5 Or 6+ Inch Megs? Meh... Dime A Dozen...

[Coco]

Hi,

 

What is exactly the size ? Because the foreigners (and we are many here) don't know the size of your money !

 

Coco

[ynot]

11 hours ago, eannis6 said:

I believe this is a meg,

I see no burlet or serrations and the root shape is more consistent with a carcharodon sp.. If there are serrations they are very fine and meg tend to have coarse serrations.

[eannis6]

3 hours ago, Coco said:

Hi,

 

What is exactly the size ? Because the foreigners (and we are many here) don't know the size of your money !

 

Coco

The coin is roughly 1.7 centimeter in length!

2 hours ago, ynot said:

I see no burlet or serrations and the root shape is more consistent with a carcharodon sp.. If there are serrations they are very fine and meg tend to have coarse serrations.

Thanks for the input Ynot, but I think the serrations are fine and worn and it does have a small burlet, it's just hard to see from the pictures. The thickness of the gum is the main reason I believed it to be a meg. I mean, I'm new so I could be wrong.

[eannis6]

This is the distal face of the tooth.

[Coco]

57 minutes ago, eannis6 said:

The coin is roughly 1.7 centimeter in length!

 

Sorry, but if you measure the size of the coin, you can also give us the size of the tooth... This information is more important. And the next time I will not remember myself the size of the coin. All this to say that it is better to give us the sizes in inch or in cm, later we manage to make the conversion

 

Coco

[eannis6]

1 minute ago, Coco said:

Sorry, but if you measure the size of the coin, you can also give us the size of the tooth... This information is more important. And the next time I will not remember myself the size of the coin. All this to say that it is better to give us the sizes in inch or in cm, later we manage to make the conversion

 

Coco

Im sorry Coco you would laugh if I tell you this, but I don't have a ruler Haha!

[Coco]

How you know that your coin is 1,7 cms ? Well, let us return about this comment...

 

Coco

[Kane]

2 minutes ago, eannis6 said:

Im sorry Coco you would laugh if I tell you this, but I don't have a ruler Haha!

Internet to the rescue! 

 

http://iruler.net/

2 minutes ago, Coco said:

How you know that your coin is 1,7 cms ? Well, let us return about this comment...

 

Coco

There are a few sites that display coin measurements, which can be important for coin collectors to buy the right holders: https://www.air-tites.com/coin_size_chart.htm#.WdE34tOGNE4

[Coco]

Kane, thanks but I will not go on a website to know the size of a coin to know the size of a fossil do ID...

 

Coco

[eannis6]

4 minutes ago, Coco said:

Kane, thanks but I will not go on a website to know the size of a coin to know the size of a fossil do ID...

 

Coco

Using the internet ruler tool, I found out for you that my tooth is .7 CM wide

[Kane]

55 minutes ago, Coco said:

Kane, thanks but I will not go on a website to know the size of a coin to know the size of a fossil do ID...

 

Coco

I did not suggest that you should. I only answered your initial question.

[Gizmo]

[eannis6]

1 hour ago, Gizmo said:

Nice meg gizmo

[eannis6]

@Coco my meg is featured on this page with the appropriate measurements. Let me know what you think. Sorry it took me 2 months

http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/vert/fish-shark/carcharocles/carcharocles.htm

[MarcoSr]

15 hours ago, eannis6 said:

@Coco my meg is featured on this page with the appropriate measurements. Let me know what you think. Sorry it took me 2 months

http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/vert/fish-shark/carcharocles/carcharocles.htm

 

In Lamniformes it is not very accurate to try to estimate shark size using a posterior tooth especially if you don’t take into consideration how small in relative size a posterior tooth can be in relation to an anterior tooth.  In extant genera like Carcharodon (white shark) and Isurus (mako) there is a huge difference in size of anterior teeth to posterior teeth. In the megalodon dentitions that I’ve seen (associated or reconstructed) there is still a big difference in size of anterior to posterior teeth but not as much.  In addition, was the size of a newborn or infant megalodon the same size if the mother was 20 ft. long versus 30 ft. versus 40 ft. etc.?   Newborn white sharks can vary in length from 110 to 160 cm in length (Ebert 2013).  Quite a difference in size.  Newborn shortfin makos can vary in length from 60 to 70 cm (Ebert 2013).  My family has a number of small anterior megalodon teeth between 14 mm and 18 mm in slant height.  See the 14 mm tooth below.  These small teeth tend to have coarser and more irregular serrations than larger teeth.   However, megalodon anteriors could have been much smaller but aren’t being found because of their small size.   It would have been more diagnostic if the serrations on your tooth weren’t so worn.  So it is speculative although possible to say that your posterior tooth was from an infant megalodon but even more speculative that it is a fetal tooth.

 

 

Marco Sr.

