Sélacien34 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) I see that you noted the same thing after reading this great work - thanks so much to Don / FossilDAWG for his kindness, it seems well that the lateroposterior teeth from the upper jaw of the specimen of C. appendiculata studied by Shimada presents split lateral cusplets from the L6 to the L10, as I had seen on my 2 teeth, it's even the case for the one he defined as lower L5. It doesn't make necessarily of that isolated tooth a C. appendiculata, not registered on the site or a priori at this time, but it does not erase these morphological characters, and in any case it looks like enough. Cowsharks, you have mentioned an interesting topic discussed: "I recall the last interesting topic Regarding differences between juvenile Otodus vs Cretolamna.." Would you have the link of it? I want to thank Don for e-mailing to me the Shimida (2007) paper. When I originally looked at the photos of the C. appendiculata teeth in the printed copy of the paper that I made from the electronic version I could not see any reduced secondary cusplets on the teeth and the photos of the individual teeth from the different file positions were a pretty decent size. However there was one sentence in the text which caught my attention: " Each lateral cusplet in distally located lateral teeth may bear a minute additional lateral cusplets laterally". Going back to the paper copy I still couldn't really see them. So I went back to the electronic copy, increased the size to 400%, and there they were. They really were minute. Most of these secondary cusplets in the teeth shown looked pretty nondescript like your two teeth with small budding secondary cusplets. However, on several teeth these secondary cusplets were very pointed and looked more like an Odontaspidae secondary cusplet. I am going to look back again at all of my C. appendiculata cusplets under magnification. Now I really would like to see more specimens from this site as I believe that they could be in the C. appendiculata lineage based upon the features of the posted tooth. Marco Sr. Edited July 10, 2014 by Sélacien34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) I see that you noted the same thing after reading this great work - thanks so much to Don / FossilDAWG for his kindness, it seems well that the lateroposterior teeth from the upper jaw of the specimen of C. appendiculata studied by Shimada presents split lateral cusplets from the L6 to the L10, as I had seen on my 2 teeth, it's even the case for the one he defined as lower L5. It doesn't make necessarily of that isolated tooth a C. appendiculata, not registered on the site or a priori at this time, but it does not erase these morphological characters, and in any case it looks like enough. Cowsharks, you have mentioned an interesting topic discussed: "I recall the last interesting topic Regarding differences between juvenile Otodus vs Cretolamna.." Would you have the link of it? Dédoublement.PNG This tooth from your photo is one with an interesting secondary cusplet like I had mentioned. Marco Sr. Edited July 10, 2014 by MarcoSr "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sélacien34 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) This tooth from your photo is one with an interesting secondary cusplet like I had mentioned. C. appendiculata.jpg Marco Sr. That's right and i have seen it, rather comparable to the lateral secondary cusplets from Cowshark's tooth, but his tooth is from a less posterior file. The other lateroposterior files show a "minute additional lateral cusplet", a small budding secondary cusp not separated or just a lateral extension of the cusp, as i have seen on mine. Edited July 10, 2014 by Sélacien34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Daryl Do you know the actual age of the formation/formations from this site? Do you know if this site also has reworked older teeth? Are the other teeth this color and in this state of preservation? A single specimen could also be a contaminant. Could you post some additional similar specimens from your friend? I know you really only cared about the id of this tooth but now I'm really curious and would like to see other similar specimens if possible. Marco Sr. "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowsharks Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 I'm in the process of getting some additional specimen images of similar from the same site. Although I do care about the ID of this particular tooth, it is because I know my friend has several others that look similar and he wasn't sure if what he had were really Cretalamna or some other species. From what I understand, the site these teeth come from is a well known/commonly collected location in Alabama, but they suspect these teeth have simply been overlooked in the past (a good guess anyway) and attributed to other species. Selacien34, here's the link in TFF I was referring to: Posterior Cretalamna Or Otodus Or . . . I've been super busy with some other family things this week, but I know that I have at least a couple of Cretalamna teeth from MD that also have those tiny little secondary cusplets. I'll try to locate them and image them. Thanks again folks for the interesting exchange of information, ideas, etc. Daryl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I would guess that the Andalusia site in question is the Point-A-Dam site which is covered in the MSc PDF referred to earlier in the thread. A little