Possible Associated Pair Of Megalodon Teeth ...‏

[Xiphactinus]

A lot of times you find fossils all jumbled together -- sometimes from one animal, sometimes from several. Bones and teeth tend to accumulate together with similar size/weight/mass/shape objects. You see this happening today on gravel bars on a river. All the bones will be found near each other.

I could definitely see a scenario where there was a hole or depression millions of years ago where "fresh" meg teeth washed. They would have fossilized and mineralized together and have the same chemical makeup. No way to know if they are from the same animal or different ones.

The only time you can know for sure is when you find them yourself in an area known for articulated fossils -- such as the Niobrara in Kansas.

[Kosmoceras]

I would doubt they are from the same animal, despite similarities in preservation. Even with a large mass of jumbled teeth in one slab of matrix which all look similar, there is no way to tell for sure they are all from the same animal despite likeliness in some cases. Good luck in proving they are from the same beast, I would eagerly like to see some positive results.

[fossilized6s]

I think even on a atomic level you couldn't prove this. There are fossils that have different mineralization throughout, but it's the same fossil. The smallest of exposures to different minerals, elements, heat, whatever will cause the process to change.

[Fossil_Rocks]

That might make a good study for a marine biologist to conduct. I would believe you could get a better sample from extant sharks as a baseline before spending a lot of time on the fossils. By all means go for it. This actually interests me quite a bit.

I'm far more interested in the science, or in this case ... the lack thereof.

Usually when associated bones of any animal are found, it's obvious that they are related or not too important if they're not. I wouldn't be at all surprised, however, if there are some published attempts to determine relationships in scarce specimens, beyond their suspected morphology.

I see no reason why more definitive methods could not be discovered and published.

Mineral replacement is more than just a shadow of a past life. We find lots of deformed meg. teeth, but how many associated with subtle deformities? I suspect if we looked, we might find more, from the exact same animal.

For example, I have a deformed tooth that looks very similar to some I've seen offered for sale. It's an uusual defect. If it's a defect type related to a persistent pathology or genetic disorder that keeps repeating itself as the shark continues to shed teeth, then I would expect the deformity to be duplicated in the fossil record. These sharks were losing teeth all over the same formation, and for many years, and if the defect didn't affect their general health and well being, we know that enamel is very durable.It doesn't take much to fossilize a shark tooth, because they're like rocks to begin with, and get covered up fairly quickly. So what about more subtle deformities? Things only seen microsocipally? The truth is, no one has really been looking.

I can see that there are many things the readership here haven't given much thought to, simply because they've never owned a pair that they were deeply curious about. The same goes for science. How many scientists are really looking for related deformities, especially subtle ones? I would argue, next to ZERO.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Fossil_Rocks

[Auspex]

The one key word in your post above is "scientist". There is a definitive methodology to the process by which we come to know what is really true; it is called "the scientific method" <LINK>, and scientists follow it.

You have a thesis, and have proposed several means by which to test it. The results of your tests will need to be reproducible to be valid, and will need to answer the preceding critiques of the concept. You are making an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof falls to the claimant.

It sounds like a very interesting project, and I very much applaud every effort to find new ways to uncover the truth.

[JohnJ]

You've made some pretty broad assertions regarding the membership here and the paleontology involving sharks based mostly on your assumptions. Additionally, your case for further research into these teeth is undercut by offering them for sale via an ambiguous advertisement.

I'm far more interested in the science, or in this case ... the lack thereof.

Usually when associated bones of any animal are found, it's obvious that they are related or not too important if they're not. I wouldn't be at all surprised, however, if there are some published attempts to determine relationships in scarce specimens, beyond their suspected morphology.

I see no reason why more definitive methods could not be discovered and published.

Mineral replacement is more than just a shadow of a past life. We find lots of deformed meg. teeth, but how many associated with subtle deformities? I suspect if we looked, we might find more, from the exact same animal.

