Largemouth Bass Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) The seller states that this is a ~13 mm posterior O. auriculatus tooth from Bone Valley. It looks similar to the lower posteriors in this paper, but I would like to get a more educated opinion before adding it to my collection. Unfortunately, these are the highest quality images given. Edited March 9 by Largemouth Bass Link to post Share on other sites
FossilDAWG Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 I don't see any serrations, which would exclude any of the Otodus lineage. Note that "auriculatus" has not been classified with Carcharodon in some time. Don Link to post Share on other sites
Largemouth Bass Posted March 9 Author Share Posted March 9 I'll see if I can get better images from the seller. In another photo it appears that there may be very worn serrations, but the image quality makes it difficult to determine. And I know the species is in Otodus now, that was just the only paper I could find with an auriculatus tooth set. Link to post Share on other sites
digit Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 To me the crown (central cusp) doesn't look wide enough to be from a mega-tooth shark lineage. It gives me a bit of a Carcharoides catticus feel but I think it is more likely a broken posterior tooth from Carcharias taurus. Let's see what others think. Cheers. -Ken 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Fin Lover Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 I feel like there are worn serrations, but I'm not seeing a bourlette, so I would vote not Otodus. Link to post Share on other sites
digit Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 Yup. Serrations can be an issue. There could be evidence of very worn serrations or (like many shark teeth) there could be a thin cutting edge to the tooth enamel that can get dinged-up over time creating the appearance of worn serrations. I wouldn't testify to the presence/absence of serrations on this specimen--just seems to vague to me. Cheers. -Ken 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Meganeura Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) With the curve on the tooth going forward like that, I’d agree with Carcharias Taurus here: 1 hour ago, digit said: To me the crown (central cusp) doesn't look wide enough to be from a mega-tooth shark lineage. It gives me a bit of a Carcharoides catticus feel but I think it is more likely a broken posterior tooth from Carcharias taurus. Let's see what others think. Cheers. -Ken Especially given the fact that Bone Valley, assuming Florida, is not old enough for Auriculatus or even Angustidens. Actually - I remember that C. Hastalis can have cusps. The root certainly matches, as would the shape of a very posterior Hastalis. That would also match the BV location. Edited March 9 by Meganeura 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Largemouth Bass Posted March 9 Author Share Posted March 9 This is all very interesting information! It is still a cute tooth. I find enough hastalis where I hunt, so I think I'll just wait for one like this to appear on its own. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Fin Lover Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 If hastalis can have cusps, that would be a good fit (assuming it didn't have serrations - Ken is right that it might just be dinged up). Definitely an interesting tooth. Link to post Share on other sites
MarcoSr Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 This tooth is definitely not an O. auriculatus. The tooth has dings in a cutting edge and not serrations. Transitional teeth can have crenulations but these definitely look like dings. Small hastalis can have cusplets. Hastalis is the ancestor of Carcharodon carcharias. Extant juvenile C. carcharias can have cusplets on their teeth. Below are pictures of two beautiful fossil juvenile C. carcharias teeth (an upper and a lower) from Chile from a sales website. Marco Sr. 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites
digit Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 1 hour ago, Fin Lover said: Definitely an interesting tooth. No doubt about that. Anytime a specimen is presented for ID and it doesn't clearly fit a simple identification but is ambiguous, then the fun starts. Ambiguity reveals the thought processes used to attempt to identify a specimen and is much more edifying than just "Yup, a nice rugose coral" or "Real (but common) mosasaur tooth from Morocco". A quick and definitive ID is often of most use to the OP but the discussion about the features and the underlying thought process can prove even more useful in the long run (even if a certain ID is not possible). We can certainly cross of Ptychodus, Isistius, and Petalodus off the list of suspects. Cheers. -Ken Link to post Share on other sites
Fin Lover Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 I didn't know that C. carcharias can also have cusps, but even The Physicist's CRM entry seems to have a bit of one: But if we've ruled out serrations on the OP, then carcharias is out. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Meganeura Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 @MarcoSr Do you know if modern C. carcharias juveniles can still have cusps? Or is this solely a fossil thing? Link to post Share on other sites
MarcoSr Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 19 minutes ago, Meganeura said: @MarcoSr Do you know if modern C. carcharias juveniles can still have cusps? Or is this solely a fossil thing? Yes, modern juvenile C. carcharias teeth can have cusplets. I have a small juvenile C. carcharias jaw in my collection bought almost 50 years ago where all the teeth have cusplets. Unfortunately I haven't taken any pictures of it, but below is a picture of a juvenile jaw from elasmo.com. Marco Sr. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now