Jump to content

Central texas Shark


Jared C

Recommended Posts

I have two teeth of what I think is the same species, and I just can't decide what they belong to. The best speciman is this one:

IMG-3284.thumb.jpg.31f27d63e7972f598b4da94e44e2dee0.jpgIMG-3293.thumb.jpg.76e7fd96bbbf2c3f4080e08f65f593c7.jpg

 

It's found in a creek that exposes both the Ozan and possibly the underlying Dessau formation.

 

I see no nutrient groove, making me eliminate Scapanorynchus

 

Seemingly no enamel wrinkling, making me not think Cretodus (can Cretodus even be found in Ozan aged rocks? I've only really seen it being found in Eagle Ford...)

 

I don't remember Cretoxyrhina mantelli having cusps anywhere in its dentistry

 

Doesn't seem like the right shape for Cretolamna (can Cretolamna be found in strata this young as well? I've only ever found it in the Waco Pit)

 

Obviosuly not Squalicorax... I'm stumped.

 

What do ya'll think?

“Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think” -Werner Heisenberg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cretalamna made it to Maastrichtian, FYI.

  • I found this Informative 2
  • I Agree 1

Grüße,

Daniel A. Wöhr aus Südtexas

"To the motivated go the spoils."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jared C said:

I don't remember Cretoxyrhina mantelli having cusps anywhere in its dentistry

 

FYI, from the Cretoxyrhina mantelli discussion in Welton Farish 1993 The Collector's Guide to Fossil Sharks and Rays from the Cretaceous of Texas  "a single pair of short blade-like cusplets may develop on the extreme ends of the crown foot in some lateral and posterior, but not anterior, row groups;"  The tooth is not from Cretoxyrhina mantelli.

 

Marco Sr.

  • I found this Informative 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

image.png.9a941d70fb26446297dbc9dae7bae7ed.png image.png.41c8380882dac648c6131b5bc1377249.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I normally stay out of shark tooth discussions because I'm not very good at them, but since all I'm doing here is adding to what more seasoned folks have said, it should not go too wrong for me - haha.  I would agree with @Al Dente that it looks like a Cretolamna based on the Welton and Farish book and @Uncle Siphuncle is correct that the genus does extend from the Albian up into the Maestrichian so you are covered there.  The erect cusp and pair of cusplets, along with no nutrient groove and the slight protuberance of the root all look a lot like the Cretolamna's figured in the book, specifically it looks more like a lower as the uppers seem to have a bit more of a slant to the cusp.  A very nice looking tooth!!

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes this is definitely a Cretalamna. The only other teeth these really get confused with are goblin posteriors, which those have a nutrient groove and these don’t. But the teeth here in north central Texas that have that distinctive U shape in the root are gonna be one of those two. 
 

And by the way folks, it’s Cretalamna, not Cretolamna. It was an error in the book that didn’t get caught before going to print. I know this because my friend Roger Farish told me lol. 

  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Captcrunch227 said:

And by the way folks, it’s Cretalamna, not Cretolamna. It was an error in the book that didn’t get caught before going to print.

Thank you for reminding me, I know I have heard this before but never remember it. I’m going to make a note in my book right now (and I’ll probably have to look and see if my database needs updated)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ClearLake said:

Thank you for reminding me, I know I have heard this before but never remember it. I’m going to make a note in my book right now (and I’ll probably have to look and see if my database needs updated)!

 

For sure. I didn't know at all until I was showing off a display for my educational program at the Dallas Paleontological Society meeting and Roger corrected me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2021 at 12:44 AM, Captcrunch227 said:

And by the way folks, it’s Cretalamna, not Cretolamna. It was an error in the book that didn’t get caught before going to print. I know this because my friend Roger Farish told me lol. 

It’s actually the other way around - Glikman in his original description of the genus misspelled Cretolamna, which is the grammatically correct version, as Cretalamna and this error was taken up by some following authors. Now most publications use the accurate name - Cretolamna, like this for example. Although some use the original spelling too, so there is really no consensus

Edited by Anomotodon

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anomotodon said:

It’s actually the other way around - Glikman in his original description of the genus misspelled Cretolamna, which is the grammatically correct version, as Cretalamna and this error was taken up by some following authors. Now most publications use the accurate name - Cretolamna, like this for example

And the plot thickens....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Al Dente was just looking at the picture again. Can you help me understand why it can’t be Archaeolamn? So many times certain teeth give me trouble if it archaeolamn versus Cretolamna.  

Edited by hokietech96
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, hokietech96 said:

@Al Dente was just looking at the picture again. Can you help me understand why it can’t be Archaeolamn? So many times certain teeth give me trouble if it archaeolamn versus Cretolamna.  


The triangular side cusps and more erect main cusp makes me think it is Cretolamna. Here are a couple tooth sets of Archaeolamna. Archaeolamna usually have a curve to the main cusp and the side cusps are more elongated. It is possible the tooth is a lower Archaeolamna. There are a couple lower teeth in the first tooth set that look similar. The first tooth set is from the shark-references.com website.


 

 

15E975FA-BA46-41A5-8134-00E121A31E00.jpeg

80CE9679-907F-4293-B1EB-6893186C11EE.jpeg

A6237114-FA54-4EA4-A8AD-4293DB141480.jpeg

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Al DenteThank you for the information.  I always tend to lean towards archaeolamn versus cretolamna if the root seems more compact and slants to almost a buldge in the middle on the lingual side.  If the labial side of the blade is slanted it up when I lean it up on the root I usually label it as Archaeolamna.  I am still learning so I am not sure if it is this cut and dry.

Here is my examples.  All these teeth I found this summer at Big Brook:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one I circled looks like Archaeolamna. The broad one on the far right looks more like Cretolamna. More views of the other teeth might help with an ID.

 

 

D53AB3C3-CD78-46C7-BC29-AB727FCAAB03.jpeg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Al Dente said:

The one I circled looks like Archaeolamna. The broad one on the far right looks more like Cretolamna. More views of the other teeth might help with an ID.

 

 

D53AB3C3-CD78-46C7-BC29-AB727FCAAB03.jpeg

 

94DCEA43-B0F8-4D66-A6A3-86AF31674FCA.thumb.jpeg.3f8929069800a65e21f266f1ce124bec.jpeg

Edited by hokietech96
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would call all of these Cretolamna, other than the one I circled. It would be interesting to hear what other NJ collectors think these are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 12/25/2021 at 5:56 AM, Anomotodon said:

It’s actually the other way around - Glikman in his original description of the genus misspelled Cretolamna, which is the grammatically correct version, as Cretalamna and this error was taken up by some following authors. Now most publications use the accurate name - Cretolamna, like this for example. Although some use the original spelling too, so there is really no consensus

The ones using Cretolamna are particularly Russian authors, Henri Cappetta, his former students and their coauthors. I use Cretalamna (needless to say) and so does eg Kenshu Shimada, David Ward, Charlie Underwood and many others. It's true that there is no consensus, in part because both I and Henri are very stubborn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...