Big sand tiger

[Miocene_Mason]

On 2/19/2018 at 5:19 PM, sixgill pete said:

Can you get us a side view of the tooth without your hand in the way. Brownies Beach is ?Miocene, correct.

Sorry it took me a while, here’s some side pictures 

[Miocene_Mason]

[sixgill pete]

On 2/19/2018 at 11:31 PM, siteseer said:

 

Hi Don,

 

Elasmo was tentative on ID's and rightly so given the differing opinions it reported from researchers especially for Miocene teeth.  If you follow Kent and his Chesapeake sharks book I think you go with Carcharias cuspidata.  That would also be how the average collector 30 years ago would have identified it, I think.  Luckily, it's a large tooth with an apparetnly smooth, broad-based crown which separates it from Carcharias acutissima (generally smaller with at least a weakly-striated, narrower-based crown. 

 

When experts look at modern dentitions of any shark species, they see at least pretty good variation in tooth shape per jaw position, so they wonder how fossil teeth can be confidently named to species in many cases especially for something like this tooth with which you have maybe three species to choose from, each having its incompletely-understood range of variation which some say overlap.  I don't think anyone would say this tooth is C. accutissima but they might go with Carcharias sp. as you suggested and that might be the name to go with today..

 

Jess

 

Hi Jess,

I agree completely the tooth is not C. accutissima. I appreciate your thoughts and comments on this. I do believe also this tooth should probably be I.D.'d as C. cuspidata. 

[Shellseeker]

On 2/19/2018 at 11:31 PM, siteseer said:

 

Hi Don,

 

Elasmo was tentative on ID's and rightly so given the differing opinions it reported from researchers especially for Miocene teeth.  If you follow Kent and his Chesapeake sharks book I think you go with Carcharias cuspidata.  That would also be how the average collector 30 years ago would have identified it, I think.  Luckily, it's a large tooth with an apparetnly smooth, broad-based crown which separates it from Carcharias acutissima (generally smaller with at least a weakly-striated, narrower-based crown. 

 

When experts look at modern dentitions of any shark species, they see at least pretty good variation in tooth shape per jaw position, so they wonder how fossil teeth can be confidently named to species in many cases especially for something like this tooth with which you have maybe three species to choose from, each having its incompletely-understood range of variation which some say overlap.  I don't think anyone would say this tooth is C. accutissima but they might go with Carcharias sp. as you suggested and that might be the name to go with today..

 

Jess

Really great insight and summary, Jess, I would like to make specific species statements because I am finding some of these now, but reality intrudes...

[HoppeHunting]

Sand Tigers are certainly difficult to distinguish from one another. As I mentioned in another thread, I believe this tooth is Odontaspis reticulata. Unlike the genus Carcharias that typically has wider and less angled roots, the Smalltooth Sand Tiger has long and pointed root lobes. The also usually have a thicker root center, and when looked at from a side view they tend to curve more. Their cusplets are (when not worn) very sharp and long in comparison to the larger species. Although teeth from this species are typically around half an inch, they can get this big. In fact, my biggest Smalltooth from Brownie's looks a bit similar to this one! I'll post the picture from the Hop 5. Hope this was helpful.

[Miocene_Mason]

@HoppeFossilHunting really does look similar! I might give it to he CMM just to make sure. This is (somewhat sadly) the largest tooth I’ve found (close by to this hemi from Matoaka)

[Miocene_Mason]

And his purse sand tiger

[HoppeHunting]

38 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

@HoppeFossilHunting really does look similar! I might give it to he CMM just to make sure. This is (somewhat sadly) the largest tooth I’ve found (close by to this hemi from Matoaka)

By "give it" to the museum, do you mean physically give it to them? If so, that's really interesting that you contribute your finds! I haven't been back there since I was about four years old, and I really want to go check it out. May join the Fossil Club, and perhaps I'll even ask for a summer internship. 

 

When it comes to your second statement, I say no worries at all! Size isn't everything with fossil teeth, and this tooth along with many others I've seen you post are some beautiful discoveries. Heck, some of my favorite teeth that I've found are among my smallest. It's all about what you personally see as a good find. For example, most people see Physo's as "regulars" but they're one of my favorite types to find! Keep at it. You and I are both fairly new to the hobby, but we've managed some greats finds already, and surely there are bigger and better ones soon to come! 

 

Speaking of which, if you'd ever like to go on a trip together to the Cliffs, I'd love to hunt alongside another TFF member around my age. PM me if you're interested. Hoppe hunting!

[Miocene_Mason]

29 minutes ago, HoppeFossilHunting said:

By "give it" to the museum, do you mean physically give it to them?

Yeah, if they will take it. I think over the next year I’ll collect everything interesting or strange into a small collection to give to them. 

 

I do like the small teeth, but a meg would make my day (if and when that day comes) especially if it was big (though small one would be fine). But until then I’ll be quite happy with what I do find, big or small.

 

I’d love to go hunting with you sometimes, I’ll shot you a PM at some point! Will you be here over the summer?

[HoppeHunting]

22 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

Yeah, if they will take it. I think over the next year I’ll collect everything interesting or strange into a small collection to give to them. 

 

I do like the small teeth, but a meg would make my day (if and when that day comes) especially if it was big (though small one would be fine). But until then I’ll be quite happy with what I do find, big or small.

 

I’d love to go hunting with you sometimes, I’ll shot you a PM at some point! Will you be here over the summer?

That's so cool that you'd donate the finds to the museum! Maybe if I find something significant I'll do the same, or at least hand it over to be identified by the experts.

 

When it comes to megs, my hands are still empty as well. Surely, we'll both get one eventually. Like you said, it will make my day. 

 

And I will be here over the summer! There will be a few weeks when I'll be on vacation with the family, but I'll definitely be available for a day trip at some point!

[Miocene_Mason]

50 minutes ago, HoppeFossilHunting said:

That's so cool that you'd donate the finds to the museum! Maybe if I find something significant I'll do the same, or at least hand it over to be identified by the experts.

I’ve done it before, but I stupidly forgot to do a burn test (they were mammal teeth). They were modern but mineralized on the outside (apparently the bay can do that to smaller teeth). Hopefully the next batch will be actual fossils.

[Paleoc]

Carcharias cuspidata.  Some of them get quite big, even bigger than your tooth.  There is variation in Carcharias teeth. If you read Kent's book he talks about presence or absence of striations on the lingual side.  I have a modern Carcharias jaw, in which some of the teeth are striated, others are not (in the same jaw).