Lee Creek Mine tooth ?

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

Hi Guys,

 

  I'm looking at this tooth on an auction site and curious about the provenance.  Sellers sometimes get their material from elsewhere , and the location information for them is murky, so nailing down the localities for SC and NC teeth is like ..... well, like pulling teeth really.

  This seller has said that this is an Auriculatus tooth from Lee Creek phosphate mine.  Since I think the formation is too young for a ric, my assumption would be chubutensis.  I have seen chub teeth from Lee Creek with very prominent cusps.  Though this one doesn't seem right.  The morphology of the tooth seems like it may be a SC/NC Angustidens ?  I'm mainly looking at the slight re-curve beneath the cusps on the roots but I know that can't always be a good diagnostic tool. These are the only shots I have. 

 

Thanks,

Brett

 

 

PS. With the location in question I know that a positive ID is almost impossible but I thought I'd give it a shot. @sixgill pete

[SailingAlongToo]

@MarcoSr

[Al Dente]

I think there is a fair chance that this came from Lee Creek. It looks too thin to be auriculatus. If from Lee Creek it probably came from the reject material which is mostly Miocene but may be as old as Oligocene. This tooth has holes in the root that is similar to teeth I've seen from South Carolina so I would add that as a possibility too.

[TNCollector]

Color is a bit darker than I have found in material from that mine. But perhaps it came from the notorious green layer?

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

9 hours ago, Al Dente said:

I think there is a fair chance that this came from Lee Creek. It looks too thin to be auriculatus. If from Lee Creek it probably came from the reject material which is mostly Miocene but may be as old as Oligocene. This tooth has holes in the root that is similar to teeth I've seen from South Carolina so I would add that as a possibility too.

 

4 minutes ago, TNCollector said:

Color is a bit darker than I have found in material from that mine. But perhaps it came from the notorious green layer?

 

Hi Guys,

  

  Al, if it is from the reject .. which it well could be .. the Oligocene.  Could this be an angustidens ? Or would something out of Lee Creek still be considered more likely a chubutensis ?  I'm just not that familiar/educated with the fauna in that area. Well, not yet anyway. Thanks again for all of the replys, I appreciate it. 

 

Cheers,

Brett

[abyssunder]

" In the Lee Creek Mine fauna we recognize three species of Carcharodon: C. subauriculatus from the Pungo River Formation, C. megalodon from the Yorktown Formation, and C. carcharías from the Yorktown and James City formations."

 

for comparison:

 

 

"We distinguished this species from Carcharodon megalodon by the presence of lateral cusplets on the anterior teeth of subadults and usually adults; these cusplets are not separated from the crown by a deep notch as they are in C. angustidens and C. auriculatus. Juvenile, anterior teeth of C. megalodon may possess well-defined lateral cusplets. "

 

excerpts from here

 

 

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

44 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

" In the Lee Creek Mine fauna we recognize three species of Carcharodon: C. subauriculatus from the Pungo River Formation, C. megalodon from the Yorktown Formation, and C. carcharías from the Yorktown and James City formations."

 

for comparison:

 

 

"We distinguished this species from Carcharodon megalodon by the presence of lateral cusplets on the anterior teeth of subadults and usually adults; these cusplets are not separated from the crown by a deep notch as they are in C. angustidens and C. auriculatus. Juvenile, anterior teeth of C. megalodon may possess well-defined lateral cusplets. "

 

excerpts from here

 

 

  Fantastic resource .. thanks so much @abyssunder.  I appreciate the reading material.  Her initial description was correct beyond the tooth being from C. auriculatus ... but it actually a C. subauriculatus (synonymous with chubutensis ?) is looking more probable. The constant shifting taxonomy on these teeth can be confusing for a newbie.

 

Cheers,

Brett

[abyssunder]

Some authors consider that this "equation" is valid: C. auriculatus = C. subauriculatus = C. angustidens = C. sokolovi 

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

8 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

Some authors consider that this "equation" is valid: C. auriculatus = C. subauriculatus = C. angustidens = C. sokolovi 

*sobs silently and quietly*

 

 

 

[sixgill pete]

I agree that the tooth could be from Lee Creek, but I would not say definitely that it was. The size, shape, thickness and the cusps remind me of the mega shark teeth from the Belgrade Quarry in Mayesville N.C. The quarry there is Oligocene River Bend Formation and late Oligocene / early Miocene Belgrade Formation. The teeth from there are normally referred to as C. angustidens. 

 

I will say that the tooth is not C. auriculatus. To me the tooth more resembles C. angustidens than chubutensis.