Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Northern Sharks

Gainesville Mystery Tooth

Recommended Posts

Northern Sharks

I got my t-shirt today :thumbsup: and thanks for the bonus teeth. One looks to be a carcharhinus and I won't put too much effort into ID-ing that one, probably a lost cause. This one though is puzzling me. At first thought, I figured it was a small Physogaleus contortus. After closer looking though, the root shape seems different and the distal side serrations seem much too coarse. The mesial side appears to be smooth, maybe 1 or 2 small serrations up near the root. There is a photo on elasmo.com of a Paragaleus that looks a lot like this tooth, except the size of mine is much larger, the nutrient groove on elasmo's tooth seems wider, and I don't know of Paragaleus being found in Florida. Any ideas????

post-77-1210036458_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatorman

Ah so you like that one eh? I gave you that one on purpose Actually i was hoping you would Id all of the ones i gave you :P Its Miocene in age though if that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
non-remanié
I got my t-shirt today :thumbsup: and thanks for the bonus teeth. One looks to be a carcharhinus and I won't put too much effort into ID-ing that one, probably a lost cause. This one though is puzzling me. At first thought, I figured it was a small Physogaleus contortus. After closer looking though, the root shape seems different and the distal side serrations seem much too coarse. The mesial side appears to be smooth, maybe 1 or 2 small serrations up near the root. There is a photo on elasmo.com of a Paragaleus that looks a lot like this tooth, except the size of mine is much larger, the nutrient groove on elasmo's tooth seems wider, and I don't know of Paragaleus being found in Florida. Any ideas????

I think you might be correct with Paragaleus. I have had difficulties IDing some similar teeth like that from the Eocene (possibly Miocene) of NJ. My problem is exactly the same, they are considerably larger than elasmo's. I haven't been able to come to a conclusion but Paragaleus definitely seems the closest match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl O'Cles

I would agree that it is a Paragaleus. Your description and picture of the tooth fits it perfectly. I have seen photo's of them that were found in florida however the ones i have seen from there have been much smaller. It would appear that is an anterior tooth which is why it might measure out bigger then the laterals i have seen from there and would explain why the nutrient groove is a little tighter. I have attached a pic of a lateral i found in Lee Creek it measures .5". If i had been a more prudent collector i could have told you the formation i found it in but usually in the mine with the small teeth its put it in the apron and move on, then look at them at home.

post-337-1210114633_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatorman

Cool! I have been wondering what they were, now I must go find more cuz I gave most of mine away :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northern Sharks

Thanks for the replies guys, and of course for the tooth Anson. I love getting a new species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatorman

Just for future reference, what would the retail value be for a tooth like that? And I mean by that what would you pay not top of the line takes a year to sell it price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northern Sharks

This is strictly my personal opinion as I haven't seen many like this for sale. If I saw it at a show, I'd pay a few bucks for it, maybe up to 5, but more likely if it were with others and I got a group discount. I probably wouldn't bid on 1 tooth if it were on ebay because of shipping, but a group of 3 for example, I might bid $10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hogtownfossil

My guess is a night shark, Carcharhinus signatus, found a few here in Gainesville; they are flatter Labio-lingually than Paragaleus(which I have never seen here) and the nutrient groove isn't as pronounced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl O'Cles

I took a look around and although the Carcharhinus signatus does resemble the paragaleus the root is what is telling me it’s a paragaleus not the signatus. If you look at the links below you can see the singatus shows just about no nutrient groove(could be becasue the pics of the front of the tooth) and the notch in the root is abrupt and more U shaped. In the paragaleus there is well defined nutrient groove such as the tooth above as well as a more gradual D shape notch in the root like the above picture and most of the reading I have done indicates the way to tell the difference between the teeth is by looking at the root because the blades are so close in resemblance. I know the paragaleus pic in the link has some cusps on both sides and less of a curve to the crown but this is because it’s a different tooth position and about 12 million years younger. I'll try and find some pics of the teeth that I thought were paragaleus from Florida and check out the laterals to see if i was mistaken in my earlier comment about having seen them from Florida. They are much easier to tell apart then the anteriors. It still amazes me that animals from two different genus can have such similar looking teeth

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/desc...easelshark.html

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Desc...Nightshark.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl O'Cles

Hogtown can you post some pics of the teeth you are finding that you are labeling signatus? Front and back if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northern Sharks

I don't think it is C. signatus. The closer possibility, based on the extant dentitions and the description on Elasmo is Carcharhinus sealei. My tooth looks a lot like the upper parasymphyseal shown exept the size of mine is a lot bigger. The size and the narrow nutrient groove are what's throwing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl O'Cles
I don't think it is C. signatus. The closer possibility, based on the extant dentitions and the description on Elasmo is Carcharhinus sealei. My tooth looks a lot like the upper parasymphyseal shown exept the size of mine is a lot bigger. The size and the narrow nutrient groove are what's throwing me.

