from @Jeffrey P . While I did not find a lot of fossils in this batch, I did find a few teeth. I found one very small Orthacanthas tooth, which I was really hoping I would and a few which I am not sure about. Also last night I finished going through the last bit of matrix from Sharktooth Hill, which I got from @caldigger in an auction lot that I won. This matrix was extremely loaded with fossils. First up is a pic of the Permian teeth.

Went to gmr for a couple hours yesterday, nothing notable except this real nice red great white it pretty good condition. The pictures make it look orange, but it is very red in person.

Went to gmr for a couple hours yesterday, nothing notable except this real nice red great white it pretty good condition. The pictures make it look orange, but it is very red in person.

Hello, found this tooth in the Round Mountain Silt formation in Bakersfield this weekend. The tooth had serrations, but they are worn down. At first I thought the tooth was a small meg, or a large hemi. Upon closer inspection it does not seem to fit either of those species well. The root is not consistent with that of a meg nor a hemi. Now I am thinking it could be some kind of Requiem shark. What do you guys think?

Last week my wife and I took a trip to North Carolina; first to visit some relatives in Raleigh, but then to head to the coast and check out the beaches and find some sharks teeth, etc. While I had read that the NC beaches were not exactly the area with the highest volume of teeth, we had not been there before and wanted to see the area and I knew that we should at least be able to find some. I had hoped to visit at least one of the quarries near the coast for some older material but had learned from a quarry operator and additional info from @sixgill pete that all the quarries that are often available for fossil hunting were still closed due to flooding from last seasons hurricanes. There have been numerous posts on here about other trips and we have lots of distinguished members from NC and nearby that are way more familiar than I am with the area and its fossil offerings, but I thought I'd give you my impression as a first timer to the area and what to expect. The weather was fine our whole trip, pretty chilly in the morning but pleasant in the afternoon. It is January after all, this is not south Florida, but then we weren't in a deep chill like our more northern friends have been recently. Dress appropriately and it was great walking the beaches. We started in North Topsail Beach and walked the beach from the 210 bridge to the New River inlet in a couple of segments and found this collection of teeth. Sorry about the scale, that was all we had with us. For those that are not familiar with the goldfish cracker, it is about 2.25 cm or just under 1 inch in length. These teeth are just found on the beaches and come from the somewhat local Pliocene and Miocene aged sediments. You can see a couple of nice teeth in the middle and several more well worn or fragmentary pieces. I'm still learning my shark teeth, but the two in the middle appear to be a Sand Tiger and a Snaggletooth (Hemipristis). The big piece is interesting (and was by far the biggest we found on the beaches), I'm not sure if it is a Mako, a Great White (no apparent serrations but it is pretty worn) or even a piece of a Megalodon (its pretty thick and heavy). Next we went a bit south to Topsail Beach and walked a good bit. We found this group of teeth down there (second pic). Another very nice Hemipristis and a variety of other, smaller teeth. On our last walk on North Topsail, a gentleman showed up just after us and found a beautiful 2" tooth just where we entered the beach. We had turned right and he turned left and there it was! Darn, just missed that one!!

Hoping to get out before the weather turned colder, headed to the freshwater creek; the water was still high and extremely cold. I was surprised when I reached "my" cowhark teeth spot to discover that someone have shoveled deep into the creek bank leaving a gaping hole; not sure if they hauled the sand, dirt and gravel away or if they just dumped in in the creek to separate stuff in the abundant flowing water. I scratched around anyway and found stuff (like always) but no cowshark and no big teeth, only a few angel shark teeth and drum teeth. There were lots of small broken ecphora laying around in the creekbed; found one nicer one though missing it's tail-tip. A few small coral clumps, an interesting oblong vert, and tiny teeth, many with cusps. I became tired of sifting with no striking rewards, so I picked up some shells which I usually avoid (they often don't survive the trip home); will post on the ID section since I'm curious what they are. Guess I''l have to find some new spots.

Last summer I picked up a couple riker mounts and have been experimenting with different ways to display my collection. I finally decided to do a Brownies Beach Sampler. I wanted to put together a sample of all the different species that I have found there over the years. I also wanted to put in my best quality teeth, so size was not a factor. Enclosed in the mount is a Hemi, thresher, cowshark, hammerhead, angel, mako, meg, lemon, requiem, sandtiger, and two different tigers.

