Jump to content

Parasymphyseal Parotodus Benedeni


CharlotteG

Recommended Posts

This peculiar looking tooth is a parasymphyseal benedeni from Antwerp, Belgium. This little tooth is one of my favourite personal finds and is also one of the rarer pieces in my collection. 

3BB83AC2-183C-4DCD-9A56-D64239F068DB.jpeg

433F9AE9-337B-45C7-AE18-39A7022A057A.jpeg

9A1F86A8-3263-441F-AC80-EE5315B1658B.jpeg

1FEB6D97-B693-4765-93B4-6CC51C797BB2.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Rarer” is an understatement, parotoduses are rare, let alone one of that placement, awesome find!

“...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin

Happy hunting,

Mason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@powelli1 you have got to see this.

Bulldozers and dirt Bulldozers and dirt
behind the trailer, my desert
Them red clay piles are heaven on earth
I get my rocks off, bulldozers and dirt

Patterson Hood; Drive-By Truckers

 

image.png.0c956e87cee523facebb6947cb34e842.png May 2016  MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160.png.b42a25e3438348310ba19ce6852f50c1.png May 2012 IPFOTM5.png.fb4f2a268e315c58c5980ed865b39e1f.png.1721b8912c45105152ac70b0ae8303c3.png.2b6263683ee32421d97e7fa481bd418a.pngAug 2013, May 2016, Apr 2020 VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png.af5065d0585e85f4accd8b291bf0cc2e.png.72a83362710033c9bdc8510be7454b66.png.9171036128e7f95de57b6a0f03c491da.png Oct 2022

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful tooth!  Definitely looks like a parasymphyseal tooth based upon the root features.

 

What is the time period of Antwerp?  The Otodus lineage from obliquus through megalodon had parasymphyseal teeth.  However only Otodus obliquus parasymphyseals were not serrated in the lineage.  I've seen a number of Eocene parasymphyseal Otodus obliquus teeth that look very similar to your tooth.  Do you find Otodus obliquus at Antwerp?

 

Otodus obliquus has been postulated as a direct lineage ancestor of Parotodus.  So parasymphyseals would not be unexpected for parotodus also.  However, I have never seen one or heard of one before. Note that no parasymphyseals were found with George Powell's associated Parotodus benedeni dentition from the Pliocene Yorktown Formation of the Lee Creek Mine, North Carolina.

 

Marco Sr.

"Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day."

My family fossil website     Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros     My Extant Shark Jaw Collection

image.png.9a941d70fb26446297dbc9dae7bae7ed.png image.png.41c8380882dac648c6131b5bc1377249.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey @MarcoSr i always thought parotodus was a thresher shark, is this correct? May be a little off topic but I’m curious...

“...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin

Happy hunting,

Mason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Hey @MarcoSr i always thought parotodus was a thresher shark, is this correct? May be a little off topic but I’m curious...

 

According to Kent 1999 when describing George Powell's associated P. benedeni dentition:  "Alopiid dentitions are also highly derived and very different from that of P. benedeni".  Kent also states "the disposition of the teeth within the dentition is fairly typical for a lamnoid."

 

So based on Kent I would say P. benedeni was not a thresher.

 

Marco Sr.

"Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day."

My family fossil website     Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros     My Extant Shark Jaw Collection

image.png.9a941d70fb26446297dbc9dae7bae7ed.png image.png.41c8380882dac648c6131b5bc1377249.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MarcoSr This tooth was found at Hoevenen, Anwerp. When the port of Antwerp was expanded, sand was dredged to create two new shipping docks. The material from these works has been deposited on a site that’s a few square kilometer big. Due to the fact that it’s dredged material we can’t put an exact age on it. We in general classify our finds as mixed neogene (miocene/pliocene) However occasionally there are also teeth that are classfied to an earlier epoch (eocene/oligocene) I’m not quite sure if this is caused by the dredging hitting deeper layers or the présence of “reworked” teeth or a combination of these two factors.                                                      I never heard of otodus obliquus in Belgium although we have numerous other otodontidae. Furthermore I know of one simular tooth which you can find on the following site  

http://www.belgiansharkteeth.be/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CharlotteG said:

@MarcoSr This tooth was found at Hoevenen, Anwerp. When the port of Antwerp was expanded, sand was dredged to create two new shipping docks. The material from these works has been deposited on a site that’s a few square kilometer big. Due to the fact that it’s dredged material we can’t put an exact age on it. We in general classify our finds as mixed neogene (miocene/pliocene) However occasionally there are also teeth that are classfied to an earlier epoch (eocene/oligocene) I’m not quite sure if this is caused by the dredging hitting deeper layers or the présence of “reworked” teeth or a combination of these two factors.                                                      I never heard of otodus obliquus in Belgium although we have numerous other otodontidae. Furthermore I know of one simular tooth which you can find on the following site  

http://www.belgiansharkteeth.be/

 

If your tooth is Miocene/Pliocene it wouldn't be Otodus obliquus based upon the time period.  I use Otodus (which a number of researchers are now using) for the genus of chubutensis and megalodon, which are from the Miocene/Pliocene time period .  Their parasymphyseals are serrated so your tooth isn't theirs either.

