Reebs Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Hello. I found this shark tooth in a river in Lee County, Ft. Myers Florida (a tributary of the Caloosahatchee River) and am having trouble identifying. It is .5” long x 1” wide (12.7mm x 25.4mm). Thank you for looking. Marie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reebs Posted May 12, 2020 Author Share Posted May 12, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.N.FossilmanLithuania Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Looks like hammerhead shark tooth but I am not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 That’s an odd tooth. The shape is right for a posterior Carcharhinus but is much too large. I would suggest posterior megalodon but it looks like a nutrient groove is present. Is it very thick? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixgill pete Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 57 minutes ago, Al Dente said: That’s an odd tooth. The shape is right for a posterior Carcharhinus but is much too large. I would suggest posterior megalodon but it looks like a nutrient groove is present. Is it very thick? Looking at what could be a nutrient groove, I am not convinced it is. When I look at the lingual and labial side pictures I get the impression it is stream / water wear or damage. From the shape and serrations I think it is a posterior megalodon as you suggested as a possibility. Bulldozers and dirt Bulldozers and dirt behind the trailer, my desert Them red clay piles are heaven on earth I get my rocks off, bulldozers and dirt Patterson Hood; Drive-By Truckers May 2016 May 2012 Aug 2013, May 2016, Apr 2020 Oct 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reebs Posted May 13, 2020 Author Share Posted May 13, 2020 9 hours ago, Al Dente said: That’s an odd tooth. The shape is right for a posterior Carcharhinus but is much too large. I would suggest posterior megalodon but it looks like a nutrient groove is present. Is it very thick? @Al Dente isn’t it odd!! In person, it does seem to have a nutrient groove. It has a little bit of thickness to it but not at all as thick as the other tiny posterior megs I have. I’m pretty sure my friend who hunts this river regularly for years has never found a meg or evidence of a meg in this location. But we still keep going back for the gigantic tiger, Mako and bull and the beautiful orange colors it produces. Here is a photo for thickness.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reebs Posted May 13, 2020 Author Share Posted May 13, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Here is a similar looking tooth: 1 The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reebs Posted May 13, 2020 Author Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, Shellseeker said: Here is a similar looking tooth: Ohhh, Very interesting @Shellseeker. Symphyseal did cross my mind as a possibility, and so did posterior but I am not very knowledgeable on either of these things. Thanks for the input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullStrong Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Perhaps its a lower posterior Great White. I live in the Ft Myers area and have found a couple broken GW's years ago in the Caloosahatchee. Here's an image on a TFF post of a modern GW jaw section that shows a very similar tooth. 3 “Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" Descartes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 That makes a good deal of sense. Symphyseal and parasymphyseal teeth are often smaller and narrower than the adjacent anterior teeth. I'm having a hard time picturing a really wide symphyseal (but admit that I'm only familiar with the symphyseals a few species of shark). The tooth in question does not really look as bulky as the other megalodon posteriors we've seen here but I do not recall any discussion of posterior GW teeth (till now). I think it is a reasonable new line of inquiry. Cheers. -Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixgill pete Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 The serrations look wrong for a great white to me. They look more "megish". Possibly a megalodon symphyseal? I have one that could be that rare position. @MarcoSr Bulldozers and dirt Bulldozers and dirt behind the trailer, my desert Them red clay piles are heaven on earth I get my rocks off, bulldozers and dirt Patterson Hood; Drive-By Truckers May 2016 May 2012 Aug 2013, May 2016, Apr 2020 Oct 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 17 hours ago, Reebs said: @Al Dente isn’t it odd!! In person, it does seem to have a nutrient groove. It has a little bit of thickness to it but not at all as thick as the other tiny posterior megs I have. I’m pretty sure my friend who hunts this river regularly for years has never found a meg or evidence of a meg in this location. But we still keep going back for the gigantic tiger, Mako and bull and the beautiful orange colors it produces. Here is a photo for thickness.... It can't be a meg posterior. It's just not thick enough as has been noted already. You also don't see so distinct a cusp off medial and distal heels in a meg but you do in Carcharhinus. That tooth shows moderate water wear, but for a meg to be that thin, the enameloid would have been worn off too. I thought it could be a Carcharhinus tooth with an unusually short crown relative to its width. A Carcharhinus tooth that wide came out of the mouth of a very large individual though it doesn't look like a bull or dusky. It would have to be an unusually large tooth of a species we don't see often (oceanic whitetip?). However, I think it's a large tiger shark parasymphyseal like the one Jack has a link to. Tigers get bigger than any Carcharhinus I know so that makes more sense though the tooth seems thin for that too. @isurus90064 Jess 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reebs Posted May 14, 2020 Author Share Posted May 14, 2020 You make some good points. Thank you the response, I appreciate it @siteseer ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 17 hours ago, sixgill pete said: The serrations look wrong for a great white to me. They look more "megish". Possibly a megalodon symphyseal? I have one that could be that rare position. @MarcoSr Although the root is damaged, it sure looks like the tooth has a nutrient groove to me from the pictures. The serrations and general tooth features match an extreme lower posterior tooth of a number of different Carcharhinus species. However, the size does seem a bit large for a Carcharhinus posterior tooth. I think the serrations look too uniform for a great white and the tooth is too thin to be a meg posterior tooth and too wide to be a meg symphyseal tooth. Marco Sr. 1 "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Past Hunter Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 I have one that looks similar but smaller I found at Aurora. "If you choose not to decide. You still have made a choice." - Rush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 On 5/14/2020 at 1:49 PM, MarcoSr said: Although the root is damaged, it sure looks like the tooth has a nutrient groove to me from the pictures. The serrations and general tooth features match an extreme lower posterior tooth of a number of different Carcharhinus species. However, the size does seem a bit large for a Carcharhinus posterior tooth. I think the serrations look too uniform for a great white and the tooth is too thin to be a meg posterior tooth and too wide to be a meg symphyseal tooth. Marco Sr. I keep checking in on this tooth, and I agree, Marco Sr., the tooth is worn and the root has an apparent crack but there is an incision-like break that looks too clean to be a random crack. It might be a Galeocerdo parasymphyseal, and it's in the size range, but I think it could be an unusually large Carcharhinus tooth. Jess 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reebs Posted May 20, 2020 Author Share Posted May 20, 2020 @siteseer Hi Jess, Thanks for checking back in! I’m not sure if it would be helpful but I will attach a photo of the other teeth I found in the same location for reference. The tooth in question is in the top row middle. There are definitely a few MONSTER sized Galeocerdo in that river. Also, may I ask what’s up with the Galeocerdo teeth in the top right? ...are they so short because they are posterior or is it something different? Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 Hi, Yes, the teeth on the right side up are posterior. This explains their width and their low height. Coco 1 ---------------------- OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici Un Greg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reebs Posted May 20, 2020 Author Share Posted May 20, 2020 Thank you @Coco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now