For example, I have a deformed tooth that looks very similar to some I've seen offered for sale. It's an uusual defect. If it's a defect type related to a persistent pathology or genetic disorder that keeps repeating itself as the shark continues to shed teeth, then I would expect the deformity to be duplicated in the fossil record. These sharks were losing teeth all over the same formation, and for many years, and if the defect didn't affect their general health and well being, we know that enamel is very durable.It doesn't take much to fossilize a shark tooth, because they're like rocks to begin with, and get covered up fairly quickly. So what about more subtle deformities? Things only seen microsocipally? The truth is, no one has really been looking.

I can see that there are many things the readership here haven't given much thought to, simply because they've never owned a pair that they were deeply curious about. The same goes for science. How many scientists are really looking for related deformities, especially subtle ones? I would argue, next to ZERO.

[Gizmo]

I'm far more interested in the science, or in this case ... the lack thereof.

Usually when associated bones of any animal are found, it's obvious that they are related or not too important if they're not. I wouldn't be at all surprised, however, if there are some published attempts to determine relationships in scarce specimens, beyond their suspected morphology.

I see no reason why more definitive methods could not be discovered and published.

Mineral replacement is more than just a shadow of a past life. We find lots of deformed meg. teeth, but how many associated with subtle deformities? I suspect if we looked, we might find more, from the exact same animal.

For example, I have a deformed tooth that looks very similar to some I've seen offered for sale. It's an uusual defect. If it's a defect type related to a persistent pathology or genetic disorder that keeps repeating itself as the shark continues to shed teeth, then I would expect the deformity to be duplicated in the fossil record. These sharks were losing teeth all over the same formation, and for many years, and if the defect didn't affect their general health and well being, we know that enamel is very durable.It doesn't take much to fossilize a shark tooth, because they're like rocks to begin with, and get covered up fairly quickly. So what about more subtle deformities? Things only seen microsocipally? The truth is, no one has really been looking.

I can see that there are many things the readership here haven't given much thought to, simply because they've never owned a pair that they were deeply curious about. The same goes for science. How many scientists are really looking for related deformities, especially subtle ones? I would argue, next to ZERO.

I can assure you that the comments given by the members on this thread and their breadth of knowledge on this subject is vast and their conclusions are correct. The staff at the Calvert Marine Museum looks for and studies related deformities and mineralization in all fossils including shark teeth. They would be happy to accept your donation of these teeth for further study.

[Fossil_Rocks]

There's a lot that can be done here, which might help point to a single individual. My quest contintues ...

Phosphatic fossilization has occurred in unusual circumstances to preserve some extremely high-resolution microfossils in which careful preparation can even reveal preserved cellular structures. Such microscopic fossils are only visible under the scanning electron microscope.

Large quantities of phosphate are required, either from seawater or from the tissues of the decaying organism. In some cases microbes control the phosphatization, and the remains of the microbes that were "feeding" on the preserved tissue form the fossil. In other, the tissue itself is the source of phosphate and its phosphatized remains form the fossil. In the intermediate case the phosphatized tissue retains the impressions of the phosphatizing microbes.

[RyanNREMTP]

And the next paragraph started off with soft tissue being required. Any idea how much something like that would cost? I would think that for the just being allowed to use the equipment would run in the thousands of dollars. I still think it is worth something pursuing but not on a small fossilized scale.

[siteseer]

Regarding a reconstructed dentition, you will find some math in this article:

Kent, B.W. and G.W. Powell, Jr. 1999.

Reconstructed Dentition of the Rare Lamnoid Shark Parotodus benedeni (le Hon) from the Yorktown Formation (Early Pliocene) at Lee Creek Mine, North Carolina. The Mosasaur, 6:1-10.

... there are many things that could give us some good math.

The problem is, as far as I can gell, no one has calcuated the expected standard deviations of an associated set. Which tells me that no one has been looking for ways to associate teeth, beyond finding them in the same spot. So if the only criteria is finding them in the same spot, then that's pretty weak science, in and of itself. I would much rather use a standard deviation in relative measurements compared against random samplings from the same formation. I have a feeling that you would have a hard time finding two teeth that would fall within that deviation from the same area, unless they were related to one another.

