Flag ponds ID, sharks and bones (June 2022)

[Rexofspades]

Hi all!

 

Went on another expedition to flag ponds in Calvert MD the other day, had probably one of my best hunts so far in the formation. in total I found 112 teeth, 51 shark, 59 ray, 2 bony fish.

I yelled in excitement when I found this one in the shell bed, blending into the grays. There's only two things this tooth could belong to and one of them is a shark I have been hunting for years. I am leaning towards Meg in my ID, as the break line seems to go across the middle where the chevron would be, in addition to the profile of the tooth is girthier than the hastalis I have found. Just to make sure i am not falling for seeing what I want to see. I have shown it here. fragment measures about 1 inch on the diagonal. 

 

here is a Burrfish puffer fossil i found in the sifter. 

 

for the bones I have a couple more that I am unsure of the ID.  this one might be a turtle shell or a reptile bone of some sort? it cant be a cookie I dont think because the ridges are not as pronounced.

 

this bone is odd, because it look slike it has a flat surface on both sides. which makes me wonder what part of the cetacean this migh tbelong to. also, there is a scratch on the sidethat might be a possible predation mark?

 

 

this one is a carcharhinus tooth I found that seems to have a pathology. the tip is bent outward and up. possibly some other species?

this looks to me to be the process of a fish vertebra. 

I am not sure what this is, but my gut tells me its a fish fossil,

 

these bones both have a similar look/ profile which tells me its  a common type of fragment.  any ideas?

 

bird bone? it doesnt look to be bog iron, and its shape rules out fish or mammal

 

fish vertebra?

 

anyway, your expertise as always is appreciated! let me know if theres any details about these I missed.

 

[cck]

I’m not seeing any serrations or evidence of worn ones on your fragment, so probably not fraglodon…

[Rexofspades]

16 minutes ago, cck said:

I’m not seeing any serrations or evidence of worn ones on your fragment, so probably not fraglodon…

Im gonna have to respectfully disagree there, because I've seen megs worn down without their serrations, also, look at the shape, the edge tapers out wider than a makos would.

 

here is the fragment next to a similarly sized Mako i found from the same formation, note the cross section is much thicker on the fragment, along with the wider blade edge close to the root.

[cck]

Ok that’s fine… I’m just saying the evidence that is there ( which isn’t a lot) is less than definitive for a positive ID

[bigdee]

The tooth you ID'd as "carcharhinus.........or other species" reminds me of a worn hemipristis serra, but need pics of the other side to feel more comfortable with that.  

[Coco]

To identify shark teeth, it would be better to make well-oriented photos : the root to the horiontale.

 

The "pathological" tooth isn't a Hemipristis, they don’t have that angle on the inner side. I also think it’s one of the many species of Carcharhinus.

 

As far as your first tooth is concerned, given the wear and tear, it could be different species. And the width of a tooth is often due to its position in the jaw (top, bottom, front, rear).

 

Coco

[Meganeura]

On the first tooth I’m going to have to agree with everyone else - while the serrations could possibly have been worn away, there really isn’t quite enough evidence to say it’s a fragolodon, I’d be more inclined to say Hastalis.

[Rexofspades]

11 hours ago, Meganeura said:

On the first tooth I’m going to have to agree with everyone else - while the serrations could possibly have been worn away, there really isn’t quite enough evidence to say it’s a fragolodon, I’d be more inclined to say Hastalis.

 

Well I got it looked at by one of the folks at the Calvert Marine museum and he said its a lower Megalodon.. so Im gonna go with that.

[Meganeura]

2 minutes ago, Rexofspades said:

 

Well I got it looked at by one of the folks at the Calvert Marine museum and he said its a lower Megalodon.. so Im gonna go with that.

Yeah, that's 100% a much better opinion - we are, after all, just people on the internet and pictures are only so much to go by!

[Sagebrush Steve]

2 hours ago, Rexofspades said:

 

Well I got it looked at by one of the folks at the Calvert Marine museum and he said its a lower Megalodon.. so Im gonna go with that.

Would be nice to know what distinguishing features he/she used to make that identification.  We could all learn something from them.