further research tells me that the Lisbon-Talhatta contact (and bone-bed) is NP15 age, so ~45mya, Lutetian. To me the fossil concentration at the site seems very much like a condensed section (like Muddy Creek), without significant reworking, rather than a simple transgressive lag which is more likely to have reworked older material. But unless the collector is actually collecting in situ in the basal lag, the age might not be so constrained. I believe that plenty of teeth could be coming from above and below the "bone-bed". Nearby streams and sites, and upstream and downstream exposures could cut deeper into the Talahatta fm, into a Ypresian part, or higher in the Lisbon fm. which spans into the the Bartonian. But from I have seen from the area fossil-wise I would guess that the ~45mya Lutetian age is fairly consistent with most of the material, but caution needs to be taken with anything found as float. Daryl Do you know the actual age of the formation/formations from this site? Do you know if this site also has reworked older teeth? Are the other teeth this color and in this state of preservation? A single specimen could also be a contaminant. Could you post some additional similar specimens from your friend? I know you really only cared about the id of this tooth but now I'm really curious and would like to see other similar specimens if possible. Marco Sr. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I would guess that the Andalusia site in question is the Point-A-Dam site which is covered in the MSc PDF referred to earlier in the thread. A little further research tells me that the Lisbon-Talhatta contact (and bone-bed) is NP15 age, so ~45mya, Lutetian. To me the fossil concentration at the site seems very much like a condensed section (like Muddy Creek), without significant reworking, rather than a simple transgressive lag which is more likely to have reworked older material. But unless the collector is actually collecting in situ in the basal lag, the age might not be so constrained. I believe that plenty of teeth could be coming from above and below the "bone-bed". Nearby streams and sites, and upstream and downstream exposures could cut deeper into the Talahatta fm, into a Ypresian part, or higher in the Lisbon fm. which spans into the the Bartonian. But from I have seen from the area fossil-wise I would guess that the ~45mya Lutetian age is fairly consistent with most of the material, but caution needs to be taken with anything found as float. Steve Thank you for the information. Marco Sr. "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Hopefully Daryl can get a little more specific information to confirm. Steve Thank you for the information. Marco Sr. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sélacien34 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) I'm in the process of getting some additional specimen images of similar from the same site. Although I do care about the ID of this particular tooth, it is because I know my friend has several others that look similar and he wasn't sure if what he had were really Cretalamna or some other species. From what I understand, the site these teeth come from is a well known/commonly collected location in Alabama, but they suspect these teeth have simply been overlooked in the past (a good guess anyway) and attributed to other species. Selacien34, here's the link in TFF I was referring to: Posterior Cretalamna Or Otodus Or . . . I've been super busy with some other family things this week, but I know that I have at least a couple of Cretalamna teeth from MD that also have those tiny little secondary cusplets. I'll try to locate them and image them. Thanks again folks for the interesting exchange of information, ideas, etc. Daryl. With his wide triangular crescent dental your tooth makes me clearly think to a posterior tooth of Otodus obliquus, although this area can be almost non-existent on the very small teeth.Of course it would be interesting to see other teeth of this kind which come from the same place if they are not uncommon, and see them from different angles, it will surely brings more light. Thanks for the link Daryl, it was... instructive ! Here a tiny very posterior O. obliquus from the site of J. Bourdon, came from Nanjemoy Fm, Virginia. Edited July 11, 2014 by Sélacien34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I've been super busy with some other family things this week, but I know that I have at least a couple of Cretalamna teeth from MD that also have those tiny little secondary cusplets. I'll try to locate them and image them. Daryl. Daryl I really would like to see pictures of your Cretolamna specimens. I looked at all of my MD Cretolamna again and did find several specimens with tiny nubs but nothing with a distinct secondary pointed cusplet like that tooth from the Shimada paper. However my MD specimens mostly come from float and a minute cusplet like that could easily wear/break off. You probably need specimens found in situ to see them. Marco Sr. "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 With his wide triangular crescent dental your tooth makes me clearly think to a posterior tooth of Otodus obliquus, although this area can be almost non-existent on the very small teeth.Of course it would be interesting to see other teeth of this kind which come from the same place if they are not uncommon, and see them from different angles, it will surely brings more light. Thanks for the link Daryl, it was... instructive ! Here