Symphyseal Meg, 3-toed Horse tooth, and… some sort of claw?

[Meganeura]

Out hunting - found what I think is a Symphyseal Meg, a tiny horse tooth I know is 3-toed but I’m not sure which, and then… some claw thing. @Shellseeker @fossillarry @Harry Pristis@Al Dente @hemipristis
 

Meg?

 

3-Toed Horse tooth - I see an isolated protocone:

 

Claw thing:

[Meganeura]

More pics of the 3-toed horse tooth + measurements:

23.5mm height, chewing surface is 13.7mm wide x 11.3mm tall. @fossillarry included a pic of the roots just in case it’s needed.

[Brandy Cole]

What a great tiny tooth! I look forward to learning what it may be.

[debivort]

Your tooth looks a lot like a worn version of the tooth in this thread, where the consensus seemed to be posterior meg (see dentition at end of thread)

 

[Meganeura]

4 minutes ago, debivort said:

Your tooth looks a lot like a worn version of the tooth in this thread, where the consensus seemed to be posterior meg (see dentition at end of thread)

 

Interesting! I can see that possibly being the case - but the root on mine is much more inline with what I’ve seen from symphyseal teeth - very bulbous, and also a tall root as opposed to a squashed root. But that’s really speculation over anything else.

[fossillarry]

I believe this tooth is a left molar 1/2 of Cormohipparion ingenuus.  Probably not Nannippus westoni.  C. ingenuus is found in Early Clarendonian to Early Hemphillian age sediments. nice find.

[Meganeura]

1 minute ago, fossillarry said:

I believe this tooth is a left molar 1/2 of Cormohipparion ingenuus.  Probably not Nannippus westoni.  C. ingenuus is found in Early Clarendonian to Early Hemphillian age sediments. nice find.

Thank you Larry! I much appreciate the help! I also found a half of another 3-toed of the same size. Half that has the protocone is missing though - so probably safe to assume same species?

[fossillarry]

Never safe to assume with fossil horse teeth. But it could be C. ingenuus. The picture is not quite well lighted enough for me to seethe crown pattern fully.

[Meganeura]

2 minutes ago, fossillarry said:

Never safe to assume with fossil horse teeth. But it could be C. ingenuus. The picture is not quite well lighted enough for me to seethe crown pattern fully.

I figured since I found em in the same spot they might be associated - but hopefully this picture helps!

[fossillarry]

That is a better Meganeura.  I would say it is a left lower molar 1/2 of Cormohipparion ingenuus. Nice find. Keep looking, I a ways love seeing new teeth (horse teeth of course of course).

[Meganeura]

28 minutes ago, fossillarry said:

That is a better Meganeura.  I would say it is a left lower molar 1/2 of Cormohipparion ingenuus. Nice find. Keep looking, I a ways love seeing new teeth (horse teeth of course of course).

Thank you Larry! I’m definitely gonna keep an eye out, especially knowing this spot has em. I wonder how many I’ve missed thinking they were just normal Equus frags…

[fossillarry]

Never assume with fossil horse teeth!!!

[debivort]

4 hours ago, Meganeura said:

what I’ve seen from symphyseal teeth

For sure - my first thought would have been symphyseal too - just linking what came up when I did a search..

[hemipristis]

3 minutes ago, debivort said:

For sure - my first thought would have been symphyseal too - just linking what came up when I did a search..

My first thought as well

[hemipristis]

@Meganeura  could you post a photo of the claw thingy dry?

[Meganeura]

6 hours ago, hemipristis said:

@Meganeura  could you post a photo of the claw thingy dry?

Yes! Though I think it may be my first horse canine. 

[Meganeura]

7 hours ago, hemipristis said:

@Meganeura  could you post a photo of the claw thingy dry?

[hemipristis]

12 minutes ago, Meganeura said:

thank you.  unfortunately, I'm still stumped, sorry

[MrR]

Member-posted "Ric Parsymphyseal" shows a root section that looks very much like the one shown above. Just a big bulb of root. Just in case you hadn't seen the post...

 

Ric Parasymphyseal

[Meganeura]

2 minutes ago, MrR said:

Member-posted "Ric Parsymphyseal" shows a root section that looks very much like the one shown above. Just a big bulb of root. Just in case you hadn't seen the post...

 

Ric Parasymphyseal

I hadn't actually seen that one! But I'd definitely say that fits quite well then.

[hemipristis]

2 hours ago, Meganeura said:

I hadn't actually seen that one! But I'd definitely say that fits quite well then.

I concur. Congrats!

[digit]

17 hours ago, MrR said:

Member-posted "Ric Parsymphyseal" shows a root section that looks very much like the one shown above. Just a big bulb of root. Just in case you hadn't seen the post...

 

Ric Parasymphyseal

Just to be clear the auriculatus chonospecies of this line of megatoothed sharks was Late Eocene-Early Oligocene (~35-25 Ma) and the Bone Valley Formation where this tooth came from is Middle Miocene-Early Pliocene (~15-5 Ma), so if the tooth in question represents a parasymphyseal it would be megalodon and not auriculatus.

 

From what little I've read on the subject, parasymphyseal teeth may have been present in the ancestral species of this lineage but they were not present in megalodon (or possibly only occasionally atavistic). The tooth in question looks well river-worn and the root from the labial side looks to squarish as if it may be fragmented and incomplete.

 

My thought would be a very worn posterior tooth from a juvenile individual but I do not claim to be any sort of expert on such matters. I'll try to pass these images on to someone who I know is an expert in megs.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Meganeura]

11 minutes ago, digit said:

Just to be clear the auriculatus chonospecies of this line of megatoothed sharks was Late Eocene-Early Oligocene (~35-25 Ma) and the Bone Valley Formation where this tooth came from is Middle Miocene-Early Pliocene (~15-5 Ma), so if the tooth in question represents a parasymphyseal it would be megalodon and not auriculatus.

 

From what little I've read on the subject, parasymphyseal teeth may have been present in the ancestral species of this lineage but they were not present in megalodon (or possibly only occasionally atavistic). The tooth in question looks well river-worn and the root from the labial side looks to squarish as if it may be fragmented and incomplete.

 

My thought would be a very worn posterior tooth from a juvenile individual but I do not claim to be any sort of expert on such matters. I'll try to pass these images on to someone who I know is an expert in megs.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Thanks Ken! I can take better pics of all sides - but while the blade itself looks worn, the root looks very unworn. At this point I'd like to think I'm able to differentiate between a broken root and unbroken - and no surfaces on the tooth look broken to me. However, I do agree the root is also strangely shaped. Either way, I'll grab some better pics to send em over!

[digit]

Great. I'll add any additional views in my email to my topic expert.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[digit]

I sent only the 2 images of this curious tooth to my friend, Victor Perez. Here's his reply:

 

I imagine the debate is whether this is a posterior or a symphyseal tooth position of megalodon? I personally would lean towards calling this a lower posterior tooth of megalodon, primarily because I haven't seen any associated dentitions of megalodon with symphyseals. 

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken