Upper Carboniferous/Pennsylvanian Shark Tooth Hunt

[Archie]

4 hours ago, TNCollector said:

Nice list!! I especially like seeing the freshwater variety, including the Xenacanthus teeth. All of the Paleozoic teeth I find are marine. Being that you are searching a freshwater deposit, it is only a matter of time before you find some tetrapod teeth...there are some here in TN that I have seen pictures of.

 

Those Ageleodus are nice teeth. I have never seen one from here in the states.

 

Thank you! The Xenacanthus teeth are my favorites, this is one genus that seems to have been exclusively marine, a lot of the others such as Helodus, Psephodus and Deltodus can be found in the marine deposits here. Absolutely, Ive found a few bits and pieces that may be tetrapod I need to get checked out, Ive also found a single lungfish tooth and these are often found alongside tetrapod remains in Scotland. 

 

I really like the Ageleodus teeth, they seem to be one of the few entirely freshwater petalodont genus's. Beautiful specimens have been found at Red Hill in Pennsylvania http://www.devoniantimes.org/who/pages/ageleodus.html  

[TNCollector]

6 minutes ago, Archie said:

 

Thank you! The Xenacanthus teeth are my favorites, this is one genus that seems to have been exclusively marine, a lot of the others such as Helodus, Psephodus and Deltodus can be found in the marine deposits here. Absolutely, Ive found a few bits and pieces that may be tetrapod I need to get checked out, Ive also found a single lungfish tooth and these are often found alongside tetrapod remains in Scotland. 

 

I really like the Ageleodus teeth, they seem to be one of the few entirely freshwater petalodont genus's. Beautiful specimens have been found at Red Hill in Pennsylvania http://www.devoniantimes.org/who/pages/ageleodus.html  

 

I actually have some red hill material that I still need to go through...it is full of scales and placoderm armor fragments. There are a few teeth in it as well that I need to uncover more. That matrix is extremely tough.

 

 What is most interesting to me is the similarity of the chondricthyan taxa that are found here in the states and also in the UK. It would be interesting to do a detailed comparison. There is very little funding out there for Paleozoic chondricthyan studies, it is up to amateur paleontologists such as ourselves to do the research on these animals.

[sixgill pete]

Archie, those are some amazing teeth. What a great location you have. Thanks for sharing them with us.

[Ludwigia]

Being an ammonite man, teeth are just a sideline for me, but nevertheless, your report sure did impress me. Thanks very much for sharing!

[Ridgehiker]

18 hours ago, TNCollector said:

What is most interesting to me is the similarity of the chondricthyan taxa that are found here in the states and also in the UK. It would be interesting to do a detailed comparison. There is very little funding out there for Paleozoic chondricthyan studies, it is up to amateur paleontologists such as ourselves to do the research on these animals.

 

The lack of research on Paleozoic condrichthyans is understandable.  The study of Paleozoic vertebrates is minimal to our understanding of the geology of the time.  If you look at Devonian through Permian publications, the majority are biostratigraphic in nature.  This is why the study of corals, brachs, conodonts, cephalopods etc.. dominate. Our facility produced dozens of publications over the last 4 decades on invertebrates and just one 4 page paper on shark teeth.  That paper was very minimal in substance.  Most paleontologists are geologists and not biologists.  

 

On the posive side it's as you state.  Lots of opportunity for amateur paleontologists to make the their own mark on the subject.  About 1995 I collected a copy of just about every peer reviewed publication ever put out on paleozoic shark teeth. They didnt fill one drawer of a filing cabinet.  What was too weird was that Woodward's book on Shark teeth written in over a century earlier  in 1889 was still 'the primary reference'.

[Archie]

On 01/02/2017 at 11:01 PM, TNCollector said:

 

I actually have some red hill material that I still need to go through...it is full of scales and placoderm armor fragments. There are a few teeth in it as well that I need to uncover more. That matrix is extremely tough.

 

 What is most interesting to me is the similarity of the chondricthyan taxa that are found here in the states and also in the UK. It would be interesting to do a detailed comparison. There is very little funding out there for Paleozoic chondricthyan studies, it is up to amateur paleontologists such as ourselves to do the research on these animals.

Cool it has a very interesting faunal assemblage! Can the matrix be broken down with acid?

 

I also find that very interesting and it certainly would be. Absolutely.

[Archie]

On 01/02/2017 at 11:57 PM, sixgill pete said:

Archie, those are some amazing teeth. What a great location you have. Thanks for sharing them with us.

 

On 02/02/2017 at 0:34 AM, Ludwigia said:

Being an ammonite man, teeth are just a sideline for me, but nevertheless, your report sure did impress me. Thanks very much for sharing!