Here I have a sample of stromatolite which we get here in Czech republic. I am planning to go and try to find some myself but don't know much about them. Here I have a couple of probably silly questions. Are there different species? Are they always being cut? Is there any way to know if it's a good sample before it's cut? Ok, as you can see I really don't know anything about it so any info will be helpful. Sample on the photo is 14x11cm.

I was out land hunting with a friend and his daughter yesterday in the pouring rain and 60 degree weather. When the rain lets up, the winds would gust adding a chill to the whole endevour. . Sloshing thru the mud puddles picking up fossils, it does not get better than this. Basically, we are hunting a middle miocene marine environment. 99% of all fossil finds are shark, whale (earbones, verts, bones, teeth), dolphin, dugong, rays and fish (tilly, mouthplates, etc). There are Equus teeth. I also found one of those yesterday. So this seemed unusual for the location. I hope TFF experts can help me narrow down what it is and is not...

Hello everyone, If you saw my most recent trip report, you know that I just found my first meg tooth! However, I'm not entirely sure whether the tooth is from Carcharocles megalodon or Carcharocles chubutensis. The tooth was found at Bayfront Park/Brownies Beach, which is the northernmost part of the Calvert Cliffs. The sediments exposed in the cliffs here are from the Calvert Formation, roughly 18-22 million years old. This would be right around the time when the great Megalodon first emerged. I remember reading that the majority of megateeth found at Brownies are chubs, but that megs have also been found there. What I'd like to know is which one my tooth is: Meg or Chub? It looks to me like if the tooth were complete, it would have the defining residual cusps of chubutensis, but unfortunately the blade is broken on both sides right by the root. The bourlette is missing, but that is a characteristic of every shark in the mega lineage so that doesn't really matter. The tooth is approximately 1 3/4 inches, and not quite as thick as I would've expected. As you can see on my trip report and Hop 5 post, my current ID for this tooth is C. chubutensis, but that is subject to change should someone with better knowledge on megatooth identification give their opinion. One last possibility is that it may be a transitional meg, meaning the shark was a blurred line between megalodon and chubutensis. Any input is appreciated. Thanks!

After just over a year of fossil collecting, I have finally found my first Meg! On Thursday, the first semester of my senior year came to an end. The next day, Friday, school was closed for a teacher work day. I figured I'd make the most of my day off by heading out to Bayfront Park. What better way to celebrate making it through the first half of senior year? I though that because it was a Friday, and rather cold, not many people would be out on the beach because they'd either be at school, work, or home because of the weather. I was right. When I arrived at a little before noon, there were only a few cars in the parking lot, and not all of them were fellow hunters. I slipped on my waders and made my way down the path, shovel and sifter in hand. Funny enough, I never actually sifted a single screen, because I didn't need to. I had no idea the tide was going to be as low as it was. But boy, was it out there. Even with a few hours before peak low tide, the entire beach was exposed and the water was calm. I stopped briefly at the cove area that people so often underestimate, and within five minutes of stepping onto the beach found a perfect little cow shark tooth laying right out in the open. That's when I knew it was going to be a good day of hunting. The tide was probably the one of the lowest I've ever seen at Brownies, so I had plenty of ground to cover. Trying not to get ahead of myself, I made sure to still walk very slowly and scan over the ground thoroughly. After about an hour, I was walking down near the water on a part of the beach that is normally submerged when I stumbled across a large tooth, half buried in the sand. My heart stopped when I spotted it. It clearly had signs of a bourlette, so I immediately knew I was looking right at my first ever meg. I pulled out my phone and began recording. I prayed that it would be whole as I carefully pried it out of the sand. To my delight, it was mostly complete, with flawless serrations and an intact tip. It had a bit of damage and it was missing the actual bourlette (must've fallen off), but I didn't mind one bit. I cleaned it off and spent marveled at the amazing tooth I had just found. I couldn't believe what was happening. After calling my friends and family and sending them the video, I carefully wrapped the tooth in tissue paper and aluminum foil to insure that it would make it home safely. There was no way I was throwing that tooth in my waders pouch like I do with the rest! I would have been more than happy if I hadn't found a single other tooth that day, but that was not the case. I continued south, and kept looking towards the water, hoping for some other nice finds. I found a fair share of decent makos, and another large but beaten up cow shark tooth. I eventually ran into a man named Scott who was hunting for the first time ever, and he showed me his backpack full of cetacean verts, including a very large whale vert. He told me he had been there since before sunrise, and hadn't had much luck with teeth, but clearly was finding verts left and right. I of course answered his question, "Any luck?" with a prompt "Oh yes, I hit the jackpot today." He congratulated me on my first meg, and we talked for a while more. He was a really cool guy, and I enjoyed helping him identify some finds and learn more about the cliffs. After my exchange with Scott, I went farther down the beach, finding more decent teeth and a few verts. At one point, I saw what was clearly another megatooth in the sand, and held my breath as I unearthed it. Unfortunately, it was only the tip of what was most likely a very large tooth. A true heartbreaker, but with everything else I had already found I couldn't complain. As the tide began to come in, I decided to head back to the entrance and make my way home. I caught up to Scott again, and we talked about my plans to become a paleontologist as we walked back up to our cars. I can say with some confidence that this was my best Brownies Beach trip ever, and perhaps even my best trip ever, period. I ended up finding a meg (although it's technically a C. chubutensis I believe), some very nice makos, a few complete cow shark teeth, hemis, sand tigers, a lot of tigers, a ray barb/spine, and a lot of fish and shark verts. I honestly don't think I could be much happier with my finds, and I am beyond thrilled to add my first megatooth to my collection! As far as a public site like Brownies goes, this is considered an extremely productive day, especially considering I only really hunted for about four hours, compared to my usual 6-7+. 2019 is certainly off to an amazing start; this is only my second hunt of the year! Thank you so much for reading my report, and here's to many more megs in the future! Here's a link to my YouTube video of finding the tooth. I will eventually be making full length videos of my hunts in the future, so please subscribe to the channel if you like! Thank you all. Also be sure to check out the Hop 5 post that will be up soon, and cast your vote for the tripmaker. Hoppe Hunting!

