Question on the age of the Carcharocles (Otodus) megalodon fossils from Punta Médanos locality, Argentina

[Joseph Fossil]

Recently I found a really interesting article rom 2021 describing fossilized specimens (in the form of teeth) of the giant shark Carcharocles (Otodus) megalodon from Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Here is the article:

 

De Pasqua, J., Agnolin, F., Rolando, A. M., Bogan, S., & Gambetta, D. (2021). First occurrence of the giant shark Carcharocles Megalodon (Agassiz, 1843) (Lamniformes; Otodontidae) at Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Revista Brasileira De Paleontologia, 24(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.4072/rbp.2021.2.05

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354201776_First_occurrence_of_the_giant_shark_Carcharocles_megalodon_Agassiz_1843_Lamniformes_Otodontidae_at_Buenos_Aires_Province_Argentina

 

What really actually baffled me was the age the scientists who authored the paper assigned to the specimens. The specimen MMDA-1 was found close to the Atlantic coast in sedimentary deposits consisting of five depositional sequences (DS) dating between the Miocene and early Pleistocene eras. The authors state its possible the specimen came from DS5 or DS4, which date between the late Pilocene-early Pleistocene eras. If this is correct, this would make this incredible find even more incredible as it would represent the youngest known Carcharocles (Otodus) megaldon fossils (and no, I'm definitely not counting the HMS Challenger specimens as it's pretty much been confirmed those specimens are much much older than several thousand years old). 

 

Also, this is not potential proof C. megalodon survived into the Holocene!

 

Though, I'm am a bit skeptical about the age give it was found in a pretty loose sedimentary deposit by the coast! What do you guys think? Do you think specimen MMDA-1 could be from the late Pilocene-early Pleistocene or do you think it could be older?

[Troodon]

Will let the expert comment on this since he's published on the topic. @Boesse

[Boesse]

Simply put, no. For several reasons. First: the specimen lacks provenience. It could come from any of those strata. Second: the specimen is quite worn and appears reworked.

[Joseph Fossil]

13 minutes ago, Boesse said:

Simply put, no. For several reasons. First: the specimen lacks provenience. It could come from any of those strata. Second: the specimen is quite worn and appears reworked.

 

@Boesse I agree completely! It does confirm my initial suspicions-the fact it was found literally by a beach makes me believe it probably is something more of Miocene age and was reworked over time into the Pilocene-Pleistocene deposits.