Anomotodon Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 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. The Tooth Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macrophyseter Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Macrophyseter Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 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 [ If you're a fossil nut from Palos Verdes, San Pedro, Redondo Beach, or Torrance, feel free to shoot me a PM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 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 [ 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 More sharing options...
Macrophyseter Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 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? [ If you're a fossil nut from Palos Verdes, San Pedro, Redondo Beach, or Torrance, feel free to shoot me a PM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 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? [ 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 More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Appendix highly recommended 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 Thank you for the paper! But it describes Maastrichtian Squalicorax, my specimens are Coniacian. The Tooth Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 go ahead,sue me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 complete: I've enlarged this one slightly,for the hard of hearing: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Mud Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 4 hours ago, doushantuo said: complete: I've enlarged this one slightly,for the hard of hearing: What a spectacular specimen..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted November 13, 2017 Author Share Posted November 13, 2017 19 hours ago, doushantuo said: 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. The Tooth Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted November 13, 2017 Author Share Posted November 13, 2017 19 hours ago, doushantuo said: complete: I've enlarged this one slightly,for the hard of hearing: I am totally confused (from the same paper)... The Tooth Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikaelS Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted February 27, 2018 Author Share Posted February 27, 2018 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now