Why are fossilized Great White Shark Teeth few and far between?

[Jess1313]

I've been looking around for a fossilized great white shark tooth for some time now and it seems like there just aren't many to choose from. The price also seems crazy for them. Are they more desirable than other fossilized shark teeth? It seems like I can get a small Meg for the cost of a Great White. My aunt has been wanting one, but I'm more confused on the price and availability of them. Are they more rare than Megs? Or are they just more desired? I don't want to get a modern one because of the way sharks are hunted. Does anyone know of why the prices and availability are they way they are?

[ThePhysicist]

I would say it's certainly a highly-desirable species, and that probably is the greatest contribution to their cost. Everyone knows about GW. Their roots are also notorious for being commonly broken, so complete teeth are even more costly. As for their rarity, I would say they're uncommon so that may also contribute. 

 

I'm glad you are looking into fossil teeth rather than modern. There are many incomplete teeth which are much more affordable, if you're just looking to have a tooth from a GW. If you want a sizeable complete tooth, you just have to search for the best deal for your budget.

[Jess1313]

17 minutes ago, ThePhysicist said:

I would say it's certainly a highly-desirable species, and that probably is the greatest contribution to their cost. Everyone knows about GW. Their roots are also notorious for being commonly broken, so complete teeth are even more costly. As for their rarity, I would say they're uncommon so that may also contribute. 

 

I'm glad you are looking into fossil teeth rather than modern. There are many incomplete teeth which are much more affordable, if you're just looking to have a tooth from a GW. If you want a sizeable complete tooth, you just have to search for the best deal for your budget.

Thank you! I did notice that the ones I found out there where broken at the root. 

[Shellseeker]

 

I love them all... Peace River teeth.

Megalodon (Otodus megalodon),^[6][7][8] meaning "big tooth", is an extinct species of shark that lived approximately 23 to 3.6 million years ago (mya), during the Early Miocene to the Pliocene.^[9]

 

Quote

Reanalysis of the dataset using optimal linear estimation resulted in a median extinction date of 3.51 Ma, somewhat older than a previously proposed Pliocene-Pleistocene extinction date (2.6 Ma). Post-middle Miocene oceanographic changes and cooling sea surface temperature may have resulted in range fragmentation, while alongside competition with the newly evolved great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) during the Pliocene may have led to the demise of the megatoothed shark

The above  quote from a scientific paper : The Early Pliocene extinction of the mega-toothed shark Otodus megalodon: a view from the eastern North Pacific. https://peerj.com/articles/6088/

One of our members is a co_Author. @Boesse

 

The Great White shark has only a few million years to drop teeth over the ocean's floor, whereas Megalodon had 20 million years. Less time = fewer teeth = more costly.  This is in addition to the fact that roots are notoriously fragile.

[Jess1313]

17 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

 

I love them all... Peace River teeth.

Megalodon (Otodus megalodon),^[6][7][8] meaning "big tooth", is an extinct species of shark that lived approximately 23 to 3.6 million years ago (mya), during the Early Miocene to the Pliocene.^[9]

 

The above  quote from a scientific paper : The Early Pliocene extinction of the mega-toothed shark Otodus megalodon: a view from the eastern North Pacific. https://peerj.com/articles/6088/

One of our members is a co_Author. @Boesse

 

The Great White shark has only a few million years to drop teeth over the ocean's floor, whereas Megalodon had 20 million years. Less time = fewer teeth = more costly.  This is in addition to the fact that roots are notoriously fragile.

I didn't think of that. Thank you for sharing!

[siteseer]

On 3/25/2021 at 6:21 PM, Jess1313 said:

I've been looking around for a fossilized great white shark tooth for some time now and it seems like there just aren't many to choose from. The price also seems crazy for them. Are they more desirable than other fossilized shark teeth? It seems like I can get a small Meg for the cost of a Great White. My aunt has been wanting one, but I'm more confused on the price and availability of them. Are they more rare than Megs? Or are they just more desired? I don't want to get a modern one because of the way sharks are hunted. Does anyone know of why the prices and availability are they way they are?