a tiny very posterior O. obliquus from the site of J. Bourdon, came from Nanjemoy Fm, Virginia. otodus_obliquus Potapaco Mbr, Nanjemoy Frm, Virginia.jpg It is interesting that you mention Otodus obliquus. I had considered that also. I have a large number of Otodus transitional teeth from the Eocene Woodstock Formation of MD. I have early transitional teeth where the cusplets begin to split, some with a secondary cusplet, and the cutting edge of the cusplets and upper blade by the root get wavy. Below is a picture of a 3'' transitional anterior tooth and close up pictures of the cusplets that shows what I'm referring to. Marco Sr. "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sélacien34 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) It is interesting that you mention Otodus obliquus. I had considered that also. I have a large number of Otodus transitional teeth from the Eocene Woodstock Formation of MD. I have early transitional teeth where the cusplets begin to split, some with a secondary cusplet, and the cutting edge of the cusplets and upper blade by the root get wavy. Below is a picture of a 3'' transitional anterior tooth and close up pictures of the cusplets that shows what I'm referring to. Otodus1.jpg Otodus cusplets1.jpgOtodus cusplets2.jpg Marco Sr. That's a very good example that you have showed there, so we have a specie whose profile would correspond well to this case, Otodus obliquus and his transitional forms, chrono or morphospecies as you prefer, gives a wide choice on small secondary cusps (and more). Although I have unfortunately no American Otodus obliquus, I reviewed all my specimens from the Eocene with double cusps, pretransitional and mugodzharicus from the lower Eocene of Morocco and britain, none illustrates this mini cusp as well as your tooth, and so much closer from the concerned place as mine. It remains to see other examples of this type of tooth from the concerned site. Edited July 13, 2014 by Sélacien34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sélacien34 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) I also want to drop a quick question, I hope Cowsharks will forgive me, what do you think about this tooth from Morroco with no precise age information, 3.8 cm diagonally, with very divergent cusps? Edited July 11, 2014 by Sélacien34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Steve, People have been collecting there for decades. I've seen teeth from there before but more over the past ten years or so and everything seen so far would be considered Middle Eocene stuff with no apparent reworked material. You can find a Carcharocles auriculatus there and the site is also known for one of the earliest (if not the earliest) occurrence of Orectolobus, a relative of the modern wobbegong (nurse shark relative), in the fossil record. There is a question whether the teeth should be referred to that genus or Squatiscyllium. Jess I would guess that the Andalusia site in question is the Point-A-Dam site which is covered in the MSc PDF referred to earlier in the thread. A little further research tells me that the Lisbon-Talhatta contact (and bone-bed) is NP15 age, so ~45mya, Lutetian. To me the fossil concentration at the site seems very much like a condensed section (like Muddy Creek), without significant reworking, rather than a simple transgressive lag which is more likely to have reworked older material. But unless the collector is actually collecting in situ in the basal lag, the age might not be so constrained. I believe that plenty of teeth could be coming from above and below the "bone-bed". Nearby streams and sites, and upstream and downstream exposures could cut deeper into the Talahatta fm, into a Ypresian part, or higher in the Lisbon fm. which spans into the the Bartonian. But from I have seen from the area fossil-wise I would guess that the ~45mya Lutetian age is fairly consistent with most of the material, but caution needs to be taken with anything found as float. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 A friend of mine hunts various streams in or near Andalusia, Alabama... Giving the difficulty in fitting this neatly into the faunal assemblage from studies at Point A Dam, I wonder whether it might not have come from a slightly different horizon; a bit older or younger, perhaps? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Thanks Jess. That's what I thought. Everything I have seen from the area seems to fall in that age range. But I know not everyone collects in situ there and there is a good possibility that some of the teeth found as float could be from the above or below formations and not the basal lag. I don't think the nearby exposures are significantly different age, but its something to consider. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikaelS Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Looks like Cretalamna but it is not C. appendiculata imo. That species appears to be restricted to the Turonian (and possibly the Cenomanian and Coniacian). The paper in press linked below might help. It discusses, amongst other things, Shimada's 2007 paper. There are a considerable number of post-Cretaceous Cretalamna, most of which have not yet been formally described. https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app58/app20120137_acc.