Morocco shark tooth

[britishcanuk]

I'm picked up this little tooth a few weeks ago on the auction site, then description was as follows;

"A Fossil Sharks tooth from Cretolamna bi-auriculata, from the Eocene age Phosphate deposits of Morocco."

 

Wondering if anyone has any thoughts, opinions or confirmation on the ID.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[Northern Sharks]

Unless things have changed, that is more or less correct. The proper name is Cretalamna (with an A not an O) biauriculata. I've also seen it named C. biauriculata maroccana

[britishcanuk]

Thanks. Hey, I'm also from Ontario, near Windsor. Are you anywhere near me?

[Plax]

I thought that shark was latest Cretaceous? Could be wrong of course, just saying......

[abyssunder]

I think the correct name for the genus is Cretolamna , with †Cretolamna biauriculata Wanner 1902.

 

Here is an example : N. BARDET et al. The marine vertebrate faunas from the Late Cretaceous phosphates of Syria.pdf

 

[Darktooth]

I think its definitely a good score!

[Northern Sharks]

I believe the CretAlamna vs. CretOlamna confusion started with an error. In the original description, it was erroneously spelled with an A, while the author wanted an O. In subsequent publications, it was spelled with an O, but since the original description has precedence, the spelling with the A is technically correct. I missed the age in the original post, but yes, it is Cretaceous. Britishcanuk, I'm close to Lake Simcoe, so several hours from Windsor.

[Al Dente]

16 minutes ago, Northern Sharks said:

I believe the CretAlamna vs. CretOlamna confusion started with an error. In the original description, it was erroneously spelled with an A, while the author wanted an O. In subsequent publications, it was spelled with an O, but since the original description has precedence, the spelling with the A is technically correct. I missed the age in the original post, but yes, it is Cretaceous. Britishcanuk, I'm close to Lake Simcoe, so several hours from Windsor.

 

Cappetta argues that the first spelling by Glickman was a spelling error (he spelled it Cretalamna) and that in later papers, Glickman spelled it the corrected way (Cretolamna). The latest rules of the ICZN allow for spelling errors to be corrected (if I understand the difficult wording of their rules correctly). Here is part of Cappetta's argument and the response from the ICZN-

[abyssunder]

Going back in time, in the year 1902, Johannes Wanner , in Die Fauna der obersten weissen Kreide der libyschen Wüste, used for description the name Otodus biauriculatus.

Here is the book, if someone is interested in.

 

[Al Dente]

On 12/13/2016 at 2:54 PM, Al Dente said:

Here is part of Cappetta's argument and the response from the ICZN

 

And here is part of Siversson's rebuttal to Cappetta's argument.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Al Dente

[MikaelS]

Basically we have the Swedish/UK 'coalition' (invariably supporting the spelling Cretalamna) vs the French/Russian 'coalition' (invariably supporting the spelling Cretolamna) with the rest of the world a bit undecided.

 

The correct spelling (imo) Cretalamna was first pointed out to me by David Ward while we were sitting around a campfire in the Australian outback back in 1995. This partly explains why UK based shark workers use Cretalamna.

[doushantuo]

THX