What Kind Of Sharks In Colorado

[Mr. Edonihce]

...from the fact that, it one species with multiple tooth positions and some tooth positions appear to be multiples of the same tooth, it appears that this is indeed an associated specimen and thus of great scientific value.

Does this hypothesis come up just because there were so many teeth found?

If so, I don't think it's a logical direction to jump in.

I don't recall him saying anything at all yet about how they were found....in association with each other or anything like that. I've seen places that have so many teeth that it made my head spin, but nothing about them suggested they were from the same individual shark.

Mikey,

You got a killer site with all that variety.

Now, I suggest you should be extremely conservative with who you tell about the site. I believe there are alot of commercial dealer type people (and paleo people with no self control) out there just lurking (never posting) websites like this to get wind of new places to vacuum clean. I mentioned one good site once on a different forum and it was the dumbest mistake I've ever made.

Keep the exact locality secret except for your most trusted fossil buddy and your family.

Agree....for the most part.

I mean....if it's on private land, and you have to get permission to get on, and he knows them (ensuring he will be one of few, if not the only one, allowed on), then secrecy is a tab bit less important.

Example, everyone in the world knows about the great scientific value of the Baculite Mesa here in Colorado (near Pueblo), but it's all private, and the only way to get on is with direct, written permission from the land owners. So, knowing where it is doesn't necessarily get anyone else in there.

I have been there quite a number of times. Some have been on official WIPS field trips, and some just on separate trips with the leader (the one that has the land owner contacts, permission, etc), and yet, those were the only times I've ever been on.....neither me nor any of my close paleo buddies would ever just jump a fence or whatever and go off on private land when we didn't have specific permission to be there.

I know some people would (and do) do that kind of thing, but they are the ones that make this work harder for the rest of us (whether as amateurs or professionally).

I think we might be jumping to conclusions a little bit regarding the associated dentition hypothesis. He says it is from a sandstone, which would usually indicate a higher energy depositional environment than is likely to preserve an entire shark. I think its probably from a lag bed. His other finds include fish teeth and reptile bone, and there are a few species of shark teeth. A typical lag assemblage assortment. Although I agree that if it is a lag, the Carcharias? teeth definitely seem extremely abundant to me. But I have no experience with the local faunas or stratigraphy of the area so anything is possible. Whatever may be the case, I agree that Mikey should take extreme care with his finds and site! Congrats!

Oh good....wasn't sure if anyone else was going to look deeper here.

Thanks.

Mikey-

Nice finds. Glad you got the pix for us to see. I see a few fresh water critters in there with the shark teeth (three types, at least). The big piece dominating the last photo is a piece of soft shelled turtle, and the teeth in that one look like crocdile teeth (freshwater animals). All of which are common fossils in the Cretaceous, Paleocene and Eocene of our area. But the sharks look Cretaceous (and marine=salt-water), and one would not expect to find sharks in the Paleocene or Eocene.

This is certainly a good site. I don't know about it being one individual shark, but good stuff nonetheless. As for sharing, it might be worth showing this stuff to the folks at the Denver Museum... they are doing some serious research on the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary of the Denver Basin. If you do, tell them that you want to keep the fossils from this site. They do NOT have the right to confiscate anything. (I am assuming you have permission from a private landowner). The DMNS is very good about working with the public to further the paleo knowledge of CO. Kirk Johnson is the man to talk to... bring in a few samples and show him next time you head to the big city, or start an email discussion. I don't have his email here, but it should be available online... tell him JP in Casper sent you. (He'll be up on the Pleistocene dig at Snowmass as soon as the snow melts).

Good stuff... now notice how easy it is to read all this because of the punctuation. Imagine if I had written all this malarkey with no commas, periods or capital letters. Write to Kirk this way... (If you need help, please ask someone... even me).

I agree.

Kirk's e-mail address is listed on Denver Museum of Nature and Science's 'Paleobotany Project' page (HERE).

Though I'm not so sure he is the best one to go to with shark teeth (being, first and foremost, a paleobotanist), he's definitely a great guy and a smart place to start.

[Auspex]

...if it's on private land, and you have to get permission to get on, and he knows them (ensuring he will be one of few, if not the only one, allowed on), then secrecy is a tab bit less important...