 

Thanks guys I hope to have more to share soon!

[Archie]

On 02/02/2017 at 5:56 PM, Canadawest said:

 

The lack of research on Paleozoic condrichthyans is understandable.  The study of Paleozoic vertebrates is minimal to our understanding of the geology of the time.  If you look at Devonian through Permian publications, the majority are biostratigraphic in nature.  This is why the study of corals, brachs, conodonts, cephalopods etc.. dominate. Our facility produced dozens of publications over the last 4 decades on invertebrates and just one 4 page paper on shark teeth.  That paper was very minimal in substance.  Most paleontologists are geologists and not biologists.  

 

On the posive side it's as you state.  Lots of opportunity for amateur paleontologists to make the their own mark on the subject.  About 1995 I collected a copy of just about every peer reviewed publication ever put out on paleozoic shark teeth. They didnt fill one drawer of a filing cabinet.  What was too weird was that Woodward's book on Shark teeth written in over a century earlier  in 1889 was still 'the primary reference'.

 

There's certainly a huge amount of work to be done on the subject that amateur paleontologists could greatly contribute to, there are so many controversies and problems to be solved. 

[deutscheben]

Thank you for sharing your collection, Archie! Those are lovely pics. 

 

It's great seeing Paleozoic shark teeth from other parts of the world- I've only collected a small handful from here in Illinois, but they are some of my favorite pieces.

[Archie]

On 10/02/2017 at 3:37 AM, deutscheben said:

Thank you for sharing your collection, Archie! Those are lovely pics. 

 

It's great seeing Paleozoic shark teeth from other parts of the world- I've only collected a small handful from here in Illinois, but they are some of my favorite pieces.

Thank you

I'd be really interested to see your Paleozoic teeth from Illinois!

[Archie]

I'm in the middle of photographing my lobe finned fish specimens from this site which I hope to post shortly but in the mean time Ive recently found a couple of teeth I'm really pleased with. First off an Ageleodus pectinatus in labial view which is quite large at 8mm across and has the most cusplets of any Ive ever found at 18.

[ynot]

WOW!!! That is a nice tooth!

Tony

[Archie]

And my new favorite tooth from this site and only the second complete specimen of this species Ive found, an 8mm x 6.5mm Ctenoptychius apicalis. in lingual view.

[Archie]

3 minutes ago, ynot said:

WOW!!! That is a nice tooth!

Tony

Thanks Tony

Sam

[ynot]

2 minutes ago, Archie said:

Thanks Tony

Sam

I should have said "teeth"!

Very nice (again)!!

[Fossildude19]

More great finds, Sam.  

Apparently there was wide variation in the cusp count on Ageleodus pectinatus  teeth. 

Very cool - thanks for the update! 

 

 

[TNCollector]

These are drool worthy! You have found such a nice variety at this site. Keep it up!

 

 

[Archie]

12 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

More great finds, Sam.  

Apparently there was wide variation in the cusp count on Ageleodus pectinatus  teeth. 

Very cool - thanks for the update! 

 

 

Thanks Tim

Very interesting link!

 

[Archie]

12 hours ago, TNCollector said:

These are drool worthy! You have found such a nice variety at this site. Keep it up!

 

 

Thanks!

I think I'm running out of potential new species to find at this site! One genus Ive never come across so far that's been found at other sites of Westphalian A age in the UK is Stethacanthus so I'm hoping one of these turns up some day

[JimB88]

wow..those are amazing!  And very good prep too!

[Archie]

1 hour ago, JimB88 said:

wow..those are amazing!  And very good prep too!

Thank you

[TNCollector]

I have never actually heard of this genus (Ctenoptychius apicalis). The morphology is so strange.

 

 

Edit: Come to think of it, in some ways it is similar to this tooth that I had identified as Petalorynchus sp. Perhaps they are similar critters.

 

 

[Archie]

It seems C. apicalis which is the type species is the only tooth still assigned to this genus with many others formerly assigned to it such as Harpacodus, Peripristis and Ageleodus all having been removed. Aside from the imbricated basal ridge this tooth and your Petalorynchus sp. are very similar indeed especially with the crowns having the prominent medial cusp.

 

I was amazed when I found this tooth at how similar it is to a marine tooth I have from the lower Carboniferous which I'd formerly identified as a Polyrhizodus sp. but I'm now thinking is more likely a Tanaodus sp. The only major difference between them seems to be the lack of cusps on the Tanaodus. Luckily the Ctenoptychius popped nicely out its matrix so you can see the labial side too, Ive taken some pics of it alongside the possible Tanaodus.

[Archie]

Lingual view:

 

[Archie]

Labial view: