Possible Associated Pair Of Megalodon Teeth ...‏

[Auspex]

This is a far cry from being able to confirm that two fossil teeth are from the same individual.

It is a pretty amazing scientific accomplishment as it is; let's not make it something it is not.

[JohnJ]

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

No, the literature does not support your contention that it "may be possible to relate teeth of the same shark". Research that shows a way to potentially decipher whether fossil shark remains were deposited in a marine or freshwater environment does not infer the specificity required to assert two teeth came from the same shark.

...And, yes, your 'for sale' ad is being "outed" again. Some of the assertions are not credible and not supported by science.

Rereading this whole topic puts things in perspective.

Found 5+ Inch - Real & Rare Associated Pair - Megalodon Shark Teeth

These are the largest associated pair of Megalodon Teeth Ever Found

What you've found has never been publicly displayed before, and very rarely offered for sale. The biggest reason is because it's very difficult to prove relationships between specimens, unless you find a whole set.

They say in science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but as with human teeth used in criminal investigations, there are ways of determining relationships between teeth that are beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyone who has examined teeth long enough under high magnification, already know that they have unique fingerprints, especially land finds, and these are not sand blasted.

These were discovered by a civil war relic collector, and purchased directly from the source. They are not reworked river teeth, and they were found together. However, for obvious reasons the finder would not reveal exactly where, but we know it was probably eastern South Carolina, and likely north of Charleston. The color could provide us some clue as to the formation they came from, as well as the light dusting of rust on both. I've never seen land finds of this color and texture, but we often see similar colors from our rivers.

When you decide to purchase these specimens, and if upon seeing them in your flesh; you have any doubts that they belong together, I will gladly refund your money.

If you have a degree in shark science, and would like to examine these, just PM me, and we'll see what we can work out.

Finally, these two are also a pair in terms of their dentition, between the upper and lower portion of the jaw, which is almost Mother Nature's underline as to how they likely came to be together in the first place. As you can see in the photos of their relative measurements, they have an identical ratio between their long and short sides, a stunning and breathtaking fact that I would equate to buying Secretariat as a yearling.

I will continue to gather evidence as the sale proceeds, because these have not been on display for science, or anyone.

Here are the specs:

For now, see my photos of measurements and ratios.

The serrations you can easily see for yourself. The tips are evident, but I can and will get better close ups of these, and post them later.

A microscopic and UV examination of this specimen reveals no evidence of restoration or repair. UV Photos are available upon request.

I will only ship to select countries outside the U.S., and where a signature confirmation of delivery can be obtained.

Payment is due within ten days of your purchase.

Note: The root of larger tooth is not fragile per se, but I would recommend that both be professionally stabilized with a typical hardener used by paleontologists. This is not an expensive procedure, but I did not want to do this until ample time was given for careful study.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: I have determined from careful research that mass spectrometry using isotopic ratio analysis is the most likely path to verifying, beyond a reasonable doubt that these two teeth are from the same individual shark.

The amount of material needed for such analysis is negligible, and would be taken from the enamel, which undergoes only minimal mineral replacement, given it's hardness and stability. The cost of such a test is very reasonable, especially considering the added value, because this would make these the largest associated megalodon teeth ever discovered.

The price will likely rise after this test is completed and published.

UPDATE: The literature supports my belief and argument that isotopic analysis may reveal distinct differences between individuals.

[Gizmo]

Um, what about this set?

[Doctor Mud]

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

There is a difference between a sales pitch and science.

Is this the exact paper you are using as evidence? Is the red highlighted text supposed to indicate the passage in the abstract supporting your sales pitch?

It doesn't. As already stated, what this paper does is show that the original isotopic signature of the shark tooth is preserved and is not drastically altered by diagenisis (processes after burial).

The highlighted text shows that individuals living in smaller closed freshwater basins subject to evaporative enrichment (which concentrates heavier 18O oxygen isotope) can be identified.

Two individuals living in the same environment would have the same signature, within the error of the technique.

Incidentally meg teeth will not show evaporative enrichment of 18O.

[Doctor Mud]

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.

Repeating what Auspex said.

You say in your ad that you will get tests done. What exactly is your hypothesis and reasoning. If the isotopic signature (18O or otherwise) from these two teeth are similar therefore they are from the same individual?