He still might be doing the landowner a favor by not publicizing the location.

[Mr. Edonihce]

He still might be doing the landowner a favor by not publicizing the location.

I totally agree. ....and not only a favor to the landowner, but to the science of Paleontology as well.

The more people that know about the place, the higher the risk of idiots trying to get in there; one way or another.

I'm definitely not the one that needs to hear about that. Not sure if you ever went there, but on my paleo site, I never post any locality data whatsoever; for this very reason. The only people that I ever that kind of share info with are those that I hand-pick (on the basis of either personal or professional trust) to go to the localities with in person.

[LanceH]

Mikey,

If you can get a hold of a detailed geologic map for that area it'll show you what layer (geologic formation) your fossils are coming out of. Then you can target other areas with that same geologic formation. Every geologic layer is a snapshot in time and local conditions. Some layers have lots of stuff and some layers have little.

I like to say "Geology is the Keyology" to better fossil hunting because learning the layers, what's in them, and where they are will really boost your success fast.

Another big help is to dig into some of the old geologic and paleo literature at your local university library. I bet there's already been a geologic study of that county or something written about some critter found around there. The JSTOR website indexes all the Journal of (Verteberate) Paleontology journals and others. I go to the TCU Library often with my flashdrive and download all kinds of PDFs from JSTOR about Texas geology and paleontology.

Oh yeah, a lot of the old paleo articles have fossil localities listed where stuff was found. It's like going to the end of the murder mystery and find out who did it.

Good luck!

Edited April 5, 2011 by LanceHall

[Paleoc]

Does this hypothesis come up just because there were so many teeth found?

If so, I don't think it's a logical direction to jump in.

I don't recall him saying anything at all yet about how they were found....in association with each other or anything like that. I've seen places that have so many teeth that it made my head spin, but nothing about them suggested they were from the same individual shark.

Actually he said he found a few on the surface and started digging and found the rest. Unless, he is a rather prolific digger that sounds like the same area to me.

Logical direction?, hmm lets see. In his image he posted there are 70 teeth, 1 of one species Squatina hassei, 1 of another species Squalicorax pristodontus, 4 of another species Cretalamna morrocana, and 64 of the last species Carcharias heathi, all of which are from multiple positions, within the size range expected of a single animal, and teeth of the same tooth positions are of the same size. Now I can go to the beach and find 70 teeth of which most, 60-70% or so will represent one species, but these will be all over the place in size range. (Of course he has 91% of the same species). Now what does that suggest, that there were a lot of sharks of same species in this area, perhaps. All of the same size range, I think rather less likely.

[Mr. Edonihce]

Mikey,

If you can get a hold of a detailed geologic map for that area it'll show you what layer (geologic formation) your fossils are coming out of. Then you can target other areas with that same geologic formation. Every geologic layer is a snapshot in time and local conditions. Some layers have lots of stuff and some layers have little.

I like to say "Geology is the Keyology" to better fossil hunting because learning the layers, what's in them, and where they are will really boost your success fast.

Another big help is to dig into some of the old geologic and paleo literature at your local university library. I bet there's already been a geologic study of that county or something written about some critter found around there. The JSTOR website indexes all the Journal of (Verteberate) Paleontology journals and others. I go to the TCU Library often with my flashdrive and download all kinds of PDFs from JSTOR about Texas geology and paleontology.

Oh yeah, a lot of the old paleo articles have fossil localities listed where stuff was found. It's like going to the end of the murder mystery and find out who did it.

Good luck!

Yet another helpful idea....one which, while I take advantage of it a lot myself, I often neglect when thinking of helping tips for others. Since I work at the University of Colorado at Boulder, I have access to a ridiculously vast array of material in the Earth Sciences library on campus.

I think it's possible to get a guest account or something, but not sure. ....oh, ya, here it is LINK.

Actually he said he found a few on the surface and started digging and found the rest. Unless, he is a rather prolific digger that sounds like the same area to me.

