Micro shark teeth from Kiowa Formation

[Darbi]

I try to identify any fossils on my own before I post it on here, that's how I learn!

 

Anyway, I found these three shark teeth while pre-washing the matrices from Kiowa Formation (Location: Ellsworth county, Kansas. Age: Albian). A couple of them came loose during pre-washing and I found another one still in the matrix.

Tooth #1: Is this tooth from Meristodonoides sp.?
The views are from front and back of this tooth. Approximately 2mm long.

 

 

Tooth #2: Is this also from Meristodonoides sp.?

Approximately 3mm long.

 

Tooth #3: Is this from Leptostyrax sp.?  

Front and back views of this tooth. Approximately 6mm long.

[Darbi]

@MarcoSr, it seems that you know a lot about shark teeth fossils. I am hoping that you will be able to offer any inputs. Any help is much appreciated. If you can't, that's alright and do you know who I could ask for inputs on the identifications of these three shark teeth?

[MarcoSr]

If you look at the bottom of the page at the link below from the Oceans of Kansas website you can see some species from the Kiowa Shale.

 

http://oceansofkansas.com/KS-sharks.html

 

I've only searched a small amount of Kiowa shale matrix so I'm not that familiar with all of the species that can be found.  Below is a Meristodonoides sp. tooth ( 4mm) that I have from the Cenomanian Graneros Shale of Kansas.  Truthfully neither of your first two teeth look like Meristodonoides to me. The ridges on your first tooth are much more prominent than on my tooth and I don't really see ridges on your second tooth although it does look like one pictured in the Oceans of Kansas page.  I think your first tooth is a bony fish tooth.  Not sure about your second tooth.  Your third tooth should have short, strong longitudinal ridges on the crown foot labially on the cusp and cusplets if Leptostyrax.  I can't really see these ridges in the pictures. 

 

 

Marco Sr.

[Darbi]

@MarcoSr, thank you for your input. I'm a little surprised that you said my first tooth is not a shark and my second one might not be. Do you mind explaining why you thought my first one is a bony fish tooth? I mean, is there anything else other than the ridges that might explain why it is a bony fish tooth? For my second tooth, there are ridges but not as prominent as the first one. 

oceanofkansas.com is a primary resource I use to identify vertebrates from Kiowa Formation. It's a great resource for any Cretaceous fossils found in Kansas! 

[MarcoSr]

I didn't mean to imply that your second tooth might not be shark.  I meant that it might not be Meristodonoides.  It is definitely shark.  I'm just not sure of the genus/species.

 

Your first tooth looks like it has a round crown and is at least partially hollow which are features of fish teeth.  Pictures can be deceiving but that is what I see in your below picture.

 

 

Marco Sr.

[Darbi]

Okay, thank you. I'll try to get better pictures of my first tooth, including the crown. I'll get back to you later; I got sidetracked with different things in my life, so hopefully I'll remember to do that soon.

[Darbi]

On 5/2/2020 at 6:13 AM, MarcoSr said:

I didn't mean to imply that your second tooth might not be shark.  I meant that it might not be Meristodonoides.  It is definitely shark.  I'm just not sure of the genus/species.

 

Your first tooth looks like it has a round crown and is at least partially hollow which are features of fish teeth.  Pictures can be deceiving but that is what I see in your below picture.

 

 

Marco Sr.

 

 

Here's a couple pictures of the same tooth, I hope it's better pictures. The crown of this tooth is oval or more like American football-shaped.

 

 

[MarcoSr]

12 hours ago, Darbi said:

Here's a couple pictures of the same tooth, I hope it's better pictures. The crown of this tooth is oval or more like American football-shaped.

 

Wow it doesn't look like the same specimen in the new pictures.  In the first picture below the specimen looks like it has a rounded base whereas in the second picture the specimen has a flared, flattened base.  The specimen looks much more like a Meristodonoides sp. in the new pictures.  If a picture or pictures distort key tooth features, they are not good to use to try to get an accurate tooth ID.

 

 

 

 

 

Marco Sr.

[Darbi]

1 hour ago, MarcoSr said:

 

Wow it doesn't look like the same specimen in the new pictures.  In the first picture below the specimen looks like it has a rounded base whereas in the second picture the specimen has a flared, flattened base.  The specimen looks much more like a Meristodonoides sp. in the new pictures.  If a picture or pictures distort key tooth features, they are not good to use to try to get an accurate tooth ID.

 

Yeah, I noticed the difference! I think it's the poor lighting combined with bad camera angle gave it the optical illusion of a rounded crown. I think I took the pictures of the other side of this tooth. I am still learning how to use the digital microscope and take good pictures, I think I need to get a better microscope! I know it's the same specimen because it's the only independent tooth of this size I have and I kept it in a pill container. Thank you for your opinion!