Hybodus shark head?

[Max-fossils]

Hi all,

 

Was looking through some fossils online and came across this one. It was in the "Exclusive fossils" section; so I got really surprised seeing this "pebble" in there.

 

The seller claims it is the fossil skull of a Hybodus shark.

 

Now to me this is very weird. As we all know, sharks have a cartilaginous body; so their skeleton doesn't fossilize easily. That's why I am doubtful about the skull of this shark being so well preserved, with the brain and all. Plus, to me this just looks like a funny-shaped pebble. The only thing that makes it more believable for me are the "teeth" in the last closeup photo.

I might be completely wrong on my suspicion, and this might indeed be an exceptional incredible piece. But then shouldn't it be more at home in a museum???

What do you guys think?

 

Best regards,

 

Max

 

[Fossildude19]

Max, 

Please be sure to only post pictures, and not any of the advertisement itself.  

[jpc]

The in-place teeth certainly are intriguing.  Are these your pix?  or the seller's?  It would be nice to get a close up of the 'bone' texture.

[Miocene_Mason]

I think it is mother natures trick; geological in origin.

[Rustdee]

There was actually a discussion topic on TFF a few years back and these types of shark heads came up. A member found several of them. This looks consistent with those. I vote real for this shark head.

 

However, I agree usually the fossil is not a 3D fossil head, but rather a pebble.

[LordTrilobite]

Another vote for an actual real shark head. It looks like it has some symmetry going on. And I'm thinking the dark parts are all cartilage and the beige parts are all just matrix, which is giving it a pebble look.

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

 

Hybodus shark head? I am often embarrassed to be a part of this forum! You keep telling yourself that this is a Hybodus shark head, then they're talking badly about an honest salesman, claiming it's a simple pebble ... You all should study more Paleontology! In fact this piece of pebble is a Dunkleosteus Fish!

 

 

 

 

 

And stop defaming an honest salesman!

[Rustdee]

On 12/2/2008 at 10:48 PM, hybodus said:

Tracer - not as out there as you think... and I agree! So, as you well know, the fossil record as far as extinct sharks goes is pretty poor - LOTS of teeth, and some occasional skeletal remains - and luckily, a very occassional articulated skeleton or so... but nothing that can be compared to the fossil skeletal record of extinct animals with bones.

So ok... it sucks to have cartilage - and some isolated shark teeth can be pretty diagnostic if you are able to reference one of those few articulated specimens, or a fair fossilized portion of jaw with teeth, or even an associated tooth set - but not a whole lot of them exist.

Below is an example of Hybodus basanus - a skull, with preserved teeth - I can certainly understand the Hybodont naming due to many Hybodont remains with well defined characteristics that match this skull and teeth - I have several of these, and I can pretty much get down to species level for a bunch of Hybodont sharks, but for the vast majority of them, the ID is based on a reference to a fossil horizon that someone smarter than I found some teeth and gave them a name - the number of genera and species is pretty mind boggling in the shark fossil record. I think we have more dang extinct sharks than any other type of organism... seems pretty funny to me...

Extinct fossil sharks do seem to be the poster child for what the _)(*(^^%^! And MANY genera have been named solely on the basis of isolated teeth, fin spines or dermal denticles. Some of them are very funny. I personally like the Listracanthus and Petrodus dermal denticle issue: ok, so we have these fossils which are restricted to the Paleozoic, and found in many places, often associated with shark remains, but a fossil shark has never been found with deffinitive Listracanthus or Petrodus like denticles - so how in the world can we give a name to something that we say is a shark when we have no idea? Zangerl (1981) dedicates a good amount of discussion to the topic and contends that based on known remains, Petrodus was likely a large animal covered only with petrodi, and possibly come from Carcharopis, a Paleozoic shark with teeth similar to Edestus. He further elaborates that Listracanthus is likely a shark with a dermal skeleton consisting of large numbers of both listracanthi and petrodi.... ok....so I do not get it.... Listracanthus and Petrodus dermal denticles below:

Wow - quite a ramble for me - the short of it is we have a few associated tooth sets for both Otodus and Cretalamna, and very little skeletal material - And again, folks seem to be able to create great taxonomic designations based on tooth design alone - not everyone buys into the Cretalamna - Otodus lineage, but hey, they are cool teeth!

 

So I hope I did this correctly. I found one of the old threads I referenced, but not the main one. The fossil in question is most likely an example of the shark Hybodus basanus from the U.K. These are very interesting fossils and unfortunately the information on them seem to be scant.

 

If you look up the posts by hybodus (the TFF member) you will see further evidence of the existence of this type of fossil. 

[Aurelius]

It's real. I have one too (not that I found myself). I can't remember where it's from now, but I seem to think Hastings?

[Max-fossils]

20 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Max, 

Please be sure to only post pictures, and not any of the advertisement itself.  

Tim, I quoted the person in order to give more info about the fossil. There was no commercial/personal info in there, just info about the fossil. I put this so that the viewers here could have a little bit more background info on the piece.

[Max-fossils]

19 hours ago, jpc said:

The in-place teeth certainly are intriguing.  Are these your pix?  or the seller's?  It would be nice to get a close up of the 'bone' texture.

Those are the seller's pics; I did not acquire the fossil (and probably never will, even if it turns out to be a real Hybodus head...)

And on this website there is no way to contact the seller, so I cannot ask him for more pics, sorry!

19 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

I think it is mother natures trick; geological in origin.

That's what I am thinking too...

19 hours ago, Rustdee said:

There was actually a discussion topic on TFF a few years back and these types of shark heads came up. A member found several of them. This looks consistent with those. I vote real for this shark head.

 

However, I agree usually the fossil is not a 3D fossil head, but rather a pebble.

