Shark tooth id

[Joshua_A]

I was out in my backyard digging a hole to fill in some loway spots, and out of the corner of my eye I saw a tooth that I had dug up. I picked it up, and went inside to wash it off. I looked on many websites but no luck. please help

[fossilselachian]

Looks like a nice mako tooth (no serrations) keep digging!!

[Joshua_A]

oh ok cool. worth anything? or just a keepsake?

[Macrophyseter]

It's a pristine broad-tooth mako tooth (Cosmopolitodus hastalis, despite their common name they are more related to great whites than makos). These teeth are pretty nice keepsakes, but because they are really common in some places (hence, the genus is COSMOPOLITodus as in cosmopolitan distribution), its not worth too much to sell. Better off keeping it since its cool anyways.

 

Also, next time if you need a fossil to id, please post in the Fossil ID section, as there will be more people replying to if there (Not many people flock in this section than the id section)

@Fossildude19 sorry to pull you here, but is it possible to move this to fossil id?

[Miocene_Mason]

1 hour ago, Macrophyseter said:

It's a pristine broad-tooth mako tooth (Cosmopolitodus hastalis, despite their common name they are more related to great whites than makos). These teeth are pretty nice keepsakes, but because they are really common in some places (hence, the genus is COSMOPOLITodus as in cosmopolitan distribution), its not worth too much to sell. Better off keeping it since its cool anyways.

 

Also, next time if you need a fossil to id, please post in the Fossil ID section, as there will be more people replying to if there (Not many people flock in this section than the id section)

@Fossildude19 sorry to pull you here, but is it possible to move this to fossil id?

Also known as Carcharodon hastilis  (I believe cosmopolitodus is an outdated term as is Isurus ) it's nice and big I'd keep it. It is the great whites ancestor. It's got some worth to it, thought the forum forbade me from stating what that is.

[Macrophyseter]

11 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Also known as Carcharodon hastilis  (I believe cosmopolitodus is an outdated term as is Isurus ) it's nice and big I'd keep it. It is the great whites ancestor. It's got some worth to it, thought the forum forbade me from stating what that is.

Cosmopolitodus and Carcharodon are still used equally, it really depends on whos writing the paper. As it takes a while and more evidence for names to be official, Carcharodon isnt the absolute official name yet, nor has Cosmopolitodus been disproven. So for some reason both names are still valid for hastalis, but I just prefer Cosmopolitodus. 

[Miocene_Mason]

 

3 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

Cosmopolitodus and Carcharodon are still used equally, it really depends on whos writing the paper. As it takes a while and more evidence for names to be official, Carcharodon isnt the absolute official name yet, nor has Cosmopolitodus been disproven. So for some reason both names are still valid for hastalis, but I just prefer Cosmopolitodus. 

Intresting. I've got a feeling that Carcharodon is going to win out, after examining the teeth in my collection it seems to me that C. Hastilis is to C. carcharias as C. angustidens is to C. Megalodon. Sorry for going off topic...

[Macrophyseter]

1 minute ago, WhodamanHD said:

Intresting. I've got a feeling that Carcharodon is going to win out, after examining the teeth in my collection it seems to me that C. Hastilis is to C. carcharias as C. angustidens is to C. Megalodon. Sorry for going off topic...

No problem. I feel like the hastalis naming thing is for now based on preference until further studies are made. Most scholars these days use the term Carcharodon (Cosmopolitodus) because there technically isnt any superior (But I guess that cosmopolitodus is in parenthesis because its an older name and carcharodon the newer one).

[FossilDudeCO]

Great find, gorgeous colours! Congrats

[Sagebrush Steve]

21 hours ago, Macrophyseter said:

No problem. I feel like the hastalis naming thing is for now based on preference until further studies are made. Most scholars these days use the term Carcharodon (Cosmopolitodus) because there technically isnt any superior (But I guess that cosmopolitodus is in parenthesis because its an older name and carcharodon the newer one).

Sorry I don't know all the ins and outs of naming conventions, but shouldn't the older name take precedence over the newer one?

[Sagebrush Steve]

3 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Sorry I don't know all the ins and outs of naming conventions, but shouldn't the older name take precedence over the newer one?

Although I do have this site bookmarked: Zoological Naming.  But I haven't digested all of it yet.

[Miocene_Mason]

15 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Sorry I don't know all the ins and outs of naming conventions, but shouldn't the older name take precedence over the newer one?