Logical direction?, hmm lets see. In his image he posted there are 70 teeth, 1 of one species Squatina hassei, 1 of another species Squalicorax pristodontus, 4 of another species Cretalamna morrocana, and 64 of the last species Carcharias heathi, all of which are from multiple positions, within the size range expected of a single animal, and teeth of the same tooth positions are of the same size. Now I can go to the beach and find 70 teeth of which most, 60-70% or so will represent one species, but these will be all over the place in size range. (Of course he has 91% of the same species). Now what does that suggest, that there were a lot of sharks of same species in this area, perhaps. All of the same size range, I think rather less likely.

Actually [i just went back to read it again, because I thought I had spoken before thinking again], the quote is like this...

"my first finds were just laying on the surface then I dug a little last time and found a ton of stuff "

I do not hear in that string of words anything about finding some on the surface and then [immediately] digging right there and finding the rest.

I may easily be wrong, but the way I interpreted those comments the first time I read them (and now could still take them that way...or perhaps as in your interpretation) was that he found some shark teeth on the surface the first time he hunted there, and then on the next time he hunted there, he found a bunch more; relating in some sense to having dug a little.

There was never (unless I completely skipped over it) a direct statement saying that he found the gob of teeth by digging immediately under where he had first found some on the surface on the previous hunting trip.

That may be the case, and you get a prize for ferreting that out of his comments, but I just don't see it stated as such in the actual words on the page. Perhaps my extremely linear thinking has caused me to miss yet another obvious (to others) interpretation (very possible)....I don't know.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Mr. Edonihce

[MikeDOTB]

Before I make a decision about associated teetj, i'd like to find out about the material that they came out of, was it loose sand, or was it hard packed clay, limestone or other. Im not one to say that two teeth next to each other the same exact coloration, same size, etc arent associated, because it could very well be, but that many teeth belonging to the same shark, that is rare and would be completely amazing find. One that definintely needs further study and loaned out to a research department at a local university or museum. But, there are mixed in teeth of other species with it, so it could just be that that species was the more dominant shark in that time period, or which had more of a presence at that time.

Also what could be a determining factor, were all the finds taken from a small hole a couple feet around, or was it spread out over a wide area, (10, 20 feet, or several holes in an area)

Either way, they are great finds, very colorful, and very complete. And looks to be a great site, one that needs safeguarding!

And even if they werent associated, with that many teeth, from that many jaw positions, it would definitely be worthwhile, to dig some more in that area, and put together a full dentition. That would make the scientific value go way up. And would be something that everyone would need/want to see!

Keep digging and keep posting, Im very interested to see where this goes!

Congrats on the finds!

[MikeDOTB]

On a side note, looking at the third picture, some of those look like encodus fangs. Were encodus found in the inner sea? I know they were around in the cretaceous, but I was not sure if they were saltwater or freshwater... Can someone spread some light on that?

[Auspex]

On a side note, looking at the third picture, some of those look like encodus fangs. Were encodus found in the inner sea? I know they were around in the cretaceous, but I was not sure if they were saltwater or freshwater... Can someone spread some light on that?

Yeah, Enchodus was a player in the Western Interior Seaway; the genus is represented by several species. My link

[Mr. Edonihce]

Before I make a decision about associated teetj, i'd like to find out about the material that they came out of, was it loose sand, or was it hard packed clay, limestone or other. Im not one to say that two teeth next to each other the same exact coloration, same size, etc arent associated, because it could very well be, but that many teeth belonging to the same shark, that is rare and would be completely amazing find. One that definintely needs further study and loaned out to a research department at a local university or museum. But, there are mixed in teeth of other species with it, so it could just be that that species was the more dominant shark in that time period, or which had more of a presence at that time.

Also what could be a determining factor, were all the finds taken from a small hole a couple feet around, or was it spread out over a wide area, (10, 20 feet, or several holes in an area)

Either way, they are great finds, very colorful, and very complete. And looks to be a great site, one that needs safeguarding!

And even if they werent associated, with that many teeth, from that many jaw positions, it would definitely be worthwhile, to dig some more in that area, and put together a full dentition. That would make the scientific value go way up. And would be something that everyone would need/want to see!

Keep digging and keep posting, Im very interested to see where this goes!

Congrats on the finds!

Yep. That's exactly what I was thinking.

On a side note, looking at the third picture, some of those look like encodus fangs. Were encodus found in the inner sea? I know they were around in the cretaceous, but I was not sure if they were saltwater or freshwater... Can someone spread some light on that?