 

 

If you don't find Otodus obliquus in your Eocene formations of Belgium than that pretty much seems to leave P. benedeni as the likely id for your tooth based upon the size and tooth features.

 

Below is an Otodus obliquus parasymphyseal tooth found by a friend of mine, Mike F., in the Eocene of VA.  You can see the similarity to your tooth.  This tooth has a very small single cusplet.  I've seen O. obliquus parasymphyseals with a single cusplet and without cusplets.  There can be a lot of variation in these parasymphyseal teeth.

 

otodus1_mikef.jpg.fd547172f05391c0403438c43bfa1d34.jpg

 

Another found by Mike F. in the Eocene of Virginia.

 

otodus2_mikef.jpg.e1dcae52b4e5ace28e32faf1a02f2eab.jpg

 

Marco Sr.

"Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day."

My family fossil website     Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros     My Extant Shark Jaw Collection

image.png.9a941d70fb26446297dbc9dae7bae7ed.png image.png.41c8380882dac648c6131b5bc1377249.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2017 at 6:43 PM, MarcoSr said:

Beautiful tooth!  Definitely looks like a parasymphyseal tooth based upon the root features.

 

What is the time period of Antwerp?  The Otodus lineage from obliquus through megalodon had parasymphyseal teeth.  However only Otodus obliquus parasymphyseals were not serrated in the lineage.  I've seen a number of Eocene parasymphyseal Otodus obliquus teeth that look very similar to your tooth.  Do you find Otodus obliquus at Antwerp?

 

Otodus obliquus has been postulated as a direct lineage ancestor of Parotodus.  So parasymphyseals would not be unexpected for parotodus also.  However, I have never seen one or heard of one before. Note that no parasymphyseals were found with George Powell's associated Parotodus benedeni dentition from the Pliocene Yorktown Formation of the Lee Creek Mine, North Carolina.

 

Marco Sr.

 

Hi Marco Sr.,

 

I have seen Parotodus parasymphyseals most notably in an associated dentition from the Batesford Limestone (Early Miocene) of Australia (Kemp, 1991: p. 515, , p. 530, and Plate 32).  As you note, it follows that if Otodus and Carcharocles had parasympyseals,then Parotodus, a descendant of Otodus, at least could have had them too.  It also appears that Otodus/Carcharocles lost the parasymphyseal file(s) over time.  I have seen two Otodus/Carcharocles parasymphyseals from the Middle-Late Eocene (North Carolina and Kazakhstan) and I think someone showed one from an Early Miocene site somewhere.  I haven't seen one from the Late Miocene-Early Pliocene.  However, if the teeth became sufficiently reduced, some individuals might not have retained the file, and over time, a shark born with it would have been a rare occurrence even if the genetic combination for it remained in the species.  It's also quite possible that such teeth have been found but they have been misidentified as pathologics or perhaps they show enough wear/damage to be unidentifiable.

 

In the case of the Lee Creek dentition it's possible that one or more parasymphyseals were overlooked/dismissed or they were too damaged to be seen for what they were.  I recall that a number of collectors had walked the site and some teeth that belonged in the dentition were acquired later.  Let's face it, they were looking for teeth of that form.  Sometimes, you find what you're looking for and miss things outside that view.

 

Here's another discussion on the topic:

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/39700-need-help-for-a-strange-megalodon/&

 

And another applicable link:

 

http://users.skynet.be/belgiansharkteeth/Pliocene/Sharks/Parotodus benedeni.html

 

I am also aware that there remain doubters that the teeth are parasymphyseals - considered pathologics by some.  I can't rule it out but it sure seems like enough of an argument can be built to support the parasymphyseal interpretation.

 

Jess

 

Kemp, N. 1991.

