LMCheney Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 I bought this from a general collectables re-seller. It was listed as a megalodon and is definitely a fossil, but I'm not certain of the id as the seller was not an expert and neither am I and there was no additional info provided. It was quite cheap so I won't be heartbroken if it's more recent or not a shark at all. It's about 54mm across and 50mm long. There may have been fine serrations along the edge that have been worn smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR0GRAM Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 The shape seems a little odd for Meg but I am NOT a shark guy. I’m sure an expert here will tell you exactly what it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shark57 Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 This tooth is quite worn but has enough features remaining to at least narrow down the possibilities. I believe you are correct when you say you think it had serrations that are worn down. The root is quite a bit wider than the crown which indicates this tooth once had cusplets. I also see faint remnants of the bourlette, the thin dental band present in megs and their relatives where the crown meets the root. This tooth is a meg ancestor, either an auriculatus from the Eocene or an angustidens from the Oligocene. So yes, this is a shark tooth, and it is older, not younger, than megalodon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMCheney Posted May 27, 2022 Author Share Posted May 27, 2022 Thanks. I'll need to research those two species (Sigh, such a hardship) 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