Yeah, Enchodus was a player in the Western Interior Seaway; the genus is represented by several species. My link

Indeed. I've found enchodus palatines at NSR in TX, which I know was part of the Great Interior Seaway during at least part of the Cretaceous (all?).

[Tony Eaton]

The "associate" or "not associated" is an interesting debate. Some of the teeth on the upper left seem to have partially developed roots (or is this just wear?). Certainly I haven't seen the same bias towards one species at the end of the Cretaceous in Texas. There seems to be a good mix of left, right, and middle teeth. Not any smaller posterior teeth but perhaps they weren't pictured or missed because they are smaller. I think with mating / feeding behavior there is a bias towards more anterior teeth shed which doesn't seem evident here. In my opinion it is hard if not impossible to rule out a school of same sized sharks feeding at the same time and place, but the evidence points to an associated tooth set.

Sand doesn't mean low or high energy deposition by itself although I understand the point that it is less likely to find an associated tooth set in a sandy environment. However, there are plenty of sandstone leaf prints and sandstone wave ripples in my little part of the Cretaceous as evidence that sand can preserve delicate details.

[Nandomas]

Mikey, great find. Definitely those Cretaceous stuff deserves to be seen by a scientist. The place has great potential.

Cheers

Nando

Edited April 6, 2011 by Nandomas

[non-remanié]

It sure is interesting, but what really we need is a lot more information from Mikey at this point. There's freshwater turtle, ratfish, enchodus and bony fish verts along with a few species of shark teeth. A very typical lag assemblage in my view. If this all came from one small area, these finds being in close proximity would most likely be explained by a lag process more than an association. Although I find the extreme abundance of one species strange, the exact depositional setting could have favored one species of shark in the fauna. We just don't have enough stratigraphic information at this point to say much. Also, Mikey says there were 150 teeth found but he only has half that amount pictured. It's fun to watch the mystery unfold and hopefully Mikey will help us help him further

The "associate" or "not associated" is an interesting debate. Some of the teeth on the upper left seem to have partially developed roots (or is this just wear?). Certainly I haven't seen the same bias towards one species at the end of the Cretaceous in Texas. There seems to be a good mix of left, right, and middle teeth. Not any smaller posterior teeth but perhaps they weren't pictured or missed because they are smaller. I think with mating / feeding behavior there is a bias towards more anterior teeth shed which doesn't seem evident here. In my opinion it is hard if not impossible to rule out a school of same sized sharks feeding at the same time and place, but the evidence points to an associated tooth set.

Sand doesn't mean low or high energy deposition by itself although I understand the point that it is less likely to find an associated tooth set in a sandy environment. However, there are plenty of sandstone leaf prints and sandstone wave ripples in my little part of the Cretaceous as evidence that sand can preserve delicate details.

[Mr. Edonihce]

The "associate" or "not associated" is an interesting debate. Some of the teeth on the upper left seem to have partially developed roots (or is this just wear?). Certainly I haven't seen the same bias towards one species at the end of the Cretaceous in Texas. There seems to be a good mix of left, right, and middle teeth. Not any smaller posterior teeth but perhaps they weren't pictured or missed because they are smaller. I think with mating / feeding behavior there is a bias towards more anterior teeth shed which doesn't seem evident here. In my opinion it is hard if not impossible to rule out a school of same sized sharks feeding at the same time and place, but the evidence points to an associated tooth set.

Sand doesn't mean low or high energy deposition by itself although I understand the point that it is less likely to find an associated tooth set in a sandy environment. However, there are plenty of sandstone leaf prints and sandstone wave ripples in my little part of the Cretaceous as evidence that sand can preserve delicate details.

More good logic here.

I just took this opportunity to say, "Hi, Tony". :wave:

It sure is interesting, but what really we need is a lot more information from Mikey at this point. There's freshwater turtle, ratfish, enchodus and bony fish verts along with a few species of shark teeth. A very typical lag assemblage in my view. If this all came from one small area, these finds being in close proximity would most likely be explained by a lag process more than an association. Although I find the extreme abundance of one species strange, the exact depositional setting could have favored one species of shark in the fauna. We just don't have enough stratigraphic information at this point to say much. Also, Mikey says there were 150 teeth found but he only has half that amount pictured. It's fun to watch the mystery unfold and hopefully Mikey will help us help him further

The most important part of this quote is "what really we need is a lot more information".