This was apparently published in September 2018, but it slipped past me and I’m posting it here in case it slipped past my fellow thresher lovers. The allusive serrated giant thresher has been named Alopias palatasi. Of course if you like Trigonotodus better, it is Trigonotodus palatasi. Now when I add one to my collection in the far far future, I can finally put a good label to it! Here is the description: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327871783_Kent_Ward_2018_Alopias_palatasi

Hey guys! I actually missed a week of uploading, but Cris and I got back at it and went to one of our new creek sites for some more exploration! Unfortunately, we gave it a good go and didn't find anything great. So we literally went after dark to some of our trusty old road sites where fill material is used as road fill. This turned out to be an absolutely amazing decision, and ended up being one of our best hunts on the roads to date! This video is chock-full of weirdness, and great finds! Give it a watch when you get some time

Went out Wednesday, expecting a super low tide. When I arrived I saw exposed sandbars everywhere, but there was also ice everywhere, the beach was frozen out 50 yards, ice covered (spectacular but I have had issues with wet phones, so no photos) and I quickly gave up and headed home. Tried again a few days later after warmth and rain. The tide was very low but everything seemed sand covered. There was a line of shells at the wash and I walked out 20-30 feet where I normally cannot go in my boots and picked up a few medium size chunks of whale bones, but mostly the beach seemed devoid even of much trashy stuff and no teeth. The water was super cold the beach above the tide line was frozen and pickings were scarce for the first hour. Started to leave but as the tide started in I started finding a stray tooth and other stuff here and there. Lots of small "whale bones", some dense and solid as rock, others cancelous bone and three "shrimp coprolite burrows". Found an old piece of deer skull with a hollow portion of antler attached. A porpoise tooth. And a tooth, claw or bone (?) with longitudinal fine enameled stripes, somewhat hollow on the other side. I'm sure more was moved by the storms last week, just need the layer of sand to be washed out.

For millennia, humankind has been fascinated by the hard-external shell of the organisms classified within the Phylum Mollusca. Consumed first as food, their empty shells have served multiple functions in the past; as tools in many ancient cultures, in religious ceremonies by the Aztecs, and money by Pacific Islanders. During the Age of Discovery, sailors could supplement their meager incomes by selling exotic seashells to wealthy gentlemen for their Cabinets of Curiosity. Today many people first become enchanted with seashells by picking up worn beached shells during a vacation to the shore. If fortunate to live by the ocean, a newbie might branch off into the live collection of shallow water mollusks while those more land bound might start by purchasing foreign, deep-water or rare specimens. Because of the shear abundance of marine mollusk species, the more advanced collector will begin to concentrate on a single or small number of molluscan families, acquiring as many of those species as possible, spending major capital for the rarest. Among the gastropods, one of the most popular families to collect due to its beauty are species of the family Cypraeidae commonly known as the cowries. Members of this family are known for their egg shaped, brightly colored shells with a narrow slit-like aperture and most notably a porcelain-like glossy shell that is produced by the animal’s soft mantle which when fully extended, covers and polishes the external shell. Cowries are common worldwide across tropical and subtropical seas even with a few temperate species tolerant of colder water. Because of their popularity as a biologic collectible, the desire to create new species with minute differences or found at diverse localities have resulted in a large amount of species splitting. Fabio Moretzson (2014) termed this as taxonomic ‘noise’, much of it from non-peer reviewed amateur publications with new species descriptions based mostly on shell characteristics. Moretzsohn and the editorial board of the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) have attempted to clean up much of the ‘noise’ through review of molecular and anatomical data reducing over 1000 different names to 245 species and 166 subspecies (2013). Paleontology is not immune to the proclivities of the cowrie collector. Going back to at least the Cretaceous, fossil Cypraeidae are also sought and commercially sold with notable species found in the Eocene and Oligocene of Europe, the Miocene of Indonesia, and the Oligocene and Miocene of Australia. In general, fossil cowries are rare with the notable exception of the genus Siphocypraea from the Upper Pliocene of the Southeastern United States. Unlike other cowries which have a distinct spire in their immature bulla stage, Siphocypraea has a depression over the apex resulting in either an open or spiral apical sulcus in adults. Anyone who has collected from the Plio-Pleistocene shell pits of South Florida has encountered these shells in abundance with a staggering amount of variation in characteristics. In this post, I will review the publication history of Siphocypraea and in doing so describe the different interpretations of its speciation. T.A. Conrad (1841) described one of the first fossil cowries found in the United States from a specimen discovered at a sink hole in Duplin County, North Carolina. This species that he named Cypraea carolinensis, was listed from Miocene deposits now considered as Upper Pliocene Duplin Formation. Later in 1886 Angelo Heilprin in his paleontological explorations of South Florida described a cowrie found within Pliocene (now considered Lower Pleistocene) marl deposits uncovered in canal construction along the Caloosahatchee River. Due to its unusual comma-shaped apical sulcus, he named it Cypraea (Siphocypraea) problematica. At this point in time, no other Neogene cowries were described for almost 50 years. The Florida development boom began in the early 20th Century and during the construction of the Tamiami Trail connecting Florida’s west and east coasts, draglines encountered a molluscan rich sand near the Monroe-Dade County line. Among the endemic Miocene (today Pliocene) fauna were large cowries which W.C. Mansfield noticed were very similar to the species found in North Carolina. Mansfield (1931) named it Cypraea carolinensis floridana differing from the type by being more elongated and having a rounder ventral area. The following year Mansfield described a near perfect specimen of C. carolinensis carolinensis from what is now called the Jackson Bluff Formation thereby extending its range to the Florida Panhandle. The German malacologist F.A. Schilder (1932) noting similarities between Cypraea mus, a recent Venezuelan species and Heilprin’s Cypraea (Siphocypraea) problematica assigned C. mus to the subgenera Siphocypraea. Woodring (1959) would disagree with placing C. mus into Siphocypraea instead, he created a new subgenera Muracypraea for C. mus and its associated fossil species. Disregarding a similar bulla stage apical depression with C. carolinensis, Julia Gardner (1948) in her monograph of the Miocene and Pliocene molluscan fauna of North Carolina and Virginia, proposed a new section name, Akleistostoma for C. carolinensis and C. mus. One of the more seminal works in Florida biostratigraphy and paleontology in the 1960s was by Alex Olsson and Richard Petit (1964). In Part 1 Olsson clarified the stratigraphy and associated fossils that were being exposed in shell pits, new canals, and the channelization of the Kissimmee River, by dividing the Neogene of Florida into four units: The Tamimi Limestone in Unit D, the Pinecrest in Unit C, the Caloosahatchee in Unit B and an unnamed Unit A which would later be known as the Bermont Formation and allied these