I was looking at those last night as well and it is a very close match and might be a sealei. If you look under the fossil sharks of lee creek on elasmo they have fossil sealei teeth as well that are a close fit. My biggest problem with signatus is that i have been unable to locate any pictures anywhere of fossil specimens of this tooth only modern ones. I do caution you using elasmo on this discussion though only because if you look at the modern dentition they show for signatus it does not match at all what some other sites are showing. Can you take a picture of the front of the tooth northern and post it? If you have a smooth transition from root to crown then it is most likely not a Paragaleus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northern Sharks

As requested, here is the labial side of my tooth. The enamel comes up over the bottom 1/3 of the root. The references I look at don't mention Paragaleus in Florida at all. C.sealei is mentioned as coming from the Gainesville area and C.signatus is mentioned only as coming from Baja California/Mexico and from the Oligocene. This tooth is Miocene. Elasmo doesn't provide many details about C. sealei and the pics are not as large as I would like, but I suspect this is what my tooth is, the first upper anterior from the center of the jaw

post-77-1210291938_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatorman

Hmmm do all the upper anteriors look like this? cuz i actually had several of them and they were all nearly identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northern Sharks
Hmmm do all the upper anteriors look like this? cuz i actually had several of them and they were all nearly identical.

No. They get bigger, wider, and the crown angle decreases as you get further back in the jaw. You can see this on elasmo if you go to the extant dentitions for C.sealei. I just wish I could enlarge those pics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatorman

Problem is all the teeth i find that look like this are all nearly identical there is little variation in width or length or shape, how can i only be finding central upper anteriors? i have found no other teeth that look like they could be Carcharhinus sealei every one i've found look just like the one i sent you the only differences are size. which actually varies little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hogtownfossil

I used to identify the teeth I find in Gainesville creeks as C.sealei, after talking to Dr. Hubbell he was of the opinion they more closely resemble C.signatus; I have a feeling they are more likely an unnamed fossil species with the characteristics of both. Associated dentitions of fossil Carcharhinus are nonexistant, so one is forced to work from extant dentitions. I doubt the tooth in question is a Paragaleus, not because of the cusp shape, but the lack of a lingual protuberance typical of the sharks in the family Hemigaleidae, much like its famous cousin Hemipristis serra.

I've tried to take some pictures of the C.signatus/sealei teeth I have (bottom row, upper anteriors left -upper laterals-upper posteriors right), with some possible Paragaleus from NC on the top. Lower teeth of C.signatus and C.sealei are very different, the former being hard to distinguish from other Carcharhinids, the latter very similar to Rhizoprionodon. I have some pictures from my reference material if anyone cares for it, don't want to waste space posting it if not.

post-388-1210461674_thumb.jpg

post-388-1210461708_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatorman
I have a feeling they are more likely an unnamed fossil species with the characteristics of both.

That is a good possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siteseer
On 5/8/2008 at 8:12 PM, Northern Sharks said:

As requested, here is the labial side of my tooth. The enamel comes up over the bottom 1/3 of the root. The references I look at don't mention Paragaleus in Florida at all. C.sealei is mentioned as coming from the Gainesville area and C.signatus is mentioned only as coming from Baja California/Mexico and from the Oligocene. This tooth is Miocene. Elasmo doesn't provide many details about C. sealei and the pics are not as large as I would like, but I suspect this is what my tooth is, the first upper anterior from the center of the jaw

post-77-1210291938_thumb.jpg

 

Hi Northern,

 

What references mention C. sealei from the Gainesville area and C. signatus from Baja California?  I'm in Florida helping a friend go through some Bone Valley teeth and have sorted out some oddballs.  One of them is about a half-inch high with a slender curved crown finely serrated.  It has short heels with a few serrations on them.  I'm trying to figure it out.I think I've found some C. plumbeus (sandbar shark) and maybe a few baby teeth of bull shark, lemon shark, and sandbar shark.

 

Jess

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northern Sharks
5 hours ago, siteseer said:

 

Hi Northern,

 

What references mention C. sealei from the Gainesville area and C. signatus from Baja California?  I'm in Florida helping a friend go through some Bone Valley teeth and have sorted out some oddballs.  One of them is about a half-inch high with a slender curved crown finely serrated.  It has short heels with a few serrations on them.  I'm trying to figure it out.I think I've found some C. plumbeus (sandbar shark) and maybe a few baby teeth of bull shark, lemon shark, and sandbar shark.

 

Jess

 

Hi Jess: You're really making me dig back into the archives for this one - like 11 years back. At the time, there was a very useful list online I used to use, something along the lines of "Fossil Sharks and Rays of the World". It had the majority of known shark species listed along with the age and where they had been found. Unfortunately, I don't think the site exists anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Dente
On 5/18/2019 at 7:25 PM, siteseer said:

This tooth looks a lot like Physogaleus hemmooriensis and is about the right size.

I agree. I have similar ones from Lee Creek. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siteseer
8 hours ago, Northern Sharks said:

Hi Jess: You're really making me dig back into the archives for this one - like 11 years back. At the time, there was a very useful list online I used to use, something along the lines of "Fossil Sharks and Rays of the World". It had the majority of known shark species listed along with the age and where they had been found. Unfortunately, I don't think the site exists anymore.

 

We're talking about the Middle Miocene and you're complaining about going back to 2008.  Come on, Kevin.

 

Seriously, thanks for the info.  I don't remember that site.  There's almost nothing out there about the fossil record of Carcharhinus sealei and C. signatus.  The only article with any sobstance on C. signatus is that FPS one form three years ago (Boyd, 2016).

 

Jess

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×