Squalicorax Kaupi

[PFOOLEY]

snow covered collecting areas + bum ankle + an engraving pen + a slab of Juana Lopez Sandstone =

Correction:

Squalicorax Kaupi Falcatus

Juana Lopez Mbr of the Mancos Shale

Late Cretaceous (Turonian), New Mexico

Edited December 11, 2013 by PFOOLEY

[nala]

Great sample!

[Foshunter]

I believe you have Squali. falcatus, S. kaupi is exclusively Campanian. Nice tooth in the matrix----Tom

[MarcoSr]

Mike

Really nice tooth color.

Marco Sr.

[PFOOLEY]

Well now I feel silly. Tom, it looks like you are correct. I have mislabeled these teeth for years now. I did not know that s. kaupi was strictly Campanian. Thank you for the info.

[MarcoSr]

Well now I feel silly. Tom, it looks like you are correct. I have mislabeled these teeth for years now. I did not know that s. kaupi was strictly Campanian. Thank you for the info.

Mike

There is still a lot of debate about Squalicorax. Cappetta states in the Handbook of Paleoichthyology Volume 3E Chondrichthyes Mesozoic and Cenozoic Elasmobranchii: Teeth that “Squalicorax falcatus occurs from Cenomanian to Santonian, S. kaupi from Coniacian to Campanian, and S. pristodondus from Campanian to Maastrichtian.”

Your tooth does look like S. falcatus and if you believe Cappetta, kaupi wasn’t in the Turonian.

Marco Sr.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

you don't look too silly to me, still standing there with your nice fossil...

[cowsharks]

Nice prep job and nice tooth!

Daryl.

[Al Dente]

Mike

There is still a lot of debate about Squalicorax. Cappetta states in the Handbook of Paleoichthyology Volume 3E Chondrichthyes Mesozoic and Cenozoic Elasmobranchii: Teeth that “Squalicorax falcatus occurs from Cenomanian to Santonian, S. kaupi from Coniacian to Campanian, and S. pristodondus from Campanian to Maastrichtian.”

Your tooth does look like S. falcatus and if you believe Cappetta, kaupi wasn’t in the Turonian.

Marco Sr.

It seems odd to me that Cappetta wouldn't include S. kaupi in the Maastrichtian when there are so many published reports of it occurring at that time. It is one of the most common teeth in the Maastrichtian Peedee Formation in North Carolina, as well as in other East Coast Maastrichtian formations.

[Ramo]

PFOOLEY, That looks so much like the Lincoln Limestone here in KS. Does your Mancos Shale give off an "oily" smell when it is freshly broken?

Ramo

[MarcoSr]

It seems odd to me that Cappetta wouldn't include S. kaupi in the Maastrichtian when there are so many published reports of it occurring at that time. It is one of the most common teeth in the Maastrichtian Peedee Formation in North Carolina, as well as in other East Coast Maastrichtian formations.

Cappetta lists in the Handbook of Paleoichthyology Volume 3E Chondrichthyes Mesozoic and Cenozoic Elasmobranchii: Teeth a large number of references (articles, publications, books, personal observations, unpublished reports etc.) after each shark/ray genus where the genus is reported in the fossil record by time period and location. For Squalicorax for Maastrichtian in North America he only lists two references with two locations, New Jersey: Cappetta & Case 1975 and Texas Welton and Farish 1993. So he is either unaware of the published reports from the Maastrichtian Peedee Formation in North Carolina and other East Coast Formations or for some reason doesn't agree with them. I've found that a lot of Cappetta's direct knowledge of US shark/ray genus/species is limited to his work with Jerry (Gerard R.) Case or other publications of Jerry Case. If you are really interested in US shark/ray genus/species his Handbook frankly is disappointing as it focuses more on European, Moroccan, Kazakhstan, etc. genus/species. However, there aren't any alternate books that are anywhere near as comprehensive as his Handbook for shark/ray genus/species and Cappetta is in my mind the leading fossil shark/ray expert in the world.

Marco Sr.

[non-remanié]

The 1975 New Jersey reference is wrong anyway about it being Maastrichtian, its all latest Campanian material. Case does report S. kaupi (a singular specimen) in the Maastrichtian New Egypt fm. of NJ in a more recent paper. I have seen a couple myself in the same formation, but only a couple. It seems to me that any Maastrichtian kaupi are oddballs or could potentially be reworked from older deposits. The Maastrichtian Severn fm. Bowie Md. material is from a transgressive lag and could be older, for instance.... especially considering the fact that kaupi seem to even be reworked into Paleogene sediments in Md. The same situation could have led to the Bowie examples. I have a feeling that PeeDee specimens could primarily be reworked from older deposits as well. Just a guess... I dont know the NC stratigraphy well enough to say. What do you think Al Dente? Most useful would be pristine unreworked specimens from a regressive Maastrichtian fm or bed within that formation. Anything from near the transgressive base of a sequence could be suspect. I do believe in the NJ examples, but I haven't seen a large Maastrichtian US sample from a definite, unreworked Maastrichtian horizon. If anyone has, please share more details

[jcbshark]

Nice job on the prep work,and very nice tooth.I am partial to teeth in matrix probably because I find so few lol.

[AncientEarth]

Wow great prep job!

