Jump to content
vasili1017

Possible Shark Tooth?

Recommended Posts

vasili1017

Found this while screening in Big Brook Preserve, NJ. Any ideas what it could be?

post-16021-0-22811200-1406601920_thumb.jpgpost-16021-0-22945100-1406601921_thumb.jpgpost-16021-0-19070400-1406601922_thumb.jpgpost-16021-0-69437800-1406601923_thumb.jpgpost-16021-0-33087000-1406601925_thumb.jpg

Edited by vasili1017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ramo

Looks a lot like a dermal denticle. If so I would rate it far better than a shark tooth!

Ramo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkinhead

I don't know much about the geology there but it could be part of a solitary rugose coral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19

I agree with dermal denticle - the area is mostly Cretaceous in age.

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siteseer

Yes, that looks like a ray denticle. I don't think I've seen one of that form before from Big Brook - radiating ridges from a central cusp. It's very well-preserved too.

Found this while screening in Big Brook Preserve, NJ. Any ideas what it could be?

attachicon.gifIMG_5549.jpgattachicon.gifIMG_5551.jpgattachicon.gifIMG_5554.jpgattachicon.gifIMG_5555.jpgattachicon.gifIMG_5557.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
non-remanié

I have seen a couple of these from the NJ creeks, but they are quite rare. Its a denticle that can be referred Peyeria libyca, but you may see it referred to as a "rostral tooth" online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RyanNREMTP

Cool find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkinhead

Well if it's Cretaceous then it's definitely not a solitary rugose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr

I have seen a couple of these from the NJ creeks, but they are quite rare. Its a denticle that can be referred Peyeria libyca, but you may see it referred to as a "rostral tooth" online.

Beautiful specimen. I fully agree with Steve. Peyeria libyca was originally used to describe remains from Egypt considered as the rostral teeth of a sawfish by Weiler (1935A). However now they are considered dermal thorns of Onchopristis, with which it is always associated Cappetta (2012). They are quite rare from the US. It is a specimen that many collectors would love to find. They are much more common from Egypt and Morocco.

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
creto

I have seen similar denticles from the Santonian of New Mexico. I'm pretty sure that Onchopristis was long extinct before the Big Brook sediments were deposited. I guess it could be reworked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl

Peyeria's wonderfully rare! Nice find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
non-remanié

Yes, I have seen a number of these on the forum, probably from NC and Tx, as well as NJ. It seems they are quite rare wherever they occur but they do seem to reliably occur almost everywhere with the right age sediments. Its interesting that Cappetta now ascribes these dermal thorns to Onchopristis. I definitely have never seen a rostral spine of Onchopristis from NJ. All these "Peyeria" dermal thorns that I have seen from NJ (~6) have come from the Big Brook area, which is strictly late Campanian to earliest Maastrichtian. I am sure someone would have found an Onchopristis tooth in the Big Brook area if they existed here. I think I have also seen a specimen from the mid-Campanian of Delaware or NJ.

More discussion of Peyeria here http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/44501-tuesday-hunt-late-cretaceous-alabama/

Beautiful specimen. I fully agree with Steve. Peyeria libyca was originally used to describe remains from Egypt considered as the rostral teeth of a sawfish by Weiler (1935A). However now they are considered dermal thorns of Onchopristis, with which it is always associated Cappetta (2012). They are quite rare from the US. It is a specimen that many collectors would love to find. They are much more common from Egypt and Morocco.

Marco Sr.

Edited by non-remanié

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
non-remanié

definitely not reworked from the Santonian in NJ. the NJ specimens have to be latest Campanian or earliest Maastrichtian. all of the specimens i know of were found as float but there is no evidence of older sediments in the Big Brook area.

I have seen similar denticles from the Santonian of New Mexico. I'm pretty sure that Onchopristis was long extinct before the Big Brook sediments were deposited. I guess it could be reworked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siteseer

Non-remanie,

That leaves me wondering if it could belong to Ischyrhiza, a more recent relative of Onchopristis. If so, we would expect to see more of these denticles rather than being so rare. It's possible they belong to some unknown batoid that only rarely came close to shore.

Jess

Yes, I have seen a number of these on the forum, probably from NC and Tx, as well as NJ. It seems they are quite rare wherever they occur but they do seem to reliably occur almost everywhere with the right age sediments. Its interesting that Cappetta now ascribes these dermal thorns to Onchopristis. I definitely have never seen a rostral spine of Onchopristis from NJ. All these "Peyeria" dermal thorns that I have seen from NJ (~6) have come from the Big Brook area, which is strictly late Campanian to earliest Maastrichtian. I am sure someone would have found an Onchopristis tooth in the Big Brook area if they existed here. I think I have also seen a specimen from the mid-Campanian of Delaware or NJ.