units to their Mid-Atlantic counterparts. In Part 2, Olsson and Petit named new species and correlated known species into their corresponding unit. In the process they raised Siphocypraea to genus level noting the extreme variation seen in the genus particularly in the Kissimmee River area. They questioned how many of these variants should be named but did find two forms that were numerous enough to assign as subspecies of S. carolinensis; S. carolinensis hughesi a very broad elliptical form and S. carolinensis transitoria which shows characteristics transitional between S. carolinensis and S. floridana. Later Olsson and Petit (1968) expanded upon their views on Siphocypraea by assigning Cypraea mus as Siphocypraea (Muracypraea) mus and reassigning Cypraea chilona found in the Miocene Chipola Formation as Siphocypraea chilona. No other United States Siphocypraea were described until the work of Ed Petuch began in the late 1970s first with the description of a new extant species within the Caribbean. Petuch worked in the Florida Neogene at a time when many pits and construction projects were exposing sediments containing species new to science. One of these exposures was in a housing project west of Miami in which the digging of a lake exposed a fossil shell deposit with mollusks having close affinities to the Upper Pliocene of the Mid-Atlantic region. Among the new species was a Cypraea in which Petuch (1986) named C. lindae. Also found were a diminutive cowrie which he associated with Cypraea pilsbryi an obscure species named by Ingram (1939) from the Cape Fear River in North Carolina. Petuch (1994) would later reassign both to Siphocypraea. During this era, Petuch was not the only researcher naming new Siphocypraea species. In 1988 Juan Parodiz of the Carnegie named a species with similarities in between S. carolinensis and S. problematica naming it S. trippeana. Within the same paper Parodiz elevated Olsson and Petit’s subspecies S. transitoria and S. hughesi to species level. In 1991, Petuch named three additional Siphocypraea; S. mulepenensis, S. griffini and S. herweckorum, however it was with the release of his Atlas of Florida Fossil Shells in which the naming of species really began to exponentially increase. Without going through each individual name, Petuch (1994) named 12 new Siphocypraea species, followed by his 1996 publication creating a new genera Calusacypraea for those Siphocypraea which exhibit neotenic (juvenile traits in adult form) moving his S. sarasotaensis into this generic assignment and naming three new species. Before the 20th Century concluded, a German researcher, Dirk Fehse (1997) named two additional Siphocypraea species from the Caloosahatchee Formation. The number of Siphocypraea species were artificially reduced by Petuch (2004) when he resurrected Gardner’s Akleistostoma as a genus for all Siphocypraea having a simple anterior sulcus with a widely opening posterior aperture and a new genus, Pseudadusta for those species with a comma shaped anterior sulcus and a narrow posterior aperture. In addition, and without going into much detail here, within the same publication he created a new subgenus within Calusacypraea called Myakkacypraea and two new subgenera within Siphocypraea; Okeechobea and Pahayokea. Within this entire Siphocypraea complex he named nine new species. In his book on the Geology of the Everglades, Petuch (2007) pictured two internal casts, one Akleistostoma and the other Calusacypraea from the Lower Pliocene Peace River Formation which if accurate fills in a large gap between the Chipola species S. chilona and the Upper Pliocene S. carolinensis. Naming of new species continued in Petuch’s unpublished book Compendium of Florida fossil shells (2011). He gave a name to the Akleistostoma internal cast and named four new subgenera to Akleistostoma and 13 new Pliocene species. For Siphocypraea he created three new subgenera and 11 species while upgrading his two Siphocypraea subgerera from 2003 to genus level. Thus, genus Pahayokea has two new subgenera and six new species and genus Okeechobea one new subgenus and eight new species. For Calusacypraea, the Miocene cast, one new subgenus and one new Pliocene species were named. Lastly with his genus Pseudadusta Petuch named two new subgenera and 11 new species. In all 52 new species of the Siphocypraea complex were named in this one work. Just last year Petuch (2018) published his latest book concentrating solely on the fossil Cypraeidae of South Florida. I have yet to acquire this book, however it advertises the description of over 100 species, so there must be additional new species that would add to this total, three that I know of for sure. WoRMS has tried to cleanup some of this taxonomic splitting by failing to recognize any of Petuch’s genera instead accepting only Siphocypraea and Akleistostoma. Also, they have upgraded the Caribbean fossil and extant species classified under Siphocypraea (Muracypraea) to full genus recognition as Muracypraea. Under this interpretation, Siphocypraea/Akleistostoma were restricted to the flooded Southeastern United States and became extinct with S. problematica in the Lower Pleistocene. WoRMS did not challenge the 90-species listed prior to 2018 as it is a register for extant species however its acceptance of Akleistostoma has caused some problems with the systematics of Siphocypraea. As defined by Gardner, Cypraea carolinensis would be Akleistostoma carolinensis and as defined by Petuch any Cypraeidae with a simple anterior sulcus. Heilprin’s definition of Siphocypraea could therefore be interpreted broadly as any Cypraeidae with a comma shaped anterior sulcus. There are many workers of Florida molluscan paleontology that except this believing that there are only two