 

[sixgill pete]

Since my intial post to this topic in Aug of 2011 I have found a much much smaller meg. It was ID'd by @MarcoSr as a possible megalodon symphyseal tooth. It measures .28 inch wide (7.0 mm) and .32 inch long (8.1 mm) 

It has great serrations and is an awesome little tooth. You can view more about it in the collections forum : 

 

 

  

 

[hokiehunter]

Very cool little tooth Pete.  I don't think they come much smaller than that.  I love that this topic keeps popping up once or twice a year with new info and teeth.  I have yet to find one smaller than my original post but still looking.  :-)

[Al Dente]

I'll post this one again.

[MarcoSr]

6 hours ago, sixgill pete said:

Since my intial post to this topic in Aug of 2011 I have found a much much smaller meg. It was ID'd by @MarcoSr as a possible megalodon symphyseal tooth. It measures .28 inch wide (7.0 mm) and .32 inch long (8.1 mm) 

It has great serrations and is an awesome little tooth. You can view more about it in the collections forum : 

 

 

  

 

 

A 16 mm slant height megalodon tooth that my son Mel found:

 

 

Marco Sr.

[eannis6]

10 hours ago, MarcoSr said:

 

In Lamniformes it is not very accurate to try to estimate shark size using a posterior tooth especially if you don’t take into consideration how small in relative size a posterior tooth can be in relation to an anterior tooth.  In extant genera like Carcharodon (white shark) and Isurus (mako) there is a huge difference in size of anterior teeth to posterior teeth. In the megalodon dentitions that I’ve seen (associated or reconstructed) there is still a big difference in size of anterior to posterior teeth but not as much.  In addition, was the size of a newborn or infant megalodon the same size if the mother was 20 ft. long versus 30 ft. versus 40 ft. etc.?   Newborn white sharks can vary in length from 110 to 160 cm in length (Ebert 2013).  Quite a difference in size.  Newborn shortfin makos can vary in length from 60 to 70 cm (Ebert 2013).  My family has a number of small anterior megalodon teeth between 14 mm and 18 mm in slant height.  See the 14 mm tooth below.  These small teeth tend to have coarser and more irregular serrations than larger teeth.   However, megalodon anteriors could have been much smaller but aren’t being found because of their small size.   It would have been more diagnostic if the serrations on your tooth weren’t so worn.  So it is speculative although possible to say that your posterior tooth was from an infant megalodon but even more speculative that it is a fetal tooth.

 

 

Marco Sr.

 

Thanks for the knowledge @MarcoSr that is very neat. Does this mean it could have also been a slightly older meg with small posterior teeth? I’m so interested in this topic. Thank you for sharing those teeth.

[sixgill pete]

4 hours ago, Al Dente said:

I'll post this one again.

 

Awesome little tooth, Eric. I had forgotten about this one. 

[eannis6]

4 hours ago, Al Dente said:

I'll post this one again.

This is such a neat tooth. Thanks for sharing!

[MarcoSr]

11 hours ago, eannis6 said:

Thanks for the knowledge @MarcoSr that is very neat. Does this mean it could have also been a slightly older meg with small posterior teeth? I’m so interested in this topic. Thank you for sharing those teeth.

 

Yes your tooth could have been from an older megalodon. The size of posterior teeth can be very misleading when trying to estimate shark length.  Anterior tooth size is better for estimating shark length and even using their size is speculative to estimate the size of an extinct shark like megalodon where you can't actually measure tooth size versus body length of a good sample of sharks in the wild.  Look at the dentitions in the below link of the two extant mako species.  Look at how small the posterior teeth are compared to the anterior teeth. If you found one of these small posterior teeth you might have thought that it was from a very small shark when in fact it was not.

 

http://naka.na.coocan.jp/JAWLamnida.html

 

Marco Sr.

[eannis6]

1 hour ago, MarcoSr said:

 

Yes your tooth could have been from an older megalodon. The size of posterior teeth can be very misleading when trying to estimate shark length.  Anterior tooth size is better for estimating shark length and even using their size is speculative to estimate the size of an extinct shark like megalodon where you can't actually measure tooth size versus body length of a good sample of sharks in the wild.  Look at the dentitions in the below link of the two extant mako species.  Look at how small the posterior teeth are compared to the anterior teeth. If you found one of these small posterior teeth you might have thought that it was from a very small shark when in fact it was not.

 

http://naka.na.coocan.jp/JAWLamnida.html

 

 

Marco Sr.

How neat! Thanks for sharing sir.

[Fossil-Hound]

@eannis6 there's also the possibility that some of these are C. chubutensis, especially if they are coming out of Calvert Cliffs. Megs are broader at the root and Chubs have small cusps on the side but when the tooth is so juvenile it's near impossible to tell the difference.