Bond Formation Cladodont species ID

[Joseph Fossil]

Recently I went on a fossil hunting trip with a few friends to a roadcut in Oglesby Illinois from the Pennsylvanian Bond Formation. This was around July and I found a lot of cool Brachiopod fossils, but I decided a few days ago I wanted to get a closer look at some of the larger matrixes I collected to see if I missed something! At the very edge of one the matrixes, I discovered a small pretty exposed cladodont tooth that I couldn't find a specific ID of?

 

The specimen is about 1/2 inch in length (5.0 mm.). But I wanted to see it a bit closer, so I put it under a microscope one of my college professors let me borrow. 

 

 

 

The specimen has a pretty slender shape overall and the top of the medial cusp appears to be broken off. I compared the specimen to other ctenacanthiformes from the Bond like Heslerodus and Gilkmanius. It does resemble Gilkmanius a bit, but I looked further and have drawn a slightly different conclusion - this could be a specimen of a juvenile Saviodus striatus.

 

 

https://www.uky.edu/KGS/fossils/fossil-of-the-month_2022-07_Saivodus.php

 

Like Saivodus, the Medial cusp is incredible slender for what's left of it. The Laterial cusps and cusplets on Saivodus teeth are much smaller compared to the Medial cusp than those of Heslerodus and Gilkmanius. On the microscope image, you can just barley make out a small cusplet next to the Medial cusp and a small Lateral cusp on the left side of the image (since under a microscope, it's actually on the right side of the tooth). 

 

Still, I'm not 100% sure my ID is correct. I was wondering if anyone is able properly ID this specimen? I'm also wondering if this cladodont tooth is indeed a specimen of Saivodus striatus or another member of the genus (which I would be awesome) or a a member of different Ctenacanthiform genus (which also would be awesome)?

[Collector9658]

I think without doing some further preparation it would be very hard to get an accurate ID.

[deutscheben]

1 hour ago, Collector9658 said:

I think without doing some further preparation it would be very hard to get an accurate ID.

 

Agreed, there is not enough visible here to make a determination. It does certainly looks to be a tooth with a cladodont-type shape to it.

[Joseph Fossil]

22 hours ago, Collector9658 said:

I think without doing some further preparation it would be very hard to get an accurate ID.

Agreed!!! What do you think would be the best way to prepare the specimen, judging by its small size?

[FossilDAWG]

You could try to etch the fossil from the limestone using dilute acetic acid, so basically vinegar.  The tooth should be mostly phosphate, so resistant to the acid.  I would watch it carefully at first, with short immersions in the acid followed by thorough rinsing in several changes of water, then inspection under a microscope to make sure the tooth is not being damaged.  I would probably not try to release the tooth entirely, just clean it off so it can be clearly seen but leave it still sitting on the limestone for support.  I think it would also look better that way.  Also I would not rinse it under running water from a tap as it might be fractured and you would not want to wash pieces down the sink.  Just rinse in water in a bowl or something so if anything dislodges you can recover it.

 

Don

[deutscheben]

I manually prep most of my finds from this site with dental tools and a pin vise.