species; carolinensis and problematica. However, to accept that viewpoint is to ignore the transitional forms and variation that was occurring in South Florida during the Upper Pliocene. Accepting Olsson & Petit’s view that Gardner created an unnecessary classification with Akleistostoma and that the depressed apex in the Bulla stage is the defining characteristic in Siphocypraea would clarify the inconsistencies with the evolution of S. carolinensis/floridana to the endpoint S. problematica. It is why I have chosen to use only Siphocypraea in my collection. The ultimate question is how many species of Siphocypraea are there? That is not the scope of this post and would require a lot of work which would certainly be contested and contentious. I do believe there are more than five and less than hundred. I believe all species up to Olsson and Petit. I believe that some of Petuch’s species are valid, but exactly which ones are hard to say. His practice of creating subgenera that he later elevates to genus and description of species within depositional beds and those interpreted beds in different geographically regions make it difficult to say which are species and which are synonyms. What I have tried to do below is to bin different characters and variations of Siphocypraea within my collection from degree of anterior sulcus coiling and the opening of the posterior aperture. Siphocypraea chilona (Dall, 1890). Lower Miocene (Burdigalian) Chipola Formation, Liberty County, Florida USA. Shell is nearly round with a high convex dorsum and a narrow aperture uniform throughout. Even crenulations of both sides of the aperture. When preserved, the color pattern is of large reddish spots. Not uncommon at Alum Bluff. Both WoRMS and Petuch would assign this species to the genus Akleistostoma. Siphocypraea carolinensis (Conrad, 1841). Upper Pliocene Duplin Formation. Left: Darlington County, South Carolina USA. Right: Florence County, South Carolina USA. The specimen on the left is typical of S. carolinensis, subovate with a simple anterior sulcus, wide posterior aperture, denticles on parietal lip are weak. The dorsum or top of shell can be variable with some gerontic specimens being relatively high. The dorsum height of the specimen on the right is closer to S. floridana but all other characteristics are consistent with S. carolinensis. Also, Akleistostoma. Siphocypraea pilsbryi (Ingram, 1939). Upper Pliocene Duplin Formation, Bladen County, North Carolina USA. The best way to describe this species is as a miniature S. carolinensis. I had this listed as a dwarf form of S. carolinensis until I came upon the paper describing Cypraea pilsbryi in researching this post. The type locality is the Cape Fear River and I found several examples of this species on a tributary of the Cape Fear. Little is found online about this species although Petuch has reported it from South Florida. Also, Akleistostoma. Siphocypraea carolinensis floridana (Mansfield, 1931). Upper Pliocene Pinecrest Sand Member of the Tamiami Formation, Sarasota County, Florida USA. The specimen on the left is a gerontic individual from APAC, on the right typical S. floridana from SMR. Highly variable much more so than S. carolinensis. The dorsum tends to be not as high as S. carolinensis and parietal denticles are more strongly expressed but shares the uncoiled anterior sulcus and wide posterior aperture. This is the common Siphocypraea found in the Sarasota shell pits. Also, Akleistostoma. Siphocypraea sarasotaensis Petuch, 1994. Upper Pliocene Pinecrest Sand Member of the Tamiami Formation, Sarasota County, Florida USA. First described as a Siphocypraea, Petuch later classified this species with his Calusacypraea genus which is defined by neotenic characteristics such as an undeveloped anterior sulcus and very light weight. Many researchers feel that this species is merely a variation of S. floridana (Lyle Campbell pers. comm.). WoRMS classification Akleistostoma while Petuch would call this species Calusacypraea myakka. Siphocypraea briani (Petuch, 1994). Upper Pliocene Pinecrest Sand Member of the Tamiami Formation, Sarasota County, Florida USA. Described as Calusacypraea briani and differentiated from S. sarasotaensis by having a larger and longer shell. I have placed this shell as S. briani however it could be a gerontic individual of S. sarasotaensis. Some Cypraeidae demonstrate sexual dimorphism which could explain the larger size as well. WoRMS classification Akleistostoma, Petuch Calusacypraea. Siphocypraea lindae (Petuch, 1986). Upper Pliocene Golden Gate Member of the Tamiami Formation, Collier County, Florida USA. Very close to S. carolinensis with a high dorsum and simple sulcus but with a narrower posterior aperture and stronger denticles on parietal lip. Petuch assigns this species in his genus Pseudadusta. Siphocypraea trippeana Parodiz, 1988. Upper Pliocene Pinecrest Sand Member of the Tamiami Formation, Sarasota County, Florida USA. Typically, shell is small and narrow with a high dorsum. The sulcus has a slight bend more so than the S. carolinensis complex, described as a keyhole appearance and a narrow aperture like S. problematica. Siphocypraea ketteri Petuch, 1994. Upper Pliocene Golden Gate Member of the Tamiami Formation, Collier County, Florida USA. Another form transitional between S. carolinensis and S. problematica. Differs from S. trippeana by having a wider shell and flattened base with noticeable wrinkles along the base. Petuch assigns this species in the genus Pseudadusta. Siphocypraea hughesi Olsson & Petit, 1964. Upper Pliocene Pinecrest Sand Member of the Tamiami Formation, Highlands County, Florida USA. Restricted to the Kissimmee River area. Distinctive shape, wide and squat. Anterior sulcus approaching that of S. problematica. Petuch