Chondrichthyans in the Cretaceous and Tertiary of Australia. In Vickers-Rich, P., J.M. Monaghan, R.F. Baird, and T.H. Rich (eds.). Vertebrate Palaeontology of Australasia. Pioneer Design Studio in cooperation with the Monash University Publications Committee, Melbourne.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, siteseer said:

 

Hi Marco Sr.,

 

I have seen Parotodus parasymphyseals most notably in an associated dentition from the Batesford Limestone (Early Miocene) of Australia (Kemp, 1991: p. 515, , p. 530, and Plate 32).  As you note, it follows that if Otodus and Carcharocles had parasympyseals,then Parotodus, a descendant of Otodus, at least could have had them too.  It also appears that Otodus/Carcharocles lost the parasymphyseal file(s) over time.  I have seen two Otodus/Carcharocles parasymphyseals from the Middle-Late Eocene (North Carolina and Kazakhstan) and I think someone showed one from an Early Miocene site somewhere.  I haven't seen one from the Late Miocene-Early Pliocene.  However, if the teeth became sufficiently reduced, some individuals might not have retained the file, and over time, a shark born with it would have been a rare occurrence even if the genetic combination for it remained in the species.  It's also quite possible that such teeth have been found but they have been misidentified as pathologics or perhaps they show enough wear/damage to be unidentifiable.

 

In the case of the Lee Creek dentition it's possible that one or more parasymphyseals were overlooked/dismissed or they were too damaged to be seen for what they were.  I recall that a number of collectors had walked the site and some teeth that belonged in the dentition were acquired later.  Let's face it, they were looking for teeth of that form.  Sometimes, you find what you're looking for and miss things outside that view.

 

Here's another discussion on the topic:

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/39700-need-help-for-a-strange-megalodon/&

 

And another applicable link:

 

http://users.skynet.be/belgiansharkteeth/Pliocene/Sharks/Parotodus benedeni.html

 

I am also aware that there remain doubters that the teeth are parasymphyseals - considered pathologics by some.  I can't rule it out but it sure seems like enough of an argument can be built to support the parasymphyseal interpretation.

 

Jess

 

Kemp, N. 1991.

Chondrichthyans in the Cretaceous and Tertiary of Australia. In Vickers-Rich, P., J.M. Monaghan, R.F. Baird, and T.H. Rich (eds.). Vertebrate Palaeontology of Australasia. Pioneer Design Studio in cooperation with the Monash University Publications Committee, Melbourne.

 

 

 

 

Jess

 

It is strange that a number of associated dentitions in the Otodus obliquus to megalodon lineage have been found and none contained parasymphyseals.  Pierre Zennaro who spent many years in the phosphate mines of Morocco said that several complete dentitions of Otodus obliquus have already been found but they never found parasymphyseal  teeth in the complete dentitions. The associated megalodon dentition that Larry Martin found in Florida, now in Gordon Hubbell's collection, didn't have parasymphyseals.

 

There are a large number of teeth with features of a parasymphyseal that have been found in Morocco.  Dr. David Ward once posted a picture of a pile of them on Facebook.  If I'm remembering correctly he said he had over 150.  I have a friend in Belgium, Patrick D., who just sent to me the below picture of Parotodus teeth from Morocco in his collection.  He had originally thought that the two parasymphyseals shown were from Otodus obliquus but his very good friend Pierre Zennaro convinced him that they were Parotodus.

 

image.png.7480b681899cdab0c1bad38956641d23.png

 

I hadn't really heard of Parotodus symphyseals before this post but like I said earlier in this post, to me, they wouldn't be unexpected.  Thank you for the Kemp 1991 paper reference.  I definitely need to check that out.

 

I'm definitely in the camp that believes that the Otodus lineage had parasymphyseals.  I really think that the small size is why many more parasymphyseals aren't being reported.  Also many more are misidentified.  My family has examples of parasymphyseals from what we believe to be Otodus obliquus, auriculatus, angustidens, chubutensis, and megalodon.  I agree that the Otodus lineage may have lost the parasymphyseal files by the Pliocene or that only a small number of O. megalodon sharks still retained them.  At some point I really need to take good pictures of the parasymphyseals that my sons have.

 

Marco Sr.

"Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day."

My family fossil website     Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros     My Extant Shark Jaw Collection

image.png.9a941d70fb26446297dbc9dae7bae7ed.png image.png.41c8380882dac648c6131b5bc1377249.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MarcoSr said:

 

Jess

 

It is strange that a number of associated dentitions in the Otodus obliquus to megalodon lineage have been found and none contained parasymphyseals.  Pierre Zennaro who spent many years in the phosphate mines of Morocco said that several complete dentitions of Otodus obliquus have already been found but they never found parasymphyseal  teeth in the complete dentitions. The associated megalodon dentition that Larry Martin found in Florida, now in Gordon Hubbell's collection, didn't have parasymphyseals.