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sélacien34 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Looks like Cretalamna but it is not C. appendiculata imo. That species appears to be restricted to the Turonian (and possibly the Cenomanian and Coniacian). The paper in press linked below might help. It discusses, amongst other things, Shimada's 2007 paper. There are a considerable number of post-Cretaceous Cretalamna, most of which have not yet been formally described. https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app58/app20120137_acc.pdf A Cretalamna specie thus, thank you very much for giving us the answer. Could i ask you your opinion about the tooth i have showed. It's a morrocan tooth for which i have no information about the age. 3,8 cm in max diagonal, cusplets make me think to C. Pachyrhiza but the root is more close to Otodus i think, maybe it's just a patho O. obliquus ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanNREMTP Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I actually have enjoyed reading this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 If it's Cretalamna, then we have to wonder if it is a Middle Eocene form and therefore the most recent occurrence of the genus or if it is a contaminant - the result of one collector bringing teeth from elsewhere (and elsewhen) to show to another at this site but losing/dropping one or more in the dirt in the process. One reason I offer the possibility that it is a contaminant is that the preservation of the tooth in question does not match what I've seen from there - generally shiny grey or black roots with shiny gray crowns sometimes with a greenish tint to them. The tooth shown may have been on the surface for some time so it became discolored and dull but then we still have the question of what is a Cretalamna doing in a Middle Eocene deposit? In the original post it was said that these teeth are not rare. If anyone has more of these, please post photos especially if you can reflect a fuller range of preservation. I received a sample of Tallahatta teeth years ago, and while that would not be enough to base a solid opinion, I did get a few examples of the common species and a few of the uncommon ones but I didn't get anything that looks like Cretalamna (no koerti/twiggsensis teeth either).- did get a few S. lerichei. Also, over the past several days I did look at all my koerti teeth and while a couple had somewhat of a U-shaped basal margin to the root it was not to the extent of Cretalamna or the tooth in question. Jess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 ...the preservation of the tooth in question does not match what I've seen from there... ...we still have the question of what is a Cretalamna doing in a Middle Eocene deposit?... We don't really know exactly what deposit it came from, do we? What if there is a slightly older deposit, with slightly different depositional environment and characteristics of preservation, in the general vicinity but much less well known? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Looks like Cretalamna but it is not C. appendiculata imo. That species appears to be restricted to the Turonian (and possibly the Cenomanian and Coniacian). The paper in press linked below might help. It discusses, amongst other things, Shimada's 2007 paper. There are a considerable number of post-Cretaceous Cretalamna, most of which have not yet been formally described. https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app58/app20120137_acc.pdf Mikael Thank you very much for your paper and your opinion. There is an abundance of new information in it. As an amateur collector, it will take me a while to understand and digest what is in your paper. I will need to relook at all of my Cretolamna specimens. It is always very good to see major advances in the understanding of extinct sharks. Until your new paper, there weren't many other Cretolamna species options besides appendiculata. Hopefully you can follow up with more post Cretaceous Cretolamna descriptions at some future time. Marco Sr. "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikaelS Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 That tooth from Morocco looks like an O. obliquus. The nominal C. pachyrhiza is, I believe, a junior synonym of C. borealis (see the Cretalamna paper in APP). The latter is restricted to the Santonian-Maastrichtian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikaelS Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Yes another paper on post-Cretaceous Cretalamna will follow. Mikael Thank you very much for your paper and your opinion. There is an abundance of new information in it. As an amateur collector, it will take me a while to understand and digest what is in your paper. I will need to relook at all of my Cretolamna specimens. It is always very good to see major advances in the understanding of extinct sharks. Until your new paper, there weren't many other Cretolamna species options besides appendiculata. Hopefully you can follow up with more post Cretaceous Cretolamna descriptions at some future time. Marco Sr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sélacien34 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 (edited) That's what i thought about my tooth, thank you for your information, Michael, I didn't knew that C. borealis was a junior synonym for C. pachyrhiza, that's useful. I'm learning every day, but I've never painted in blue a vertebra of pliosaurid yet to make it a door stop, nothing is lost for me Edited July 15, 2014 by Sélacien34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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