Not only do we lack stratigraphic info and everything else about the geology, paleontology, paleo ecosystem, etc ...we don't even know the size of the surface area from which these were collected (or if we do...oops...sorry I missed that).

Were they all found within a square meter, and then none outside of that for a large area all around?

Were they found over a wide area, like 50-100 square meters?

Not that either of these scenarios would necessarily be decisive in and of itself (because both could happen as a result of wave or current action and sea floor contours), but it would be helpful, and should definitely be considered a necessary component to the equation before we could even hypothesize (though speculation is acceptable at any point in the process) - one way or another - with regard to association.

[mikey]

Ok I will try to start over last year I was just looking for arrow heads and never thought I would find fossils I found two teeteeth and what I thought was coral but now learned it is turtle. I went back two weeks ago hoping to find a few more not sure I could even find the same spot. I did and im not sure if I missed it last year but thete were three different groups of a dozen or so teeth just laying on the surface spread a few feet apart they were all the red colored ones then I dug and found more it is loose sand and its like a sandstone cap above it this is an area about ten feet long but I only dog in a few square foot area less than a foot deep. Forgive me I am just a greasy mechanic and have no idea what I am doing I am excited for sure I am going back soon this weekend or next I found two of the bigger teeth 20 feet away

[mikey]

I will try to do better on the pictures I will have some of the area I just have my phone for pictures but will do my best can anyone say why the teeth had a few different colors and any help on ways to improve my take it is not really a canyon its more like the washouts you see in the fields after a good rain but about ten feet deep nothing found up high should I start clear at the bottom or just stay where I was

[non-remanié]

Mikey,

I have had the same enjoyment finding arrowheads while looking for fossils, so I completely understand. Here's a good question. Is the sandstone resting directly on top of say a mudrock or shale? Something obviously of a different composition from sandstone. Also did you find shark tooth enamel caps that had no roots and were hollow inside?

Best of luck on your return trip. It sounds like it will be more than worthwhile.

Ok I will try to start over last year I was just looking for arrow heads and never thought I would find fossils I found two teeteeth and what I thought was coral but now learned it is turtle. I went back two weeks ago hoping to find a few more not sure I could even find the same spot. I did and im not sure if I missed it last year but thete were three different groups of a dozen or so teeth just laying on the surface spread a few feet apart they were all the red colored ones then I dug and found more it is loose sand and its like a sandstone cap above it this is an area about ten feet long but I only dog in a few square foot area less than a foot deep. Forgive me I am just a greasy mechanic and have no idea what I am doing I am excited for sure I am going back soon this weekend or next I found two of the bigger teeth 20 feet away

[BobWill]

mikeyihavetoagreewithjpcthatyourpostsarehardtoreadhowaboutjustalittleoccasionalpunctuation?

[siteseer]

Something I noticed is the grouping of species. Squatina hassei and Squalicorax pristodontus are both known from the Late Campanian but are more commonly found in Maastrictian (latest Cretaceous - approx. 65-70 million years old) deposits. However, both Carcharias heathi and Cretolamna maroccana are known only from the Late Maastrichtian so their co-occurrence indicates that the fauna is of that age. I'm not sure I've ever heard of marine sharks from that time in Colorado before. The inland sea that had stretched from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska during the Cretaceous had drained off considerably by then but still flooded parts of some western states into the Paleocene.

Researching Maastrichtian marine deposits in the area might lead to a determination of the fossil-bearing layer.

Teeth of other sharks are found farther north in the Hell Creek Formation of the Dakotas and Montona, also Maastrictian-age, but they tend to be interpreted as species that could tolerate freshwater because they are associated with more common remains of freshwater animals (salamanders) and land animals (dinosaurs).

...he posted there are 70 teeth, 1 of one species Squatina hassei, 1 of another species Squalicorax pristodontus, 4 of another species Cretalamna morrocana, and 64 of the last species Carcharias heathi, all of which are from multiple positions, within the size range expected of a single animal, and teeth of the same tooth positions are of the same size. Now I can go to the beach and find 70 teeth of which most, 60-70% or so will represent one species, but these will be all over the place in size range. (Of course he has 91% of the same species). Now what does that suggest, that there were a lot of sharks of same species in this area, perhaps. All of the same size range, I think rather less likely.