 

There are a large number of teeth with features of a parasymphyseal that have been found in Morocco.  Dr. David Ward once posted a picture of a pile of them on Facebook.  If I'm remembering correctly he said he had over 150.  I have a friend in Belgium, Patrick D., who just sent to me the below picture of Parotodus teeth from Morocco in his collection.  He had originally thought that the two parasymphyseals shown were from Otodus obliquus but his very good friend Pierre Zennaro convinced him that they were Parotodus.

 

image.png.7480b681899cdab0c1bad38956641d23.png

 

I hadn't really heard of Parotodus symphyseals before this post but like I said earlier in this post, to me, they wouldn't be unexpected.  Thank you for the Kemp 1991 paper reference.  I definitely need to check that out.

 

I'm definitely in the camp that believes that the Otodus lineage had parasymphyseals.  I really think that the small size is why many more parasymphyseals aren't being reported.  Also many more are misidentified.  My family has examples of parasymphyseals from what we believe to be Otodus obliquus, auriculatus, angustidens, chubutensis, and megalodon.  I agree that the Otodus lineage may have lost the parasymphyseal files by the Pliocene or that only a small number of O. megalodon sharks still retained them.  At some point I really need to take good pictures of the parasymphyseals that my sons have.

 

Marco Sr.

 

Hi Marco Sr.,

 

I would assume that teeth as small as parasymphyseals would be the first to float away from a dentition before final burial.  I know that's convenient for me to say but I think it's valid.  That root shape seems pretty consistent for proposed parasymphyseals - too much there to just write them off as pathologics.

 

The general rule is a lot of collectors focus on the larger teeth wherever they have hunted.  Pierre Zennaro has been collecting since at least the 70's and he's been interested in the large and the small.  The late Bob Ernst wanted to find at least one of everything that existed in the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed.  I've noticed more people these days thinking the same way.  I traded with Pierre once sometime ago but haven't heard from him in years.  How's he doing?

 

Jess

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, siteseer said:

 

Hi Marco Sr.,

 

I would assume that teeth as small as parasymphyseals would be the first to float away from a dentition before final burial.  I know that's convenient for me to say but I think it's valid.  That root shape seems pretty consistent for proposed parasymphyseals - too much there to just write them off as pathologics.

 

The general rule is a lot of collectors focus on the larger teeth wherever they have hunted.  Pierre Zennaro has been collecting since at least the 70's and he's been interested in the large and the small.  The late Bob Ernst wanted to find at least one of everything that existed in the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed.  I've noticed more people these days thinking the same way.  I traded with Pierre once sometime ago but haven't heard from him in years.  How's he doing?

 

Jess

 

 

Jess

 

In a number of formations in VA, where I take matrix for the vertebrate fauna list studies with Dr. Robert Weems, I notice the fossils get sorted by size/weight.  So I could easily see the smaller parasymphyseals being moved away from the bigger/heavier other teeth.  Also with the associated dentitions you often see the much smaller posterior teeth missing.  Until now, I hadn't really thought about that as a reason why they might be missing from an associated dentition.

 

I also traded with Pierre once years ago.  He was very generous in the number/quality/rarity of the Moroccan teeth that he traded.  That was one of only a couple of trades that I've ever made.  I haven't corresponded with him personally in a while.  He has to be getting up in age.  He was a very good friend of my friend in Belgium who mentions him often when we discuss teeth from Morocco.

 

Marco Sr.

"Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day."

My family fossil website     Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros     My Extant Shark Jaw Collection

image.png.9a941d70fb26446297dbc9dae7bae7ed.png image.png.41c8380882dac648c6131b5bc1377249.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple thoughts on Otodus lineage parasymphyseals:

 

1) Since the position is not really functional at all in the dentition, perhaps it is replaced less frequently than most teeth, contributing to their scarcity.

 

2) All the specimens ive seen tend to be quite small.  Obviously the position is a reduced small size, but to me the size seems more likely to fit in a small or juvenile dentition.  Perhaps the file simply gets squeezed out as these mega sharks grew towards adult size?  

 

3) I believe collecting bias and reworking play one of the largest roles in their scarcity.  Note that MarcoSr's images both come from a site where Otodus is actually incredibly rare, but screening is the only collecting method for the site.   By screening,  these teeth would not be overlooked, and the two specimens seem to show just this.   I also have one specimen from a strictly screening method Eocene unreworked site that produces only a very small amount of Otodus  lineage teeth.  

