Jump to content

Please help me I’d these 2 shark teeth


dontom

Recommended Posts

Can you please help me I’d these teeth.

 

The one on the left is suppose to be Cretoxyrhina denticulata from the Tambov region of Russia. Can anyone confirm this or i.d. It differently. 

 

I know the one on the right is a Cretolamna from Morocco but if someone could help me I.d. It further that would be great. 

Thanks

50C48143-479A-4D40-9F0C-D120F9899CC3.jpeg

DE818492-4D9E-4EA6-96EE-B8690761CCB6.jpeg

16C1E4D8-C245-439D-9EB3-CB9197E528D0.jpeg

9426E640-39FB-4DBB-BCFB-EE1710A7B034.jpeg

D87F47C8-07AD-4B0F-ACCA-C7B0AFB2C2A8.jpeg

5985E5DD-3048-4DE2-856E-F6FACFB0419D.jpeg

27BF9B5E-0454-4B0D-B0D7-FD1365388A92.jpeg

7309EE96-BF25-4AF5-9B98-E71AAF79C5E5.jpeg

50F4B3CF-1728-4F41-A72C-298F9155E575.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the formation age in Tambov Cretaceous or Miocene? Would be telling, as my immediate thought was Desori.

 

 

mako-shark-tooth-isurus-oxyrinchus.jpg

Every single fossil you see is a miracle set in stone, and should be treated as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one with the cusps is Serratolamna aschersoni

Dipleurawhisperer5.jpg

I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
14 minutes ago, MeargleSchmeargl said:

Is the formation age in Tambov Cretaceous or Miocene? Would be telling, as my immediate thought was Desorai.

 

 

mako-shark-tooth-isurus-oxyrinchus.jpg

 

 

I thought it looked a lot like a Mako as well that's why I wanted to get some more opinions on it.  The seller seems to know his stuff though.  Here's the exact info from his description.

 

The fossil shark tooth Cretoxyrhina denticulata (Glickman, 1957)
The fossil found at Cenomanian, Cretaceous deposits of an outcrop near Fedorovka village, Tambov region, Russia.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cretoxyrhina is a Cretaceous mako.

Dipleurawhisperer5.jpg

I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, Tambov is Upper Cenomanian. Cretoxyrhina (btw, it is unrelated to modern makos) vraconensis (Albian), C. denticulata (Cenomanian) and C. mantelli (Turonian +) are basically chronospecies that show different level of cusplet reduction. Although frontal anteriors in all species could be very similar: have no cusplets and mako-like shape. Chronologically, it might be either early C. mantelli or C. denticulata, however I have not seen any studies of Russian Cenomanian assemblages with Cretoxyrhina descriptions newer than Glikman, so Cretoxyrhina sp. is the most accurate name.

Here are my C. vraconensis from Ukrainian Albian - lateral and a non-cuspleted anterior

cretoxy1.thumb.jpg.b32720186453906fb8c2c84c2a238e1c.jpg5aa09d4318beb_Cretoxyrhinaanterior.thumb.jpg.cbd4b68eea7ad03d188982372f71bd34.jpg

 

 

Siverson, M. and Lindgren, J. 2005. Late Cretaceous sharks Cretoxyrhina and Cardabiodon from Montana, USA. Acta 
Palaeontologica Polonica 50 (2): 301–314

 

Mikael Siverson , David J. Ward , Johan Lindgren & L. Scott Kelley (2013): Mid-Cretaceous 
Cretoxyrhina (Elasmobranchii) from Mangyshlak, Kazakhstan and Texas, USA, Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of 
Palaeontology, 37:1, 87-104 

The Tooth Fairy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anomotodon said:

You are right, Tambov is Upper Cenomanian. Cretoxyrhina (btw, it is unrelated to modern makos) vraconensis (Albian), C. denticulata (Cenomanian) and C. mantelli (Turonian +) are basically chronospecies that show different level of cusplet reduction. Although frontal anteriors in all species could be very similar: have no cusplets and mako-like shape. Chronologically, it might be either early C. mantelli or C. denticulata, however I have not seen any studies of Russian Cenomanian assemblages with Cretoxyrhina descriptions newer than Glikman, so Cretoxyrhina sp. is the most accurate name.

Here are my C. vraconensis from Ukrainian Albian - lateral and a non-cuspleted anterior

cretoxy1.thumb.jpg.b32720186453906fb8c2c84c2a238e1c.jpg5aa09d4318beb_Cretoxyrhinaanterior.thumb.jpg.cbd4b68eea7ad03d188982372f71bd34.jpg

 

 

Siverson, M. and Lindgren, J. 2005. Late Cretaceous sharks Cretoxyrhina and Cardabiodon from Montana, USA. Acta 
Palaeontologica Polonica 50 (2): 301–314

 

Mikael Siverson , David J. Ward , Johan Lindgren & L. Scott Kelley (2013): Mid-Cretaceous 
Cretoxyrhina (Elasmobranchii) from Mangyshlak, Kazakhstan and Texas, USA, Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of 
Palaeontology, 37:1, 87-104 

 

 

Awesome info!!  Thanks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Anomotodon said:

are basically chronospecies that show different level of cusplet reduction.

No, not another one! I can’t take all these chronospecies and transitional species and what not!! 

“...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

 

When dealing with a relatively small number of fossils from a few locations it is easy in our minds to define 'species', however the more we collect over time the more we face the reality that identifying 'species' is more difficult. Our classification system is useful but only up to a point. We are going to have to get used to various shades of grey. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...