Jump to content

drbush

Recommended Posts

Hi friends, I wish you all good health, can you help me with this?  I went to Khrase city, Rus formation, Eocene, to the east of Riyadh and found many shark teeth. It was a surface find.

can you kindly help me identify the species. It is 10mm from root lobe to crown tip , root is 10mm. 

 could it be Carcharhinus underwoodi or other sp.5e9f53cbcec0e_Carcharhinusunderwoodi1.thumb.jpg.3a4f520659e2f4cf748d2604ee99d50d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice tooth, but looks more like Galeocerdo to me. 

Let's see what the shark tooth specialists say. :)

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are both sets of pictures of your same specimen or are you doing a comparison post? :headscratch:

Dorensigbadges.JPG       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like a Triakid shark tooth to me. My first guess would be Galeorhinus ypresiensis, which is about this size, has those prominent serrations, and is from the time period.

“...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin

Happy hunting,

Mason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her I am comparing between 3 sp. this might help to re5ea0161913f66_forid.jpg.a646238183f63e48fa1d226340af48e8.jpgach to clear identification of the species. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These types of Eocene teeth can be difficult because different publications will have completely different IDs for similar teeth. It is not likely Galeorhinus because Galeorhinus will have an enamel apron hanging over the root that this tooth lacks. It is most likely one of the Physogaleus species or Galeocerdo species. There are several Galeocerdo species named from the Eocene including G. eaglesomei, G. latidens, G. alabamensis, G. clarkensis and G. latidens. Physogaleus has a similar number. What makes this difficult is there are differences in upper and lower teeth and also differences between male and female. Some authors have synonyimized several of these species while others have kept them separate.  Luckily a recent publication has tried to sort some of this out, at least for teeth from Alabama, but it can be extended to other places. The publication is "Taxonomy and biostratigraphy of the elasmobranchs and bony fishes of the lower to middle Eocene Claiborne Group in Alabama....." Using this publication as a guide, I would call this tooth "Physogaleus alabamensis" which was previously know as G. alabamensis. Here's a screenshot of several specimens from the publication.

 

 

physo alabamaensis.JPG

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...