[John]

I'm always amused by threads like these where there is an argument about something for which there is no data. Something worth pointing out:

A chemical analysis cannot conclusively determine if the teeth are from the same animal. There is already a large body of literature on this subject and the overwhelming conclusion is that taphonomic processes such as mineralization are simply not a predictable way to determine skeletal associations. Mineralization (more properly diagenesis) can occur on a wide variety of scales and can be consistent over broad areas or as variable as a few millimeters depending on the diagenetic environment. Mineralization can tell you a great deal about how a preservation event took place, but even attempts to conclusively show that two fossils come from the same quarry have failed more often than not because there is no simple, universal set of preservational conditions that perfectly maintain chemical similarities between specimens. In short, a chemical analysis can't even assure with certainty that the two teeth come from the same quarry, let alone that they belonged to the same animal. Lots of fascinating things can be learned, but that simply isn't one of them.

You might then argue that a biochemical process that was part of the living animal would deposit certain elements in ways which could later be used to determine if the two teeth belonged to the same animal. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for the minerals in teeth and bones because their composition varies with the environment at the time of their formation. Consider, for example, that even in your own mouth, your own teeth are not chemically identical beyond a certain point because you take in different amounts of elements that can be bound in tooth enamel at different times during the formation of the tooth. Even attempts to try to make comparisons like tree rings where you analyze the different layers deposited during the formation of the tooth have shown only limited utility. The only molecules that DO aid in the identification desired here are things like DNA which have a universally consistent pattern in the body, but sadly DNA degrades far too rapidly to be of any use on fossils older than a few millenia.

I might also point out that morphometric analysis of tooth shape is also useless here. Animals whose teeth do not strictly occlude (pretty much everything except mammals) have a wide enough degree of variation that it's often difficult to even work out their position with certainty. To assume that because two shark teeth fit a preconceived mathematical model they must belong to the same animal is simply mistaken. Such an analysis can help determine their jaw positions, but not whether they came from the same living shark.

As has been pointed out, the only way to say with any degree of certainty that two teeth came from the same animal is if they are found in the same jaw. Even finding them close together is an unreliable method simply because you can't rule out taphonomic effects unless you have more data.

Oh and one last thing. Degrees don't mean you are correct, data does. A heart surgeon can make all the same claims about quantum mechanics that a physicist does, but the only way to determine whose ideas are correct is which ideas are most consistent with observation. Certainly experience helps, but a bad argument is a bad argument no matter who makes it.

[JohnJ]

Very well said, John.

[Fossil_Rocks]

And the next paragraph started off with soft tissue being required. Any idea how much something like that would cost? I would think that for the just being allowed to use the equipment would run in the thousands of dollars. I still think it is worth something pursuing but not on a small fossilized scale.

Generally, a mass Spec. isn't hard to get a hold of. There are plenty around.

A university instrument would be fine, and likely could be coaxed or "begged" for free, even if I can't find a grad. student interested. Chem. majors and professors are often bored to death with the day to day routine, so something like this would peak their interest.

I'm going to keep studying the literature, but here's another tidbit that I found today.

Ancient swamp creature sported 'Mick Jagger' lips - Fox News - September 13, 2014

Traces of various isotopes (atoms of the same element with different numbers of neutrons) in the bones suggest the creature was likely a herbivore. The researchers think its sensitive snout helped the hippo-pig sniff out food in swamplands, and its Jagger-esque lips and jutting lower teeth helped it gobble up plants.

----------------------------------------------------------

Here again, we see the potential for a fingerprint, most likely in the enamel, itself.

This is a much more complex form of mass spec. analysis, which I have little doubt could point to a single individual.

I'm hot on the trail ...

Edited September 13, 2014 by Fossil_Rocks

[Fossil_Rocks]

I'm always amused by threads like these where there is an argument about something for which there is no data. Something worth pointing out:

You don't know enough about mass. spec. to make that conclusion. As indicated above(Post 38,) the enamel should yield isotopic ratios, which I suspect will vary between individuals.

Do your homework, before jumping into that fire. I repeat, no one has been looking for isotopic variances BEFORE, between enameled teeth of individuals vs others, except perhaps in theory ...the occasional forensic pathologist, and that's a pretty rare need, for the exact same reason as finding a set of shark teeth, as opposed to just two. It's extremely rare that you would need to match just two.