More discussion of Peyeria here http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/44501-tuesday-hunt-late-cretaceous-alabama/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr

Yes, I have seen a number of these on the forum, probably from NC and Tx, as well as NJ. It seems they are quite rare wherever they occur but they do seem to reliably occur almost everywhere with the right age sediments. Its interesting that Cappetta now ascribes these dermal thorns to Onchopristis. I definitely have never seen a rostral spine of Onchopristis from NJ. All these "Peyeria" dermal thorns that I have seen from NJ (~6) have come from the Big Brook area, which is strictly late Campanian to earliest Maastrichtian. I am sure someone would have found an Onchopristis tooth in the Big Brook area if they existed here. I think I have also seen a specimen from the mid-Campanian of Delaware or NJ.

More discussion of Peyeria here http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/44501-tuesday-hunt-late-cretaceous-alabama/

I have seen similar denticles from the Santonian of New Mexico. I'm pretty sure that Onchopristis was long extinct before the Big Brook sediments were deposited. I guess it could be reworked?

Steve & Keith

Cappetta has spent a lot of time in Morocco and described a good number of shark and ray species from there so I took his comment on the thorn association with Onchopristis to be from personal experience. However you both bring up very valid points. The rostral teeth/spines of Onchopristis (numidus and dunklei) are large and it would be very unexpected to be finding dermal thorns but not rostral teeth/spines. Also the age of the Big Brook NJ formations would be too young for Onchopristis. I have found in some other areas where Cappetta was not aware of the US faunas and shark and ray species to the same degree as Europe, central Asia and North Africa. He did also mention that Werner (1989, pl. 42) illustrated some rhinobatoid teeth as oral teeth of Peyeria. He also mentioned that these specimens remind of rostral teeth of certain pristids such as Propristis. However Pristidae do not appear until the early Eocene, and he states that occurance of the family as far back as the Cenomanian does not seem probable according to present knowledge. So to me, it looks like the identification of this type of specimen is still in doubt.

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
non-remanié

Yes, it seems most likely that these denticles came from some unknown batoid that perhaps did not have fully mineralized oral teeth. Or the oral teeth were just too tiny or too similar to another species, that they can't be identified. I would imagine Cappetta would have a much better guess (from Moroccan faunal associations) than Onchopristis if there was any other halfway decent possibility. If it was possible for the oral teeth to be preserved, I would imagine that it would have definitely been found in the Moroccan phosphates already. And I doubt they would be found in another fauna first.

Steve & Keith

Cappetta has spent a lot of time in Morocco and described a good number of shark and ray species from there so I took his comment on the thorn association with Onchopristis to be from personal experience. However you both bring up very valid points. The rostral teeth/spines of Onchopristis (numidus and dunklei) are large and it would be very unexpected to be finding dermal thorns but not rostral teeth/spines. Also the age of the Big Brook NJ formations would be too young for Onchopristis. I have found in some other areas where Cappetta was not aware of the US faunas and shark and ray species to the same degree as Europe, central Asia and North Africa. He did also mention that Werner (1989, pl. 42) illustrated some rhinobatoid teeth as oral teeth of Peyeria. He also mentioned that these specimens remind of rostral teeth of certain pristids such as Propristis. However Pristidae do not appear until the early Eocene, and he states that occurance of the family as far back as the Cenomanian does not seem probable according to present knowledge. So to me, it looks like the identification of this type of specimen is still in doubt.

Marco Sr.

Edited by non-remanié

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr

Yes, it seems most likely that these denticles came from some unknown batoid that perhaps did not have fully mineralized oral teeth. Or the oral teeth were just too tiny or too similar to another species, that they can't be identified. I would imagine Cappetta would have a much better guess (from Moroccan faunal associations) than Onchopristis if there was any other halfway decent possibility. If it was possible for the oral teeth to be preserved, I would imagine that it would have definitely been found in the Moroccan phosphates already. And I doubt they would be found in another fauna first.

Steve

I agree that the definitive answer will eventually come from Morocco. I had thought that Cappetta had resolved the id but the US specimens seem to require another id.

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr

I am sending you a PM on your specimen.

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×