[Al Dente]

The 1975 New Jersey reference is wrong anyway about it being Maastrichtian, its all latest Campanian material. Case does report S. kaupi (a singular specimen) in the Maastrichtian New Egypt fm. of NJ in a more recent paper. I have seen a couple myself in the same formation, but only a couple. It seems to me that any Maastrichtian kaupi are oddballs or could potentially be reworked from older deposits. The Maastrichtian Severn fm. Bowie Md. material is from a transgressive lag and could be older, for instance.... especially considering the fact that kaupi seem to even be reworked into Paleogene sediments in Md. The same situation could have led to the Bowie examples. I have a feeling that PeeDee specimens could primarily be reworked from older deposits as well. Just a guess... I dont know the NC stratigraphy well enough to say. What do you think Al Dente? Most useful would be pristine unreworked specimens from a regressive Maastrichtian fm or bed within that formation. Anything from near the transgressive base of a sequence could be suspect. I do believe in the NJ examples, but I haven't seen a large Maastrichtian US sample from a definite, unreworked Maastrichtian horizon. If anyone has, please share more details

I think there are at least two points that need to be addressed with Maastrichtian S. kaupi. 1- are they reworked, and 2- are they properly identified. It is possible that what I'm calling S. kaupi might actually be S. pristodontus. Manning and Dockery put both kaupi and pristodontus tooth types under S. pristodontus with subspecies of kaupi and pristodontus for their Squalicorax teeth from Mississippi.

The teeth I find in the Peedee are from the Island Creek member which sits on top of the Rocky Point Member. I don't think they are reworked from Campanian sediment for two reasons, 1- they are found throughout the member in bulk samples and their enamel is usually pristine, 2- I never find Scapanorhynchus in the Peedee. Scapanorhyncus is the most common tooth in the Campanian of NC. If the Squalicorax are reworked from the Campanian I would also expect to find Scapanorhyncus.

I was looking through some Maastrichtian publication this morning and found one that Cappetta and Case published. They have S. kaupi in the Maastrichtian of Texas.

Here's a photo of some of the Island Creek Squalicorax. Some are what I would consider pristodontus but the ones with the distal notch I call S. kaupi. I'll let others decide if these are pristodontus or kaupi.

[MarcoSr]

I think there are at least two points that need to be addressed with Maastrichtian S. kaupi. 1- are they reworked, and 2- are they properly identified. It is possible that what I'm calling S. kaupi might actually be S. pristodontus. Manning and Dockery put both kaupi and pristodontus tooth types under S. pristodontus with subspecies of kaupi and pristodontus for their Squalicorax teeth from Mississippi.

The teeth I find in the Peedee are from the Island Creek member which sits on top of the Rocky Point Member. I don't think they are reworked from Campanian sediment for two reasons, 1- they are found throughout the member in bulk samples and their enamel is usually pristine, 2- I never find Scapanorhynchus in the Peedee. Scapanorhyncus is the most common tooth in the Campanian of NC. If the Squalicorax are reworked from the Campanian I would also expect to find Scapanorhyncus.

I was looking through some Maastrichtian publication this morning and found one that Cappetta and Case published. They have S. kaupi in the Maastrichtian of Texas.

Here's a photo of some of the Island Creek Squalicorax. Some are what I would consider pristodontus but the ones with the distal notch I call S. kaupi. I'll let others decide if these are pristodontus or kaupi.

ic squalis.jpg

I came across the same publication by Case and Cappetta on a site in the north bank of the South Sulphur River, Texas where the material was from a fish bed in the Kemp Clay which they deemed as Late Maastrichtian. They show both a S. kaupi and an S. pristodontus.in the plates of the publication. It is odd that Cappetta then didn't include that reference in his Handbook for Sualicorax for the Maastrichtian of North America and didn't extend the range of kaupi to also include the Maastrichtian. Cappetta also in the Handbook states that "dental modifications are important in the lineage S. falcatus - S. kaupi - S. pristodontus. This makes S. kaupi and S. pristodontus sound like chronospecies versus subspecies. However, Cappetta does also state "It is unquestionable that the phylogeny of Squalicorax is much more complex than it seems at present, and any generic separation seems premature" which makes it sound like we'll be seeing more on Squalicorax from Cappetta in the future.

Your identification of S. kaupi tracks with mine and I see both what I would consider S. kaupi and S, pristodonus in your photo.

Marco Sr.

[non-remanié]

Great specimens! Thanks for sharing. I guess pristodontus are less common than kaupi?? I'm surprised by that. They don't look that uncommon in the Island Creek Member. The lack of Scapanorhynchus definitely seems like irrefutable evidence. I agree on the IDs, but oddly the "pristodontus" do look a little bit more intergradational than standard over-inflated "pristodontus". I see the same trend and morphologies in the late Campanian Wenonah of NJ, where sometimes its hard to say whether its kaupi or pristodontus. I'm used to seeing more standard form "pristodontus" in any Maastrichtian bed than your specimens. I think Cappetta is probably right that the phylogeny is probably much more complex.

I think there are at least two points that need to be addressed with Maastrichtian S. kaupi. 1- are they reworked, and 2- are they properly identified. It is possible that what I'm calling S. kaupi might actually be S. pristodontus. Manning and Dockery put both kaupi and pristodontus tooth types under S. pristodontus with subspecies of kaupi and pristodontus for their Squalicorax teeth from Mississippi.

The teeth I find in the Peedee are from the Island Creek member which sits on top of the Rocky Point Member. I don't think they are reworked from Campanian sediment for two reasons, 1- they are found throughout the member in bulk samples and their enamel is usually pristine, 2- I never find Scapanorhynchus in the Peedee. Scapanorhyncus is the most common tooth in the Campanian of NC. If the Squalicorax are reworked from the Campanian I would also expect to find Scapanorhyncus.

I was looking through some Maastrichtian publication this morning and found one that Cappetta and Case published. They have S. kaupi in the Maastrichtian of Texas.

Here's a photo of some of the Island Creek Squalicorax. Some are what I would consider pristodontus but the ones with the distal notch I call S. kaupi. I'll let others decide if these are pristodontus or kaupi.

ic squalis.jpg