I repeat, the enamel is not replaced due to its stability, which should leave the isotopic fingerprints largely intact. Shark enamel is also perfect for this purpose, because a shark sheds its teeth regularly, so the differences caused by dietary absorption should vary by what that animal ate for the past X number of months or years. I also suspect that this could increase the likelihood of variance between individuals, because no two sharks will likely have been eating identical prey items. Each meal will contain its own isotopic soup, passed along in the enamel.

Bet me, that the isotopic ratio variances won't be relatively large between individuals, or at least explain why not. I bet the differences are staggering, and I aim to find out how wide they are. There are plenty of teeth out there, and enough sets .... if allowed to be analyzed, to find out.

Fortunately also, I believe the sample sizes can be quite small, at least they are with regular mass spec. analysis.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Fossil_Rocks

[Megatooth Collector]

This is all still just your theory until you or someone else performs a study and produced reliable data in support of what you are hypothesizing. Until then this is purely a speculation. You have two nice Megs there that look similar and were said to be found near each other. That's about all the conclusion I can see at this point. No amount of speculation no matter how solid you think your theory is, would ever make me (a serious collector) consider the type of money you are asking for these two teeth. Heck, even if you could somehow prove that they are from the same animal, I am not sure that would justify the premium you are asking. Just my 2 cents..

By the way, as a science minded person I would love to see the data should you ever pull this off .

Edited September 13, 2014 by Megatooth Collector

[Doctor Mud]

You have some interesting ideas here, but for me, in the back of my mind, the spark of scientific curiosity is tainted by someone who is willing to sell items at an inflated price. This price would be justified perhaps if there was proof for association, but really you have to admit at this stage there is not.

Seems to me you have the curiosity of a scientist, and like all of us you want to be comfortable in life and make a buck. But - could you sell these teeth at the asking price with a free conscience? Or would you be better off keeping them and using them as part of the interesting ideas you propose to develop methods for determining association? By selling them they could forever be lost to science.

Your last proposal regarding stable isotopes is problematic.

Carbon and Nitrogen isotopic ratios (13C:12C) and (15N:14N) can be used to tell what an animal ate. Different plants have different C (carbon) isotopic signatures and N (nitrogen) is very useful to separate marine from terrestrial diets and position in the food chain.

Lets assume that C and N from the original bone is preserved. Wouldn't we expect similar diets from the same species? Think of how fussy some herbivores are. Also sometimes all you can tell using C isotopes is whether the animal was eating C4 or C3 plants (e.g maize is C4 and soybeans are C3). We could therefore tell that bones/teeth with similar isotopic signatures came from individuals with similar or identical diets. Think of what the C and N isotopes of Koala bones (notoriously fussy herbivores) would look like. Different animals could have identical isotopic signatures. Admittedly there is also some variation in C isotopes within plant species which could be attributed to climate etc. but this would be difficult information to extract from fossil material.

Lets come back to the meg teeth in question: if megs ate whales wouldn't we see C and N isotopic signature of "whale eaters"?

However - The problem with old bones (as has already been mentioned on this thread) is that the original atoms that make up bones and teeth are replaced. It would be unusual for the original C and N to be left - especially after millions of years. This is also why claims for radiocarbon dates on old bones (millions of years old, such as dinosaur bones) should be taken with a huge chunk of salt.

Oxygen isotopes might be a different story and I recall people examining the oxygen isotope signature from fossil sharks teeth in order to look at past climate change. This could be an avenue to pursue, but I would imagine that individuals living in the same area would have similar signatures. You would still have to be careful of digenesis and check if you are seeing a primary signal (produced when the animal was living) or secondary signal (produced after burial). Oxygen isotopes might prove more useful to look at changes in populations through time and there would be a great deal of overlap of oxygen isotope signatures between individuals - unfortunately not the unique "fingerprint" you are looking for.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Doctor Mud

[Megatooth Collector]

Fossil Rocks,

Hey look I have my own set of associated pairs No, but seriously I have a question for you regarding these specimens, if you read this again. I am curious if he would conclude that my teeth in the photo must be from the same individual animal based on the following circumstance in which they were found. First of all, all information that I have is based on what the person who found them (ie. diver) claims about them. That aspect must be considered. Anyway, assuming all that was reported are true, these two megs were found at a depth around 25 feet in a South Carolina river. They were found together, within 2 inches of each other. One was facing display side up and the other display side down, which is what lead to a dark and light side of each tooth respectively, but opposite each other. No other teeth or other fossils were found in that area during the dive. I remember the ratio of measurements being important in the original hypothesis... the larger is 4.94" and 4.63" with ratio of 1.06, while the short is 3.95" and 3.87" with a ratio of 1.02. So what would your conclusion be on these two?

