Top Trilo Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 I have seen several names for megalodon all with a different genus, which is correct? Edit: Another question, is cretalamna appendiculata the ancestor of otodus obliquis? Is there anything in between those if they are related? Do we know megalodon ancestry past C. appendiculata if it is directly related to O. Obliquis? 1 “If fossils are not "boggling" your mind then you are simply not doing it right” -Ken (digit) "No fossil is garbage, it´s just not completely preserved” -Franz (FranzBernhard) "With hammer in hand, the open horizon of time, and dear friends by my side, what can we not accomplish together?" -Kane (Kane) "We are in a way conquering time, reuniting members of a long lost family" -Quincy (Opabinia Blues) "I loved reading the trip reports, I loved the sharing, I loved the educational aspect, I loved the humor. It felt like home. It still does" -Mike (Pagurus) “The best deal I ever got was getting accepted as a member on The Fossil Forum. Not only got an invaluable pool of knowledge, but gained a loving family as well.” -Doren (caldigger) "it really is nice, to visit the oasis that is TFF" -Tim (fossildude19) "Life's Good! -Adam (Tidgy's Dad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 I've posted this before. Not sure how accurate it is today. 4 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kikokuryu Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Carcharodon is completely wrong as it is an unrelated group used for great whites. It was only used for megalodon when it was mistakenly believed to have been a giant great white relative. Otodus is the "most accurate" if you want to stay pure to cladistics. Once an Otodus, always an Otodus. This seems to be the most recent trend becoming increasingly popular with labeling I've seen. Thus, Carcharocles is essentially synonymous with Otodus as excluding megalodon and it's close kin from Otodus makes the genus polyphyletic. I don't know how widely agreed Cretolamna's relation to Otodus is, but if it is the direct ancestor to Otodus, then it would be Otodus as well. There may or may not be debate on that, I don't know. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Trilo Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 16 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said: I've posted this before. Not sure how accurate it is today. 16 hours ago, Kikokuryu said: Carcharodon is completely wrong as it is an unrelated group used for great whites. It was only used for megalodon when it was mistakenly believed to have been a giant great white relative. Otodus is the "most accurate" if you want to stay pure to cladistics. Once an Otodus, always an Otodus. This seems to be the most recent trend becoming increasingly popular with labeling I've seen. Thus, Carcharocles is essentially synonymous with Otodus as excluding megalodon and it's close kin from Otodus makes the genus polyphyletic. I don't know how widely agreed Cretolamna's relation to Otodus is, but if it is the direct ancestor to Otodus, then it would be Otodus as well. There may or may not be debate on that, I don't know. Thanks guys this is really helpful, is there a direct ancestor to C. appendiculata? Or does it get more complicated like the Isurus ancestry or do we just not know? “If fossils are not "boggling" your mind then you are simply not doing it right” -Ken (digit) "No fossil is garbage, it´s just not completely preserved” -Franz (FranzBernhard) "With hammer in hand, the open horizon of time, and dear friends by my side, what can we not accomplish together?" -Kane (Kane) "We are in a way conquering time, reuniting members of a long lost family" -Quincy (Opabinia Blues) "I loved reading the trip reports, I loved the sharing, I loved the educational aspect, I loved the humor. It felt like home. It still does" -Mike (Pagurus) “The best deal I ever got was getting accepted as a member on The Fossil Forum. Not only got an invaluable pool of knowledge, but gained a loving family as well.” -Doren (caldigger) "it really is nice, to visit the oasis that is TFF" -Tim (fossildude19) "Life's Good! -Adam (Tidgy's Dad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 16 minutes ago, Top Trilo said: Thanks guys this is really helpful, is there a direct ancestor to C. appendiculata? Or does it get more complicated like the Isurus ancestry or do we just not know? No idea. Someone here may know, otherwise it's time for you to do some research. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Trilo Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 1 minute ago, Tidgy's Dad said: otherwise it's time for you to do some research. Yes that too, I will definitely be doing some searching “If fossils are not "boggling" your mind then you are simply not doing it right” -Ken (digit) "No fossil is garbage, it´s just not completely preserved” -Franz (FranzBernhard) "With hammer in hand, the open horizon of time, and dear friends by my side, what can we not accomplish together?" -Kane (Kane) "We are in a way conquering time, reuniting members of a long lost family" -Quincy (Opabinia Blues) "I loved reading the trip reports, I loved the sharing, I loved the educational aspect, I loved the humor. It felt like home. It still does" -Mike (Pagurus) “The best deal I ever got was getting accepted as a member on The Fossil Forum. Not only got an invaluable pool of knowledge, but gained a loving family as well.” -Doren (caldigger) "it really is nice, to visit the oasis that is TFF" -Tim (fossildude19) "Life's Good! -Adam (Tidgy's Dad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Cretalamna appendiculata is most certainly invalid since it is used to describe teeth spanning almost 50 million years. Check out 2013 revision by Siversson, it split this species into multiple with C. appendiculata being reserved only for ~Turonian specimens from Europe of a specific morphology because this is how the original Aggasiz holotype was described. So most of the teeth described by collectors as C. appendiculata is actually not it - for example, Campanian-Maastrichtian localities in NJ/NC produce C. borealis. There is nothing about Eocene occurences in that paper though. 1 The Tooth Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts