BellamyBlake Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 I have here an alleged Carcharodon carcharias tooth from the Pliocene of Surabaya, West Java, Indonesia. It's 1.8 cm in length. I have my suspicions because it looks wide like a Meg. I'd like some further opinions. Thank you, Bellamy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thecosmilia Trichitoma Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 GW in my opinion. Too big of serrations for a meg. 1 It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt -Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Trilo Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 I think its just a different tooth position, (Not C. carcharias but you get the point) 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...
BellamyBlake Posted February 7, 2021 Author Share Posted February 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Thecosmilia Trichitoma said: GW in my opinion. Too big of serrations for a meg. 41 minutes ago, Top Trilo said: I think its just a different tooth position, (Not C. carcharias but you get the point) Excellent points, I'll accept the identification. Thank you both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhysicist Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 Tougher call, but I think it is indeed GW based on the shape of the serrations. They're more pointed/triangular than meg serrations. 1 "Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument." - Carl Sagan "I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." - Richard Feynman Collections: Hell Creek Microsite | Hell Creek/Lance | Dinosaurs | Sharks | Squamates | Post Oak Creek | North Sulphur River | Lee Creek | Aguja | Permian | Devonian | Triassic | Harding Sandstone Instagram: @thephysicist_tff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilcrazee Posted February 8, 2021 Share Posted February 8, 2021 And finally another vote for GW due the absence of a chevron or bourlette. Another useless diagnostic is the robustness of the root (difficult to judge in the photo) with GW having thinner roots. 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