To me, they are very interesting Megs that were likely found together and possible there a long time together. The thought that they might have fallen out of the mouth of the same Megalodon as it took and chunk out of a whale is an awesome idea. That possibility to me adds to their "cool factor", but I would not make a claim to anyone that they are guaranteed to be from the same animal. Nor if I ever decided to sell them together would I ask an astronomical amount. That's my only real objection here is that you (the OP) is trying to sell your megs as if they are guaranteed to be from the same animal. You can no more make that statement than I can, despite the circumstances in which they were found or theories that support it. Just my 2 cents...

Edited September 23, 2014 by Megatooth Collector

[Fossil_Rocks]

This is all still just your theory until you or someone else performs a study and produced reliable data in support of what you are hypothesizing. Until then this is purely a speculation. You have two nice Megs there that look similar and were said to be found near each other. That's about all the conclusion I can see at this point. No amount of speculation no matter how solid you think your theory is, would ever make me (a serious collector) consider the type of money you are asking for these two teeth. Heck, even if you could somehow prove that they are from the same animal, I am not sure that would justify the premium you are asking. Just my 2 cents..

By the way, as a science minded person I would love to see the data should you ever pull this off .

I'll make the gamble, and if I'm right, I'll get it published.

The increase in value would be secondary for me.

[Megatooth Collector]

I'll make the gamble, and if I'm right, I'll get it published.

The increase in value would be secondary for me.

So then what is the plan? What to you mean by gamble and how to you plan to prove you are right? What methods do you plan to use that will provide enough usable data to write a manuscript, have it peer reviewed and then accepted for publication. I am very interested in hearing this...

[Fossil_Rocks]

So then what is the plan? What to you mean by gamble and how to you plan to prove you are right? What methods do you plan to use that will provide enough usable data to write a manuscript, have it peer reviewed and then accepted for publication. I am very interested in hearing this...

My plan is simple. Pay or beg to have the testing done, possibly in exchange for co-authorship, and present the evidence for publication, with references.

I'm at a point now where I'm willing to go it alone, just for the fun of making the argument and seeing some heads spin around.

• Isotope analysis is the determination of isotopic signature, the relative abundances of isotopes of a given element in a particular sample. For biogenic substances in particular, significant variations of isotopes of C, N and O can occur. Analysis of such variations has a wide range of applications, such as the detection of adulteration in food products^[22] or the geographic origins of products using isoscapes. The identification of certain meteorites as having originated on Mars is based in part upon the isotopic signature of trace gases contained in them.^[23]

[THobern]

I'm sceptical of what could be discerned from isotopic analysis. As for publication and coauthorship, I'd have a hard time seeing any scientific value. A curio alone does not justify a paper.

[Megatooth Collector]

My plan is simple. Pay or beg to have the testing done, possibly in exchange for co-authorship, and present the evidence for publication, with references.

I'm at a point now where I'm willing to go it alone, just for the fun of making the argument and seeing some heads spin around.

• Isotope analysis is the determination of isotopic signature, the relative abundances of isotopes of a given element in a particular sample. For biogenic substances in particular, significant variations of isotopes of C, N and O can occur. Analysis of such variations has a wide range of applications, such as the detection of adulteration in food products^[22] or the geographic origins of products using isoscapes. The identification of certain meteorites as having originated on Mars is based in part upon the isotopic signature of trace gases contained in them.^[23]

Well it sounds like you have your own quest then to find the "one ring to rule them all". Please share any updates in this endeavor, as the information you could gather might be "precious" to the scientific community. I am sure those who have read or contributed to this thread are interested to see what you will come up with. Let the head spinning being

Edited September 23, 2014 by Megatooth Collector

[Auspex]

If you are able to arrange these tests, neither success nor failure will tell us anything new about C. megalodon. It might, however, be exploring a new tool for geo-chemical analysis with applications in taphonomy.

Devising a double-blind methodology, and obtaining a statistically significant sample size (the tests will be, to some degree, destructive), all in a way that is reproducible, will be daunting.

The question is begging: what's the point? The fact that you have specimens for sale, which values are predicated on positive results, is a troubling conflict of interest that will cast a long shadow over the endeavor.

[Megatooth Collector]

I think we have all been missing the point as we try to discuss this with the OP. This OP is not objective in his thought process about this situation. That's why I am here cheering him along! If he says he plans on some sort of quest to try and prove his claim, more power to him. I seriously doubt that there will be any action though, other than talk. I have additional reservations of believing someone that cites Wikipedia as support. I know he is a big fan if lord of the rings, hence my prior references in my previous comment.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Auspex

[Fossil_Rocks]

The literature supports my contention that may be possible to relate teeth of the same shark, using isotopic ratio analysis. I'm willing to bet that no two sharks are exactly alike. Diet, age, and the environment all influence these isotopes.

Even if you want to argue that some mineral replacement may have occurred, that replacement process mirrors the atoms which are in the enamel to begin with. That is to say, what's there influences what is replaced.

Clearly, we see below that there's a strong belief that florapatite is highly resilient to mineralization. Otherwise, this would have never been published in the first place.

There's a lot more where this came from, too - Google Search: Oxygen and strontium isotopes from fossil shark teeth

Chemical Geology

Volume 342, 29 March 2013, Pages 44–62

Oxygen and strontium isotopes from fossil shark teeth: Environmental and ecological implications for Late Palaeozoic European basins

Abstract - Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009254113000508

Fossil shark remains occur in both marine and nonmarine Late Palaeozoic deposits, therefore their palaeoecology is controversial. The oxygen and strontium isotopic composition of biogenic fluorapatite in 179 teeth, scales and spines predominantly of hybodontid (Lissodus) and xenacanthiform (Orthacanthus, Xenacanthus, Bohemiacanthus, Triodus) sharks from various Late Carboniferous (Moscovian) to Early Permian (Artinskian) basins of Europe are used as ecological tracers to decipher diadromous or obligate freshwater lifestyle of the investigated taxa. The δ¹⁸O_P values of the different shark teeth range from 11.7 to 20.2‰ within the different basins with mean values of 16.9 ± 0.5‰ for the Bohemian Massif, 16.2 ± 0.8‰ for eastern Germany, 18.2 ± 1.0‰ for southwestern Germany, 18.5 ± 0.7‰ for southern-central Spain, 17.6 ± 0.4‰ for Sardinia, and 16.6 ± 0.5‰ VSMOW for the French Massif Central. The tooth δ¹⁸O_P values from the basins are mostly depleted by 1–5‰ relative to those of shark teeth from contemporaneous marine settings. Oxygen isotope signatures of co-occurring taxa do not show systematic differences excluding habitat effects for different shark groups. However, distinctly higher δ¹⁸O_P values from Puertollano and Saar–Nahe can be attributed to significant evaporative enrichment in ¹⁸O of the ambient water in the ancient lacustrine environments due to a warm and dry climate and sufficient residence time in the basins. The strontium isotopic composition of the teeth varies between 0.70824 and 0.71216 with a mean value of 0.71031. These ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr ratios are always more radiogenic in comparison to the ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr record of seawater of their stratigraphic age. Overall, the investigated tooth samples yield low δ¹⁸O_P and high ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr values deviating from bioapatite values expected for contemporaneous marine vertebrates and typical for freshwater settings. This indicates a fully freshwater adapted lifestyle for a variety of fossil shark taxa in Late Palaeozoic European basins.

Highlights

► First comprehensive isotope analysis of Late Palaeozoic shark teeth from Europe ► Unequivocal freshwater conditions in all investigated European basins ► Distinctly high δ¹⁸O_P values are the result of significant evaporative enrichment. ► Fully freshwater adaptation of the investigated Carboniferous–Permian shark taxa

Edited July 11, 2015 by Fossil_Rocks