Hmm, interesting...

17 hours ago, LordTrilobite said:

Another vote for an actual real shark head. It looks like it has some symmetry going on. And I'm thinking the dark parts are all cartilage and the beige parts are all just matrix, which is giving it a peddle look.

Interesting hypothesis, especially with the cartilage/matrix idea. Not so sure about the symmetry though...

16 hours ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

 

Hybodus shark head? I am often embarrassed to be a part of this forum! You keep telling yourself that this is a Hybodus shark head, then they're talking badly about an honest salesman, claiming it's a simple pebble ... You all should study more Paleontology! In fact this piece of pebble is a Dunkleosteus Fish!

 

 

And stop defaming an honest salesman!

2

Haha, I agree that this is all very weird! But to be honest, the first time someone showed me a bivalve steinkern, I laughed at them for trying to fool me, by saying that this "simple pebble" was a fossil. Only now do I know that I was wrong! Plus, this seller seems pretty honest, he also has a good rating; so I think that (if this does turn out to be indeed a pebble) he is simply mistaken, and didn't mean any harm. But he should surely be then more careful in his research. I am also more leaning towards the pebble side, but I am not sure (hence I posted it here). We never know what mysteries nature has reserved for us! So I wouldn't just yet come to conclusions!

16 hours ago, Rustdee said:

 

So I hope I did this correctly. I found one of the old threads I referenced, but not the main one. The fossil in question is most likely an example of the shark Hybodus basanus from the U.K. These are very interesting fossils and unfortunately the information on them seem to be scant.

 

If you look up the posts by hybodus (the TFF member) you will see further evidence of the existence of this type of fossil. 

I will look further into this; I think it will probably lead to some evidence of this fossil being an actual Hybodus head! Thanks!

12 hours ago, Aurelius said:

It's real. I have one too (not that I found myself). I can't remember where it's from now, but I seem to think Hastings?

Having some pictures of it would be greatly appreciated!

 

Max

[old bones]

It is from Hastings and the original thread can be found by searching 'shark head'. Page 6 I believe. It is real and was found by a member.

[Aurelius]

Here's my one. It's not as good as the one you posted, by a long chalk, having been crushed from above.

 

It's tempting to think that the grey folds on the top may be skin.

 

 

Rear view.

 

 

 

 

 

Modern borings on the bottom.

 

 

A close-up of the cartilaginous material.

 

 

[Max-fossils]

I looked up, following @old bones' suggestion, "shark head hastings". Came across these two:

@Jonwealden found one that is extremely similar to the one we are discussing! Guess that this solves our mystery then: it's REAL! 

Definitely did not expect this...

 

Having some more info about them would still be good though.

 

Thanks to everyone that participated in this thread!

 

Max

8 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

Here's my one. It's not as good as the one you posted, by a long chalk, having been crushed from above.

 

It's tempting to think that the grey folds on the top may be skin.

 

 

That's a cool one too. Thanks for sharing! 

[LordTrilobite]

1 hour ago, Max-fossils said:

 

@Jonwealden found one that is extremely similar to the one we are discussing! Guess that this solves our mystery then: it's REAL! 

Definitely did not expect this...

 

Having some more info about them would still be good though.

 

Thanks to everyone that participated in this thread!

 

Max

That's a cool one too. Thanks for sharing! 

Not only that, it's the same specimen!

 

From Jonwealden's post

 

From this thread.

 

 

[Max-fossils]

3 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

Not only that, it's the same specimen!

 

From Jonwealden's post

 

 

From this thread.

 

 

 

 

True!!! Didn't notice at first! 

[Jonwealden]

I have just discovered this thread, relating to some members disbelieving this fossil is a Hybodont skull .  It's a pity i wasn't pm'd about this as i could have clarified at the time.

 

Its a Hybodus shark head, one of the few near complete examples i have found. I've come across many others that have been partial and crushed over the past 20 years. This area is well known for Hybodont shark skulls/ heads.  Thanks for the members who come in supporting it as real.

 

In the images on this thread, you see the cartilage, orbits and teeth. The mouth being open and free of matrix in-between is very unusual.

It was found Bexhill, Sussex UK.  

 

I only came across this thread by luck, as i was searching google images for  Hybodus skull !  The reason i was searching is because i found an almost complete three dimensional Hybodus skull only yesterday.

Will post it on my Spinosaur dentary thread asap. 

[steelhead9]

It's real. Here is mine, although not a complete skull, after prepping most of the matrix away.

[Birdman]

On ‎27‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 2:08 AM, Rustdee said:

 

So I hope I did this correctly. I found one of the old threads I referenced, but not the main one. The fossil in question is most likely an example of the shark Hybodus basanus from the U.K. These are very interesting fossils and unfortunately the information on them seem to be scant.

 

If you look up the posts by hybodus (the TFF member) you will see further evidence of the existence of this type of fossil. 

The Hybodus basanus shark skull you have highlighted is actually one of the specimens that I found...:). Yes, they are real shark fossils, they are not pebbles or concretions.

 

Wow! These fossils are far more special than I ever realised! We do come across these from time to time. One guy has collected over 100 of them! But most finds are only unrecognisable pieces. We may find a good one like the one pictured every couple of years or so, and then that is if we are lucky. One odd thing that makes one think here is that, if these are sooooo exceptionally rare, enough so for even seasoned well educated collectors to think they are not what the finder says they are, then why is there almost zero interest in them from scientists who have been informed of what we are finding. Very strange. I do believe the academics we have alerted to these finds do not doubt that they are real otherwise they would have used the opportunity to make a big song and dance about them not being real....oh but they are real alright....:). Anyway, some have seen them first hand! No song and dance.