 

Yes, even people who don't collect fossils want a great white shark tooth.  Part of it is the fascination we have always had with "sea monsters" though we have learned almost all of them are just mythical but great whites are real animals that can reach 20 feet long.   Many people consider the species the ultimate predator especially after the release of the "Jaws" novel and movie so they want a piece of that whether as sort of a status symbol, a conversation piece, or just something cool.  It's why people used to buy lion skulls and why they still buy Tyrannosaurus teeth.  An old friend used to go to shows wearing a necklace with a large great white tooth set in gold. 

 

Once in San Pedro, CA, I stopped by a roadside stand.  A guy was selling souvenirs like t-shirts and seashells and he had a locally-collected fossil shark tooth for sale too.  He said it was a blue shark tooth but I looked at it and pointed out that it was actually a small great white and told him the difference.  Suddenly, it was no longer for sale.  It had great color - blue and yellow. 

 

There have been sites in California where great whites are by far the most common shark tooth found but a lot of those sites have neighborhoods on top of them now (Costa Mesa, San Diego, etc.).  Back in the 60's, the local collectors were actually happy to find a mako or a dusky to break up the monotony.  These days, you don't see many from California on the market anymore.  People still find them but tend to keep them, and as said before, a lot of teeth have broken roots.  There's a big demand for complete ones as specimens though some jewelry makers like the ones with broken roots because they're easier to wrap or set in silver or gold. 

 

There was a time in the 90's when lots of fossil great white teeth were coming out of Pliocene deposits in Peru and then even more from Chile.  I saw baskets of teeth sorted by size at a Tucson show and all those teeth sold and that doesn't count all the teeth that were sold in Europe and elsewhere.  However, both the Peruvian and Chilean governments outlawed fossil exports by the early 2000's.  You can still teeth from both countries for sale but they are recirculated specimens from 90's collections bumped up a few times in price.

 

I suggest keeping your eyes open.  Go to local gem and jewelry shows when they start up again.  Familiarize yourself with what great white teeth look like.  You might find someone with teeth for sale.  I once found a few small great whites just a few years ago at a show in Tampa, Florida.

 

Jess

[Shellseeker]

6 hours ago, siteseer said:

I suggest keeping your eyes open.  Go to local gem and jewelry shows when they start up again.  Familiarize yourself with what great white teeth look like.  You might find someone with teeth for sale.  I once found a few small great whites just a few years ago at a show in Tampa, Florida.

Good insights, Jess

Even in the Florida locations where they are found, I never find more than a few.

I gift Megs as presents to family members who seek them, but never GWs.

[siteseer]

Hi Jack,

 

You know that there are actually a number of sites in Florida where you can find a great white but they weren't fast finds in the old days and many of those sites are a lot less productive or are no longer accessible.  I think they were rare finds in the uppermost Bone Valley layers.  They were known from Leisey Shell Pit and some of the shell pits south of that as well as being occasional beach finds around the state.

 

That tooth is a beauty.  Great color and serrations.

 

Jess

[Dan the digger]

I posted some pics of angustidens ,Makos,etc if you look at the pic with the Squaladon whale Teeth ,theres a Great White in the pic on top ,,In the location I hunt the most ,Great Whites are fairly common ,If you havnt found yet,let me know ,Ill send you one for free.Ive got thousands of fossil teeth Ive collected from thousands of hours spent either screening this fossil rich creek or digging in the "layer' .Ive also got some from diving ,but I prefer the teeth that come rigjht out of the matrix.soem of them look like they fell out of the sharks mouth the day before ,full enamel ,all serrations are there and still sharp ,Ive cut my hands on teeth before ,when raking them into my screen .(Ive also been diving in what we call "pudding diving " in the coastal rivers of SC ,where you cant see anything period because of the soft"pluff mud" that you are running your hands through ,feeling for teeth and grab whagt you think is a nice Meg and it pinches the snarge out of your finger because it turns out its a blue crab not a nice Meg. But let me know if youd like a great white,it wont come with the root  ,they almost never do ,but it will have nice serrations .