Carcharodon isn't new, it is the genus of the great white shark. Hastilis has been in this genus in recent studies, but some believe that it (along with escheri I believe) warrants its own genus (cosmopolitodus, Agassiz, right?) Its generally now considered that it evolved into the great white (via escheri and hubbelli although some still debate other ancestories)  but whether it should be grouped with it is an issue of "lumpers" and "spliters".

[Macrophyseter]

41 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

cosmopolitodus, Agassiz,

I think the crediting of Agassiz might have been only for the species (pretry much every sharks taxonomy is mixed up and they end up crediting him for everything, probably exaggerating). The first time the name cosmopolitodus popped up was in a 1990s paper which first proved that hastalis wasnt a true mako.

 

 

41 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Its generally now considered that it evolved into the great white (via escheri and hubbelli although some still debate other ancestories)  but whether it should be grouped with it is an issue of "lumpers" and "spliters".

Yep. Everyone pretty much agrees that hastalis was the direct ancestor of the carcharodonts (unless ur a carcharodon megalodon fanboy). The only issue here is whether or not that means hastalis should be a carcharodont itself or its big daddy. Nobody actually has gone deep in this genus issue yet, and the naming issue isnt that severe because it doesnt change the fact that hastalis was direct ancestor of the carcharodonts.

 

I think one problem about dissolving cosmopolitodus (I hate it when genuses become dissolved, because then I will never be used again no matter how cool it means. Livyatan isnt named Leviathan. Saurophaganax isnt named Saurophagus. And once Carcharocles becomes Otodus, the name that literally means "glorious shark" will be murdured. Who likes a "big ear shaped tooth" anyways?)  is that the two other sharks planus and desori will have extremely unstable placements. They arnt makos like hastalis, but at the same time theyre not carcharodonts in any way.

 

[Miocene_Mason]

2 hours ago, Macrophyseter said:

I think the crediting of Agassiz might have been only for the species (pretry much every sharks taxonomy is mixed up and they end up crediting him for everything, probably exaggerating). The first time the name cosmopolitodus popped up was in a 1990s paper which first proved that hastalis wasnt a true mako.

 

 

Yep. Everyone pretty much agrees that hastalis was the direct ancestor of the carcharodonts (unless ur a carcharodon megalodon fanboy). The only issue here is whether or not that means hastalis should be a carcharodont itself or its big daddy. Nobody actually has gone deep in this genus issue yet, and the naming issue isnt that severe because it doesnt change the fact that hastalis was direct ancestor of the carcharodonts.

 

I think one problem about dissolving cosmopolitodus (I hate it when genuses become dissolved, because then I will never be used again no matter how cool it means. Livyatan isnt named Leviathan. Saurophaganax isnt named Saurophagus. And once Carcharocles becomes Otodus, the name that literally means "glorious shark" will be murdured. Who likes a "big ear shaped tooth" anyways?)  is that the two other sharks planus and desori will have extremely unstable placements. They arnt makos like hastalis, but at the same time theyre not carcharodonts in any way.

 

By the way, Carcharodon means sharp/jagged/knife tooth (Greek sometimes has words with a few different meanings, karcharo ). Carcharocles is probably in no danger of being absorbed into Otodus, even if they are lumped. They were named in the same year (same publication I thought?) and the more popular name would win out. T. rex shouldn't be T. rex, but the ICZN used the more popular name. I think I'll make a thread with a poll on what personally people think the genus of hastilis should be, it's an intresting topic.

[Macrophyseter]

15 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Carcharodon means sharp/jagged/knife tooth (Greek sometimes has words with a few different meanings, karcharo ).

I know that, but in many cases carcharo- can be alternatively be used to mean shark because it could be considered a shortened version of karcharias whoch means shark. 

 

15 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Carcharocles is probably in no danger of being absorbed into Otodus, even if they are lumped. They were named in the same year (same publication I thought?) and the more popular name would win out. T. rex shouldn't be T. rex, but the ICZN used the more popular name.

Trex was different. The only reason why it became a protected name via popularity ia because every person in the world was against M. gigas. However, this isnt the case with carcharocles. People are now starting to think that the otodus thing ia now fact and dont argue against it. In fact, many scientists are now trying to kill off the genus and firmly install otodus as official. Also the genus carcharoles was actually created in the 1920s, so a discarding of otodus would only happen if the world is against otodus, like the world was against M. gigas. My opinion is that I would really want otodus to be discarded and carcharocles applying all of them (mega sharks are truely glorious and "glorious shark" sure fits better than "ear shaped tooth"), but that is not going to happen anytime soon. Still, placing carcharocles as a subgenus would be okay with me too, just done kill off such a good name.