Edited April 7, 2011 by siteseer

[non-remanié]

In general, the different colors you are seeing are due to exposure to the elements, oxidation, acid rain, mineral leaching, uv sunlight rays, etc. I imagine that the red teeth have been exposed less than the others. The teeth will likely be that reddish color if you dig deeper to find them, instead of picking them from the surface. Although I could be wrong about that. It all depends on the deposit producing the fossils, if it is one discrete layer, or spread out, etc etc

I will try to do better on the pictures I will have some of the area I just have my phone for pictures but will do my best can anyone say why the teeth had a few different colors and any help on ways to improve my take it is not really a canyon its more like the washouts you see in the fields after a good rain but about ten feet deep nothing found up high should I start clear at the bottom or just stay where I was

[Tony Eaton]

Mikey, thanks for posting the extra info. You've have found something special for certain no matter what. (I am sure my first Email or post about fossils was something along the lines of "is this round rock a fossil dinosaur egg?") You may have found a one of a kind sort of thing if these teeth are all from one shark hence all of the debate. I am not sure if an associated toothset of Carcharias heathi exists in the world. Perhaps no one really knows exactly what teeth or "dental formula" that make up this species and your find would answer that question.

I notice Elasmo uses an extant sand tiger shark.

http://www.elasmo.com/bin/menu_genera.html

(search under carcharias towards the bottom.

Hi Steve, (year is flying by

[Mr. Edonihce]

...hence all of the debate....

In case it isn't obvious (not talking to Tony, but just in general), I have not been debating whether or not the teeth are associated.

For me, that is too far outside of my areas of expertise.

What are my areas? Well, in Paleontology, it's Echinoderms (and more specifically, Crinoids....and even more specifically, Pennsylvanian Crinoids....then there's way too specific, and that's Pennsylvanian Crinoids of Colorado).

Everywhere else in life, it's Critical Thinking.

I am the last person on this forum to be waxing eloquently about this shark or that, and how many teeth they had or how they lined up next to each other, or any of that.

However, when it comes to things like this with a serious lack of info and jumping to conclusions, my critical thinking radar goes off like a nuclear bomb.

I have never expressed any doubt whatsoever that these teeth may be associated.

My only contention is that we do not yet have enough data to go on to arrive at such a conclusion.

They may very well be associated, and it would be extremely cool if they are/were, but that's not something which the available data would allow a serious scientist (not to say that I am one or that anyone else here isn't one....I take us all to be on the same level when we take on a topic like this....some have more expertise in certain areas, and that's good for all of the rest of us) to declare....or even hypothesize at this point (well, I haven't actually read all of the posts in this thread from today yet....so I may be missing some piece that would change all of this, but...) one way or another.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Mr. Edonihce

[Ramo]

Thought I may throw in a comment or two about this impressive find.

I see what appear to be 3 species of shark teeth, One looks like Cretoxyrhina mantelli, one looks like Squalicorax prestodontus, and the rest look like Cretalamna appendiculata. But I'm not sure. The other picture shows a bunch of enchodus fangs, along with one enchodus palatine bone where the tooth has broken off. I have collected in Codell sandstone, where you could find this many teeth in one relatively small area if it had not been hunted in a while, and it had rained a lot since it had been hunted. With all the bleaching of the teeth, it looks like many of them had been exposed to the sun for a long time. I don't think they are associated, I think Mikey just found a good spot, where the sand is washed away easily and the teeth are exposed. On his first trip there, he picked up what could have been laying on the surface for years. His next trips should have a few teeth, but probably not the numbers he found on his first trip, unless he finds another exposure of this layer in another area.

Ramo

[Auspex]

We're all pretty excited!

A couple field-pictures of both the immediate site and the fossils in-situ might give us something to chew on

[Paleoc]

Fox Hills Sandstone

http://www.netl.doe.gov/kmd/cds/disk7/disk2/WGS%5CDepositional%20Environments,%20Upper%20Pierre%20Shale,%20Denver%20Basin,.pdf\

See fig 7, pg 219