Odd Carcharhiniform tooth from the Late Oligocene of South Carolina

[siteseer]

I was looking at some of my Oligocene teeth and took a little extra time with this one.  I don't remember when I got it.  I've bought from and traded with a few South Carolina dealers and collectors over the years.  This one is from the Late Oligocene Chandler Bridge Formation.  It measures about 11mm along the slant with fine serrations to the tip.  I think it's an early Carcharhinus tooth but would like to hear from other collectors on this one.  I was blanking on some names but I've got the call out to some of you.

 

The Late Oligocene is a time before Carcharhinus became the wildly speciose genus we know today and already was by the end of the Miocene.  None of the modern species were present in the Oligocene but there appears to have been a small variety of species by that time based on what I've seen from Germany, Pakistan, and South Carolina.  This tooth reminds me of C. signatus so I wonder if it could be an early relative.

 

@isurus90064 @MarcoSr @Al Dente @Untitled @sixgill pete @sagacious

Edited September 2, 2022 by siteseer
additional thought

[MarcoSr]

Jess

 

That is a very interesting tooth.  I haven't seen a similar fossil tooth that I can remember, but I haven't collected the Oligocene much at all.  I agree that the tooth is most likely a Carcharhinus species tooth.

 

The only Carcharhinus species I remember being described from the Late Oligocene Chandler Bridge Formation of South Carolina was Carcharhinus gibbesi (see the below figure) in Cicimurri, D.J. and Knight, J.L. 2009. Late Oligocene sharks and rays from the Chandler Bridge Formation, Dorchester County, South Carolina, USA.

 

 

 

 

With only a single tooth versus a good sample size of teeth from different positions, I'm not sure if it is possible to narrow the tooth's lineage to one of the 30+ extant Carcharhinus species (Note, it is also possible that the species became extinct.).

 

Below is an extant C. signatus dentition from Jelasmo to compare your tooth to.

 

 

 

 

Marco Sr.

[siteseer]

Thanks Marco Sr.  I found similar teeth in Boyd (2016).  None of the teeth in Adnet et al. (2007) were similar.  Yes, the tooth is old enough that it's most likely an extinct species.

 

Jess

 

 

Adnet, T, S., P.O. Antoine, S.R.H.  BaqriI, J.Y. Crochet, I.  Marivaux, J.L. Welcomme, and G. MÉTAIS.  2007.
New tropical carcharhinids (Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes) from the late Eocene-early Oligocene of Balochistan, Pakistan: Paleoenvironmental and paleogeographic implications.Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 30: 303-323.

 

Boyd, B. M.  2016

Fossil sharks and rays of Gainesville creeks Alachua County, Florida:  Hawthorn Group (middle Miocene to lower Pliocene.Florida Paleontological Society Special Papers (February 2016).  40p.

[Al Dente]

10 hours ago, siteseer said:

I've bought from and traded with a few South Carolina dealers and collectors over the years.  This one is from the Late Oligocene Chandler Bridge Formation.

 

Do you know if the collector got it straight from the formation or did he find it screening a creek where there could be some mixing? I haven't seen any similar teeth from the similar aged Belgrade Formation here in NC. I suspect it is younger than Oligocene.

[sixgill pete]

Jess, very interesting. I have a similar tooth that came from the Belgrade Quarry quite a few years ago. I will have to find it and photograph it again. The Carcharhinids from the Belgrade Quarry are an interesting lot. The Belgrade Formation is currently considered late Oligocene. While most of the teeth are "lightly" serrated some are heavily and remind me of the teeth from the Miocene Pungo River Formation.  This is what I have noticed from a large sampling of Carcharhinid teeth I have found there. I personally think the deposits are from the latest Oligocene and the earliest Miocene.  The University of Florida's MyFossil project placed it entirely in the Miocene. (I do not believe this) 

 

Let me find the tooth over the next few days and add to this.

[Fin Lover]

Not sure if this will help. I think it mentions a couple other than C. gibbesi, but I haven't finished reading it yet.

https://bioone.org/journals/acta-palaeontologica-polonica/volume-54/issue-4/app.2008.0077/Late-Oligocene-Sharks-and-Rays-from-the-Chandler-Bridge-Formation/10.4202/app.2008.0077.ful

[Fin Lover]

Sorry. I just realized this is the same paper Marco Sr. referenced. 

[siteseer]

3 hours ago, Al Dente said:

 

Do you know if the collector got it straight from the formation or did he find it screening a creek where there could be some mixing? I haven't seen any similar teeth from the similar aged Belgrade Formation here in NC. I suspect it is younger than Oligocene.

 

No, I didn't get more precise locality data than "Summerville."  I've heard of C. megalodon being found around Summerville so it's possible this tooth is actually Miocene.  However, I did get it with a couple of Sphyrna teeth which are known from the Chandler Bridge (perhaps the earliest documented occurrence of the genus) - shown below.

 

 

[hemipristis]

Very interesting tooth.

 

It has a passing resemblance to Glyphis sp., which it cannot be. 
Following this thread with interest.

[Untitled]

This tooth looks similar what you'd find in the C. sealei-dussumieri species complex (more similar to C. dussumieri due to the 'cusp' structure).  If this tooth is indeed from the Late Oligocene, I'd imagine it would be a basal, possibly ancestral species to the complex; the 'cusps' are less prominent in this tooth than in the extant species, though being significantly older and considering how much speciation has occurred within Carcharhinids, I wouldn't expect them to look the same.  It also has some resemblance to C. porosus; a related paleospecies to this may be another option. 

 

Ben

Edited September 3, 2022 by Untitled
spelling error

[Dino9876]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I spontaneously thought of a few Carcharhinus species in my collection that look very similar to the tooth. Unfortunately, I don't know much about fossil teeth, but maybe the pictures will still help you to compare them.

 

On 9/4/2022 at 12:16 AM, Untitled said:

This tooth looks similar what you'd find in the C. sealei-dussumieri species complex (more similar to C. dussumieri due to the 'cusp' structure).

I would agree to this. If it were a modern tooth I would probably classify it as C. porosus or C. cerdale, but as I said, unfortunately I don't know anything about fossil teeth

 

Carcharhinus cerdale

 

Carcharhinus dussumieri

 

Carcharhinus tjutjot

 

Best regards from Germany