There are many reasons that two teeth even from different individuals would have the same or similar isotopic signatures so the logic is not sound. A true test would involve many samples in the same deposit and perhaps include a test on modern teeth from different individuals.

[JohnJ]

Repeating what Auspex said.

You say in your ad that you will get tests done. What exactly is your hypothesis and reasoning. If the isotopic signature (18O or otherwise) from these two teeth are similar therefore they are from the same individual?

There are many reasons that two teeth even from different individuals would have the same or similar isotopic signatures so the logic is not sound. A true test would involve many samples in the same deposit and perhaps include a test on modern teeth from different individuals.

Exactly.

Even with a huge sample size, it's probable that the range of distinction between known associated teeth is too broad to differentiate them from an unrelated specimen.

[Fossil_Rocks]

This is a far cry from being able to confirm that two fossil teeth are from the same individual.

It is a pretty amazing scientific accomplishment as it is; let's not make it something it is not.

Firstly, let me say that this thread isn't a conspiracy.

Assuming a motive is bad psychological science, unless you're a trained profiler.

All science is for sale, just ask the kids that are being strapped with mountains of student loan debt.

Academia is a business.

Where people got the idea that it wasn't, is a much better conspiracy to follow.

[Fossil_Rocks]

As far as I can tell, no one is studying the differences in isotopic ratios between individuals.

Is it because the sensitivity isn't there yet, or because there's no need to do that science?

That's the next question I'll be asking.

[Auspex]

....All science is for sale...

Not here, it's not.

Besides, you are selling fossils, and mis-citing science to do it.

We attract between 30,000 and 45,000 unique visitors a month, and our publishing standards are accordingly strict. Mis-information on the internet gets repeated, and takes on a life of its own; we have a responsibility to keep junk science off our boards.

Now, asking questions is a fundamental part of the scientific process, and the resulting discourse can be highly educational (even if the answer is "I don't know").

[Fossil_Rocks]

Not here, it's not.

Besides, you are selling fossils, and mis-citing science to do it.

We attract between 30,000 and 45,000 unique visitors a month, and our publishing standards are accordingly strict. Mis-information on the internet gets repeated, and takes on a life of its own; we have a responsibility to keep junk science off our boards.

Now, asking questions is a fundamental part of the scientific process, and the resulting discourse can be highly educational (even if the answer is "I don't know").

I'm not selling these specimens here.

I'm debating the idea of association. If I choose to sell them somewhere else, that's my business.

Before you go accusing me of something, you should know that I was trained as a chemist, and as a scientist.

I know more about this subject than you realize, for now.

[Auspex]

...Before you go accusing me of something, you should know that I was trained as a chemist, and as a scientist.

I know more about this subject than you realize, for now.

Then why do you suggest, in your on-line sales pitch, that the cited research can support your quasi claim that the two teeth are from the same shark? Is it not because they are worth much more if someone believes them to be mouth-mates?

[JohnJ]

I'm not selling these specimens here.

I'm debating the idea of association. If I choose to sell them somewhere else, that's my business.

....

You are not debating the idea of association when you advertise elsewhere that they ARE associated and that the cited literature supports your "contention". Your online sales pitch cannot be separated from your discussion of these teeth, here.

[Fossil Claw]

Adding to the lack of credibility is that if you look at all if his other items for sale, they all have an unbelievable narative as to why each item is the most best super incredible unbelievable unique valuable item in that has ever graced the market on ebay.

PT barnum type marketing IMHO. Trying to justify super crazy premium pricing for relative average pieces.

[Auspex]

Adding to the lack of credibility is that if you look at all if his other items for sale, they all have an unbelievable narative as to why each item is the most best super incredible unbelievable unique valuable item in that has ever graced the market on ebay.

PT barnum type marketing IMHO. Trying to justify super crazy premium pricing for relative average pieces.

That's his business, literally and figuratively, until it spills over here.

Here we challenge erroneous or misleading claims when the science cited to support them is misrepresented. I personally don't give a whit what he does elsewhere, and policing eBay is not in my job description.

[Fossil Claw]

Agree. Just saying it adds to a lack of credibility in his claims here.

[Doctor Mud]

I almost wonder if we should lock down this thread?

I think enough people have gone on record and there is enough material here to preserve the state of this discussion for prosperity.

[JohnJ]

We knew it was headed that way and were discussing the timing a few hours ago. No need to let it unhinge in the U.S. night.