[Miocene_Mason]

5 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

Also the genus carcharoles was actually created in the 1920s,

I'm no expert, but Wikipedia tells me in 1843 our prolific ( although racist and anti-evolution) college Agassiz named the genus and cites this publication: https://archive.org/details/recherchessurles01agas

[Macrophyseter]

The thing is that the 1843 thing is for the species, and because of a huge amout of confusion after Agassiz decided to try to classify every single shark, people decided to credit him for everything if they cant find who else did it. Its gone aa far as some experts getting mixed up with the issue.

 

Carcharocles as a genus was coined in 1923 to name C. auriculatus, and then the megatoothed sharks were placed into the new genus because they later found out that C. auriculatus was a transition between otodus and angusteidens. The 1843 crediting was for the species only (The megatoothed were all places as carcharodon by Agassiz, but he coined all the species names)

[Miocene_Mason]

25 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

The thing is that the 1843 thing is for the species, and because of a huge amout of confusion after Agassiz decided to try to classify every single shark, people decided to credit him for everything if they cant find who else did it. Its gone aa far as some experts getting mixed up with the issue.

 

Carcharocles as a genus was coined in 1923 to name C. auriculatus, and then the megatoothed sharks were placed into the new genus because they later found out that C. auriculatus was a transition between otodus and angusteidens. The 1843 crediting was for the species only (The megatoothed were all places as carcharodon by Agassiz, but he coined all the species names)

That makes sense, hope they stick with carcharocles...

[Fossil-Hound]

On 9/30/2017 at 11:01 AM, Macrophyseter said:

It's a pristine broad-tooth mako tooth (Cosmopolitodus hastalis, despite their common name they are more related to great whites than makos). These teeth are pretty nice keepsakes, but because they are really common in some places (hence, the genus is COSMOPOLITodus as in cosmopolitan distribution), its not worth too much to sell. Better off keeping it since its cool anyways.

 

Also, next time if you need a fossil to id, please post in the Fossil ID section, as there will be more people replying to if there (Not many people flock in this section than the id section)

@Fossildude19 sorry to pull you here, but is it possible to move this to fossil id?

 

I'm curious as to what evidence you have that indicates C. hastalis is more related to modern Great White sharks than Makos.

[Fossil-Hound]

2 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

That makes sense, hope they stick with carcharocles...

Keep in mind that Otodus is the Genus whereas C. angusteidens is a species. I'm of the opinion that the mega sharks were indeed generally classified by  Agazzis but O. obliquus missed that boat though I'm not overly familiar with the history of the classification I'm familiar with the transitional theory of O. obliquus being the great grandfather of C. megalodon, so it would seem fitting that Otodus obliquus is reclassified as Carcharodon obliquus though that's just my personal opinion, or perhaps C. auriculatus and all the other mega-sharks including C. carcharias could be shifted over to the Genus of Otodus, then that way you don't have the tail wagging the dog.

 

Here's an interesting book:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=2My8M5tL-KIC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Check out the difference between O. obliquus and C. auriculatus. Very interesting difference where the cusps appear to be absorbed in the later species.

[Fossil-Hound]

3 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

I'm no expert, but Wikipedia tells me in 1843 our prolific ( although racist and anti-evolution) college Agassiz named the genus and cites this publication: https://archive.org/details/recherchessurles01agas

 

And you trust Wikipedia?! Also I believe you meant to say "colleague" not "college."

[Miocene_Mason]

2 minutes ago, Fossil-Hound said:

 

And you trust Wikipedia?! Also I believe you meant to say "colleague" not "college."

I do, in my opinion it's about as accurate as any other site but with more knowledge. Sorry for the typo, not the greatest at typing (I really should take a class)

[Fossil-Hound]

3 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

I do, in my opinion it's about as accurate as any other site but with more knowledge. Sorry for the typo, not the greatest at typing (I really should take a class)

I've seen plenty of mistakes via Wikipedia relative to the field of paleontology and in relation to the actual cited author of the species. Just look up Elrathia kingii. See this post:

 

@piranha caught my mistake from Wikipedia.