assigns this species to Akleistostoma (Olssonicypraea). Siphocypraea transitoria Olsson & Petit, 1964. Upper Pliocene Pinecrest Sand Member of the Tamiami Formation, Sarasota County, Florida USA. Although common in the Kissimmee River area, this specimen is from APAC in Sarasota where it is much rarer. Very close to S. problematica with slightly less coiling of the anterior sulcus and a slightly wider posterior aperture. Petuch would call this Siphocypraea streami. Siphocypraea mulepenensis Petuch, 1994. Upper Pliocene Golden Gate Member of the Tamiami Formation, Collier County, Florida USA. Like S. problematica with a comma shaped anterior sulcus and narrow aperture. The shell differs in being shorter with a pyriform shape. The shell around the anterior sulcus noticeably protrudes. Siphocypraea problematica (Heilprin, 1886). Lower Pleistocene (Calabrian) Caloosahatchee Formation, Martin County, Florida USA. The shell is long and narrow with a comma-shaped anterior sulcus and narrow posterior aperture. Well preserved individuals demonstrate a rich golden color. Siphocypraea swearingeni Petuch & Drolshagen, 2011. Lower Pleistocene (Calabrian) Caloosahatchee Formation, Martin County, Florida USA. I found numerous specimens of this form in mixed spoil with the S. problematica pictured above and based on the adhering matrix, it appears that they came from a different layer. Wider and shorter than S. problematica, this could be an environmental variant of it. I was hesitant to put a Petuch 2011 name on this population as there could very well be an earlier name that would take precedent, however it does fit very closely to the figures of S. swearingeni in Petuch 2018. Muracypraea mus (Linnaeus, 1754). Recent. Judibana Bay, Venezuela in sea grass beds at 1-3 feet depth. Also known as the mouse cowrie, this species was once classified as Siphocypraea. Since M. mus has two obvious nodes on each side of the mantle line on posterior end of the dorsum and the sulcus fills with callous as it matures, it was placed within a separate genus. Although restricted to Venezuela and Eastern Columbia, its ancestor M. henekeni had a widespread Caribbean distribution in the Miocene. REFERENCES Conrad, T. A. 1841. Appendix to: Observations on the Secondary and Tertiary formations of the southern Atlantic States, by James T. Hodge. Am. Journ. Sci., vol. xli, 1st ser., pp. 332-348. Dirk Fehse. 1997. Two new fossil Siphocypraea from Florida, U.S.A. - Schriften zur Malakozoologie, Heft 10: 38-44, pl. 12-13, 1 tab. Gardner, J. A. 1948. Mollusca from the Miocene and Lower Pliocene of Virginia and North Carolina: Part 2. Scaphopoda and Gastropoda, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 199-B: iv, pages 179-310, plates 24-38, [iii]. Heilprin, Angelo. 1887. Explorations on the west coast of Florida and in the Okeechobee wilderness: with special reference to the geology and zoology of the Floridian peninsula: a narrative of researches undertaken under the auspices of the Wagner Free Institute of Science of Philadelphia. Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science of Philadelphia v. 1 Ingram, W. M. 1939. A new fossil cowry from North Carolina. The Nautilus 52(4):120-121. Mansfield, W.C. 1930. Miocene Gastropods and Scaphopods of the Choctawhatchee Formation of Florida, Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 3, 189 pages. Mansfield, W.C. 1931. Some tertiary mollusks from southern Florida. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, v. 79. Moretzson, Fabio. 2014. Cypraeidae: How well-inventoried is the best-known seashell family? American Malacological Bulletin. 32(2): 278-289. Olsson, A.A., and R.E. Petit. 1964. Some Neogene Mollusca from Florida and the Carolinas, Bulletins of American Paleontology 47(217): pages 509-574, plates 77-83 Olsson, A.A., and R.E. Petit. 1968 (1993 Reprint). Notes on Siphocypraea, Originally - Special Publication 9, The Paleontological Research Institute Special Publication 19: pages 77-88. Parodiz, J.J. 1988. A new species of Siphocypraea (Gastropoda, Cypraeidae) from the Neogene of southwest Florida. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 57(3): 91–97. Petuch, Edward J. 1979. A New Species of Siphocypraea (Gastropoda: Cypraeidae) from Northern South America with Notes on the Genus in the Caribbean. Bulletin of Marine Science -Miami- 29(2):216-225. Petuch, Edward J. 1986. Cenozoic The Pliocene reefs of Miami: their geomorphological significance in the evolution of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, southeastern Florida, USA. Journal of Coastal Research 2(4). Petuch, Edward J. 1991, New Gastropods from the Plio-Pleistocene of Southwestern Florida and the Everglades Basin. W.H. Dall Paleontological Research Center Special Publication Number 1. Petuch, Edward J. 1994. Atlas of Florida Fossil Shells (Pliocene and Pleistocene Marine Gastropods). Chicago Spectrum Press. Petuch, Edward J. 1996. Calusacypraea, a new, possibly neotenic genus of cowries from the Pliocene of southern Florida. Nautilus 110(1): 17-21 . Petuch, Edward J. 2004. Cenozoic Seas. CRC Press. Petuch, Edward J. 2007. The Geology of the Everglades and Adjacent Areas. CRC Press. Petuch, Edward J. and Mardie Drolshagen. 2011. Compendium of Florida Fossil Shells, Vol. 1 Middle Miocene to Late Pleistocene Marine Gastropods: Families Strombidae, Cypraeidae, Ovulidae, Eocypraeidae, Triviidae, Conidae, and Conilithidae [unpublished]. Petuch, Edward J. David P. Berschauer, Robert F. Myers. 2018. Jewels of the Everglades: The Fossil Cowries of Southern Florida. San Diego Shell Club, 256 pp. Schilder, F.A. 1932. Fossilium Catalogus, I, Animalia. Pars 55. Cypraeacea, 276 pp. Woodring, Wendell Phillips. 1957. Muracypraea, new subgenus of Cypraea: Nautilus, v. 70, no. 3, p. 88–90,

