mattbsharks Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Hi Everyone, I have been collecting fossil teeth for a couple of months and I have noticed that all of the hemipristis teeth I have collected have complete and sharp serrations on them. However, the teeth of other species that I collect, such as megalodons, do not tend to have complete and sharp serrations. Does anyone know why hemi teeth tend to keep all of their serrations despite the millions of years of wear and tear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 The only thing that comes to mind is the relative size of the serrations. Hemipristis (snaggeltooth) have very large serrations while most other shark have fine serrations. 2 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam28 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Just speculations but for one snaggletooth serrations are much larger therefore takes more tumbling & stumbling to wear them down/ off. Also because megalodons were warmblooded/ constantly feeding compared to snaggles, maybe they were quicker to wear them down/ replace them from feeding much more (seems most break after fossilizing but maybe they were/are less durable; not that I haven't found very busted up hemi's but seem less common than meg frags) It can be frustrating I've come close several times to finding a pristine 1- 2 inch or so meg but have yet to find my first lol. Would be interesting to see if Hemi teeth are more durable, not that I would test any.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattbsharks Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 From the teeth I have collected, I have noticed that hemi teeth break in just the root of the teeth, while my meg teeth break in the enamel and the root. I bet that the enamel of hemi teeth is stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darktooth Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I think that you have to take into consideration that megs were big animals who ate big animals. Think about a meg, dining on a whale. That meg bites through flesh and bone. Big bones! Add to that the pounds per square inch biting pressure. This had to do a number on their teeth. I would guess this to be a good reason why we tend to find more megs with feeding damage than hemis. 2 I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 28 minutes ago, Darktooth said: I think that you have to take into consideration that megs were big animals who ate big animals. Think about a meg, dining on a whale. That meg bites through flesh and bone. Big bones! Add to that the pounds per square inch biting pressure. This had to do a number on their teeth. I would guess this to be a good reason why we tend to find more megs with feeding damage than hemis. This is true, but snaggletooth feed on turtles. That has to be tough on the teeth too. 2 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcbshark Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I'm with Dave, bigger sharks and bigger prey likely are the cause of so many broken larger teeth. Every once in a great while it's not just a big rock down there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixgill pete Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I have found literally thousands of hemis in the Lee Creek spoil piles. I will agree that a very small percentage of them had serrations worn at all. But, as far a broken teeth, I have seen and found lots of broken ones. And many of the largest hemis have terrible enamel peel. Never really thought about why. Bulldozers and dirt Bulldozers and dirt behind the trailer, my desert Them red clay piles are heaven on earth I get my rocks off, bulldozers and dirt Patterson Hood; Drive-By Truckers May 2016 May 2012 Aug 2013, May 2016, Apr 2020 Oct 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woopaul5 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think a little may have to do with locations and how recent it washed/fell from the formation also. In SC the the gravel beds tend to wear the larger teeth down more than the smaller teeth. At Calvert I've found pristine hemis near the formation and rough ones tumbling in the surf. I have yet to find a complete meg but from vicariously through others it's seems the same story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Another very important issue is the amount of energy required to actually move a hemipristis v. a Carcharocles tooth. Hemipristis teeth are generally quite small and light and therefore have less drastically lower momentum than a Carcharocles tooth while being transported. Higher momentum = greater chance of damage upon impacts with other objects. That being said, i do not believe anyone has tried size-based abrasion/damage studies with shark teeth, though it has almost certainly been attempted for land mammals. For further reading, here's a thought provoking actualistic taphonomy paper on tooth damage in Squalicorax: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272645880_Squalicorax_Chips_a_Tooth_A_Consequence_of_Feeding-Related_Behavior_from_the_Lowermost_Navesink_Formation_Late_Cretaceous_Campanian-Maastrichtian_of_Monmouth_County_New_Jersey_USA/figures?lo=1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts