Jump to content

Anomotodon

Recommended Posts

I have recently purchased an associated Squalicorax tooth set from Gove county, Kansas. It is Coniacian in age. However, I have no idea what species it is. These teeth are too gracile for S. falcatus and S. baharijensis. Looks a little bit like S. volgensis, however teeth are too large for it.

Any help will be very appreciated.

DSC_0624-iloveimg-converted.thumb.jpg.d539fe6293895e7adada3ff8dc7900bc.jpg

DSC_0632-iloveimg-converted.thumb.jpg.087173ce326c88e9fd5746967183a20e.jpg

DSC_0636-iloveimg-converted.thumb.jpg.98104322ce906c6e2ced3a51ca0333ba.jpg

DSC_0637-iloveimg-converted.thumb.jpg.e33b1e00d4b5bd7131c1873973e2fbd9.jpgDSC_0643-iloveimg-converted.thumb.jpg.eaf9b6fff9f46509b02ff49487c6d0e8.jpgDSC_0641-iloveimg-converted.thumb.jpg.d76fd63500a0babe0afb94d18ff12170.jpgDSC_0633-iloveimg-converted.thumb.jpg.a80c9fb0f29cf9684113149e40d681d9.jpg

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! I saw this fossil online for sale before! Never knew that YOU'd be the one buying it. It was around 200+ dollars, maybe?

If you're a fossil nut from Palos Verdes, San Pedro, Redondo Beach, or Torrance, feel free to shoot me a PM!

 

 

Mosasaurus_hoffmannii_skull_schematic.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

Hey! I saw this fossil online for sale before! Never knew that YOU'd be the one buying it. It was around 200+ dollars, maybe?

Yes, it took me a long time to decide... But I love fossil sharks and it is a very unique specimen from a place I probably won't visit any time soon. And it was totally worth it. 

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knew it! (but isn't post links to fossil shops against the rules? Might be an exception since its sold though)

 

As for the teeth, maybe it could be a S. curvatus? The teeth seem to be small and curved enough to possibly be one, plus most of them posses a little part that sticks out of the root side that the crown is pointing towards (quantifiable to be called a cusp?), just like most S. curvatus teeth. May be wrong though.

 

Here's a few examples

79_2.jpg

Squalicorax-falcatus-1.jpg

[134955024151048-big.jpg

If you're a fossil nut from Palos Verdes, San Pedro, Redondo Beach, or Torrance, feel free to shoot me a PM!

 

 

Mosasaurus_hoffmannii_skull_schematic.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

Knew it! (but isn't post links to fossil shops against the rules? Might be an exception since its sold though)

 

As for the teeth, maybe it could be a S. curvatus? The teeth seem to be small and curved enough to possibly be one.

 

Here's a few examples

79_2.jpg

Squalicorax-falcatus-1.jpg

[134955024151048-big.jpg

Thanks, forgot about this rule.

S. curvatus is considered dubious - a mix of S. baharijensis and S. falcatus (it is explained on elasmo. com). My teeth are still too gracile compared to the ones in your post, except for the last one, which is a juvenile. Roots are not so massive and lingual protuberance is not so pronounced compared to S. "curvatus".

Maybe, it is S. falcatus sp. juv., but I haven't encountered similar specimens in the literature. And, anyways, they are not very small compared to normal S. falcatus.

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the posterior teeth of S. falcatus could be the same shape and small enough to be them. Maybe it's after all S. falcatus?

 

[squali02.jpg

If you're a fossil nut from Palos Verdes, San Pedro, Redondo Beach, or Torrance, feel free to shoot me a PM!

 

 

Mosasaurus_hoffmannii_skull_schematic.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macrophyseter said:

Some of the posterior teeth of S. falcatus could be the same shape and small enough to be them. Maybe it's after all S. falcatus?

 

[squali02.jpg

But it is a tooth set with both anteriors and laterals, and they are very different from the ones on your photo (crown width and curvature, root shape). 

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the paper! But it describes Maastrichtian Squalicorax, my specimens are Coniacian.

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, doushantuo said:

complete:

fernaristlanthc.jpg

 

I've enlarged this one slightly,for the hard of hearing:

 

fernaristlanthc.jpg

What a spectacular specimen.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, doushantuo said:

fernaristlanthc.jpg

 

Appendix highly recommended

Oooh, I am so sorry, I completely missed the appendix. However, I can't find any information about most of the species:( Although I found something somewhat similar in Guinot et al., 2013, it is labeled as S. aff. falcatus. But it is from France. It is weird that I can't find any similar specimens from Kansas, it should be a very researched location. 

There is also S. crassidens from Smoky Hill Chalk, but I can't find any information about it.

image.thumb.png.5063d2cff8d183f836080d8672032572.png

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, doushantuo said:

complete:

fernaristlanthc.jpg

 

I've enlarged this one slightly,for the hard of hearing:

 

fernaristlanthc.jpg

 

I am totally confused (from the same paper)...

 

5a08fd23e72b1_2017-11-12(1).thumb.png.630291d06ba14f6ee1e4af53a467199a.png

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Nice specimen. There is a good chance it belongs to an undescribed species. I have collected similar specimens in the lower Santonian and lower Campanian of the Smoky Hill Chalk.  There are at least half a dozen anacoracid species in the Smoky Hill Chalk, some of which have not yet been named. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MikaelS said:

Nice specimen. There is a good chance it belongs to an undescribed species. I have collected similar specimens in the lower Santonian and lower Campanian of the Smoky Hill Chalk.  There are at least half a dozen anacoracid species in the Smoky Hill Chalk, some of which have not yet been named. 

Thank you for help!! I wonder, how effective would it be to use anacoracids as stratigraphic markers once more species are described, as Glikman suggested in 1980?

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...