[Boesse]

One thing to note here - great white sharks have a pretty "shallow" fossil record. I'd wager that 90% or more of teeth you find that are commercially available are all from the east coast (I don't think Peruvian specimens were ever so common, and are certainly less common now). On the east coast, there basically aren't any Carcharodon carcharias bearing fossil sites older than the late Pliocene (>3.6 Ma): for example, they're not present in the basal member of the Yorktown (Rushmere? can't remember the name off the top of my head) - C. hastalis are present instead. The late Pliocene is not represented very frequently on the east coast, nor is the Pleistocene. Most specimens are found on beaches or rivers as opposed to mines. Carcharocles teeth, on the other hand, have a ~35 million year (as opposed to 3-4 million year) long record, and C. megalodon itself has at least a 10-12 million year record (~16-3.5 Ma). On the west coast, great white teeth go back to the latest Miocene (5-6 Ma) and we actually preserve the C. hastalis-C. hubbelli-C. carcharias transition - but shark teeth in general are extremely rare on the west coast, perhaps 1,000 times less common* than here in South Carolina (5-10,000x if you count by specimens found on beaches). [*Sharktooth Hill, and the Santa Margarita Sandstone are obvious exceptions]

 

One last observation: I am willing to bet that the highly damaged roots has everything to do with the younger geological age and being buried in strata that are less lithified and less cemented than older units. That would explain why C. hastalis teeth rarely ever that root condition - and if they do, they're from layers where most of the teeth of other sharks also have highly eroded roots.

[Top Trilo]

6 minutes ago, Boesse said:

shark teeth in general are extremely rare on the west coast, perhaps 1,000 times less common* than here in South Carolina

Why is that? I've been wondering why most US shark teeth are from the eastern states. And with present day great whites aren't more on the west coast than east?  Does the east coast just generally have a larger shark population or does it have something to do with the different direction of the currents?

[Boesse]

The single biggest difference is that sedimentation is wildly different on each coast: the west coast is an active margin, with rapidly subsiding basins and equally rapid rates of sedimentation, with occasional pauses in subsidence and even uplift that can form localized but very thin bonebeds. On the east coast, it's a passive continental margin with extremely slow subsidence - 10-100 times slower - allowing for teeth and bones to accumulate more during periods of nondeposition or erosion (generally driven by changes in global sea level, whereas depositional hiatus on the west coast is generally driven more by changes in subsidence rate and local tectonics).

 

I wrote about this a long time ago on my blog, but most of these comments still stand: https://coastalpaleo.blogspot.com/2011/09/california-shark-teeth.html?m=1

[Shellseeker]

2 hours ago, Boesse said:

On the east coast, there basically aren't any Carcharodon carcharias bearing fossil sites older than the late Pliocene (>3.6 Ma): for example, they're not present in the basal member of the Yorktown (Rushmere? can't remember the name off the top of my head) - C. hastalis are present instead.

A lot of insights in this post:

Let me answer the Yorktown question:

Quote

The Yorktown unconformably overlies the Miocene Eastover Formation, and conformably underlies the Pliocene Croatan Formation. The Yorktown was divided into members by Ward and Blackwelder (1980). These are in ascending order: Sunken Meadow Member, Rushmere Member, Morgarts Beach Member, and Moore House Member.

 

I have some questions from my observations and finds.

 

The Peace River has a large number of Megalodons, fewer C. hastalis, and almost no GWs.  Tributary creeks can match these proportions almost exactly. I have found 3 GWs after 15 years of intensive hunting the Peace. 

I was in one Tributary creek, found a black stained GW (one of my best) under 2 feet of gravel, and then "broke" thru  layers of mud/sand to a 2nd layer of gravel based by clay.  There were silver Megs on the clay.

 

I have a Blancan (Pliocene) site that has many blue 2-2.25 inch Hastalis with some GWs smaller in the range 1 - 1.5 inches.   and I have hunted a land site that had a layer with 2.75 inch GWs and 3+ inch Megalodons.

 

At the Blancan site, I have often wondered if I managed to dig 10 feet down,  would I find a late Miocene layer and Megs.  

 

2 hours ago, Boesse said:

One last observation: I am willing to bet that the highly damaged roots has everything to do with the younger geological age and being buried in strata that are less lithified and less cemented than older units. That would explain why C. hastalis teeth rarely ever that root condition - and if they do, they're from layers where most of the teeth of other sharks also have highly eroded roots.

I have some GWs (the land finds) with great roots..  At first I thought they were Makos. Does your comment also imply that GWs with great roots might have come from the late Miocene - early Pliocene border?  I do understand and respect you as a scientist.  I just can not help but speculate, when factual evidence is missing. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Shellseeker

[Boesse]

Thanks @Shellseeker - I've found great whites with good roots here too, sometimes from the same layer as specimens with incomplete roots. That's just taphonomic variability: the final resting place of a fossil is generally only part of its journey and it may have had a different earlier diagenetic history that strengthened or weakened the root. My hypothesis is that with younger, Pliocene units that have not been buried - and in many cases, the teeth are not even phosphatized - you have a situation where the teeth are *more likely* to be a bit crumby.  There still aren't any well-supported occurrences of C. carcharias anywhere on the east coast until the late Pliocene (Piacenzian).

 

It is a bit of a mystery, and *has* to be preservational/geological as opposed to anatomical since there aren't any documented anatomical differences in the roots of Carcharodon hastalis v. Carcharodon carcharias. There could be, but I really doubt it.

[digit]

In 14 years of hunting fossils in the rivers and creeks in Florida, I have found precisely 2 GW teeth. I've found dozens of megs and hundreds if you count fraglodons (= broken megs). I had the opportunity to go diving for meg teeth out on the "meg ledges" off North Carolina a few years back. I found more GW teeth in a few dives than I had in years of Florida sifting. Granted, many of those had the aforementioned crumbly roots.

 

Humans (and fossil hunters ) seem to crave novelty. We are excited about things we rarely (or never) find and quickly get bored by things that are abundantly common. The Peace River preserves the dense rib bones of dugongs so they can be quite common. I have one site that I could probably fill a 5-gallon bucket in a few hours. They are cool fossils that someone blessed with midwestern Devonian brachiopods, rugose corals, and trilobites in some abundance might enjoy as Miocene fossils would be a rarity on their home turf. The megs I got while diving the ledges were cool (more plentiful and larger than those in the Peace River) but I was more tickled by the C. chubutensis and the GW teeth as they were more novel.

 

Really great to hear some of the reasoning behind the answer to the OP's original question. It shows that when someone asks a question here a number of members benefit from the answer.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Top Trilo]

12 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

I have found 3 GWs after 15 years

 

10 hours ago, digit said:

In 14 years of hunting fossils in the rivers and creeks in Florida, I have found precisely 2 GW teeth

Your due for another one this year 

[digit]

9 hours ago, Top Trilo said:

Your due for another one this year 

That would be nice. One I found years ago diving in the shallow waters off Venice, FL. I'd swim around with a zip-top bag and look for outcrops of black gravely rock. That one was sitting out on the sandy bottom waiting for me to scoop it up. The second was almost a decade later while I was collecting some matrix at Cookiecutter Creek. It was right after a heavy rain had swelled the creek and it was finally back down to a level in which I could collect the matrix. I walked the creek a bit upstream as I was just curious if anything had been washed out onto a section of the creek that had wide flat banks. There sitting on a little pedestal was a nice GW with sharp little serrations and a nicely complete root. It was my reward for being curious--no other shark teeth were found on the surface anywhere in the area. This one obviously called to me and I answered the call.

 

By my estimations I may have another 7-8 years to go before the next one appears.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Top Trilo]

5 minutes ago, digit said:

By my estimations I may have another 7-8 years to go before the next one appears.

Can't wait to see who's guess is closer