 

4) It does seem that these teeth get less common as the otodus lineage gets larger in size, eg most are from the obliquus or auriculatus chronospecies. . That's just been my informal observation from forums like this one over the years.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, non-remanié said:

A couple thoughts on Otodus lineage parasymphyseals:

 

1) Since the position is not really functional at all in the dentition, perhaps it is replaced less frequently than most teeth, contributing to their scarcity.

 

2) All the specimens ive seen tend to be quite small.  Obviously the position is a reduced small size, but to me the size seems more likely to fit in a small or juvenile dentition.  Perhaps the file simply gets squeezed out as these mega sharks grew towards adult size?  

 

3) I believe collecting bias and reworking play one of the largest roles in their scarcity.  Note that MarcoSr's images both come from a site where Otodus is actually incredibly rare, but screening is the only collecting method for the site.   By screening,  these teeth would not be overlooked, and the two specimens seem to show just this.   I also have one specimen from a strictly screening method Eocene unreworked site that produces only a very small amount of Otodus  lineage teeth.  

 

4) It does seem that these teeth get less common as the otodus lineage gets larger in size, eg most are from the obliquus or auriculatus chronospecies. . That's just been my informal observation from forums like this one over the years.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Non-remanie,

 

It's good to hear from you on this.

 

1.  I don't think a tooth file replacement rate would be different based on how functional it is.  I imagine pristine/nearly-pristine rotating out at the same rate as the bigger more beat-up teeth although you wonder, when you look at the crowded symphyseal areas of a shark like say Hemipristis, if the teeth are slowed when they don't advance in a straight line but follow more of an angled curve.

 

2.  I have also wondered if the parasympyseal file could get crowded out across the life of the animal.  It would be the opposite of file-splitting yet would seem more likely as a natural process.  On the other hand Cretoxyrhina parasymphyseals are small compared to the anteriors based on at least one partial associated dentition.

 

3.  If that site is the Fisher-Sullivan site (aka "Muddy Creek"), aren't large shark teeth (anything over maybe 1 1/2 inches) also quite rare?  From what I've seen collectors found lots of tiny-small teeth but few large ones though it was a time when 2-inch-plus shark teeth were uncommon. If you were going to find an Otodus tooth, it would have been a small jaw position or a juvenile.

 

4.  Right  I've seen several O. obliquus parasymphyseals but then a sharply smaller number sokolowi/auriculatus specimens.  I always look for odd teeth when I go to shows or someone shows me their collection.  One time, a fossil dealer and I got interested in who had the smallest megalodon tooth.  They're always that last posterior.  I don't think I've seen a tooth I would consider a meg parasymphyseal though I have a vague recollection of someone showing me a tooth that could have been from an Early Miocene site.  Years ago, I think someone once showed me a Bone Valley meg that had weak lateral cusplets..  We might start seeing more of these teeth in general as collectors recognize something weird yet familiar on the forum in their own collections.

 

Jess

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, siteseer said:

 

3.  If that site is the Fisher-Sullivan site (aka "Muddy Creek"), aren't large shark teeth (anything over maybe 1 1/2 inches) also quite rare?  From what I've seen collectors found lots of tiny-small teeth but few large ones though it was a time when 2-inch-plus shark teeth were uncommon. If you were going to find an Otodus tooth, it would have been a small jaw position or a juvenile.

 

Jess

 

 

 

 

Jess

 

The Muddy Creek site was very early Eocene just past the Paleocene boundary.  Very few 2-inch plus shark teeth were found.  Otodus obliquus of any size really weren't that common.  I found three in 140 trips of sieving the formation.  The one below is 2.5".  My friend who found the parasymphyseals found maybe six O. obliquus total in many more trips than me.  Two were anteriors larger than the size of my tooth.

 

151.thumb.JPG.47dc2bb987e9abdac1d7e77c24990d3c.JPG

 

 

No Parotodus were ever reported from the site.

 

Marco Sr.

"Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day."

My family fossil website     Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros     My Extant Shark Jaw Collection

image.png.9a941d70fb26446297dbc9dae7bae7ed.png image.png.41c8380882dac648c6131b5bc1377249.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, siteseer said:

 

 I don't think I've seen a tooth I would consider a meg parasymphyseal though I have a vague recollection of someone showing me a tooth that could have been from an Early Miocene site. 

 

Jess

 

 

 

 

Jess

 

I need to take better pictures, but the below Miocene tooth (.63") is one of several interesting Miocene teeth that my son has.

 

image.png.31e90cae3dec6b2a808b8caf694c0940.png

 

Marco Sr.

"Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day."

My family fossil website     Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros     My Extant Shark Jaw Collection

image.png.9a941d70fb26446297dbc9dae7bae7ed.png image.png.41c8380882dac648c6131b5bc1377249.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...