I'm trading a bunch of fossils mainly from Utah and Wyoming but some other locations as well. In return I'm looking for theropod teeth, ammonites, trilobites, crabs, gastropods, and more shark teeth or anything else that's interesting. You can reply here directly or PM me. I'll post another set some time later this week. Here is the assortment. Wyoming Knightia (Green River Formation, Eocene) Assortment of brachiopods, a crinoid holdfast in the middle, and pyritized worm burrows from Paulding Co, Ohio (Silica Shale, Devonian) Fossilized Great White tooth from Cape Town Another Great White: Knightia Elrathia kingii (Wheeler Shale Utah, Cambrian) The following Wyoming Knightia (Green River Formation, Eocene) Some are in better condition. There's a couple that haven't been completely prepared. I know some of you like to prepare your own fossils: Elrathia kingii More Paulding Ohio fossils (horned corals and brachiopods): A Phareodus scale: Another Great White: A St. Mary's formation Chesapecten conglomerate from Calvert Cliffs, MD:

Good day, I was given this meg tooth to add to my collection of teeth I find in a South Africa. Initially I thought the root was incomplete but I’ve since noticed the root has two symmetrical dimples on the top unlike any other tooth I have, any help with identifying why this is would be greatly appreciated. regards Pamar.

I was given this Megalodon tooth that comes in just under 2”. It was found along Cape Towns West Coast and will make a nice addition to my own finds. regards Pamar. I believed the root to be broken but noticed two symmetrical dimples on the top - I haven’t seen this on meg teeth before does anyone know what they are?

This Cuban meg is not perfect, they rarely are, but it’s one of my favorites. The color is insane, one of a kind Cuban fire. 4.31”

Found within two feet of my other Megalodon tooth. Temblor Formation, mid. Miocene, Bakersfield, California

Found a bone piece, maybe 2 1/2" at its longest, solid and heavy for its size. The 'bottom' is partly "stippled" (not part of the atlas vertebra, as I learned here recently). Different textures on different sides, the small protuberance is remarkable for the number of holes and channels (for blood vessels? nerve bundles?), at least one passing straight through. @Boesse you seem to be the acknowledged expert here. Do I have enough and are the photos (sorry!) clear enough to guess at an ID?