Jump to content
PalaeoArt

Posterior Meg?

Recommended Posts

PalaeoArt

I found this at the weekend in a creek off the Peace River in Florida. It's pretty worn, but you can still see the serrations along the edge of the crown. My initial reaction was that it was a tiny posterior megalodon. It's only 0.5" wide however. Any thoughts? The bit that confused me was that it curls up slightly when laying flat (see third photo)

 

IMG_6094.jpg

IMG_6095.jpg

IMG_6096.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot

Can We see a straight on side shot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PalaeoArt

Here you go @ynot

IMG_6097.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete

I am wondering if this may be a really really worn Ginglymostoma? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot

Sixgill may be right. I do not think it is a meg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digit

Doesn't fit my image of a Nurse Shark (Ginglymostoma) tooth and at 0.5 inch it would be a huge shark.  This is Jack's find from the Peace River which (at 10mm) is the largest I think I've seen.

 

NurseSharkMergeTxt.jpg.7359f3bb16b61eb5e5ccb43296f13a69.jpg

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/81589-2-identifications-for-sharks/

 

If the tooth in question has fine serrations and a heckuva large root for its size so I'd be more in the posterior meg camp. I know that Jeff @jcbshark and Jack @Shellseeker have both seen their share of posterior megs so they might have a comment.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete
5 minutes ago, digit said:

Doesn't fit my image of a Nurse Shark (Ginglymostoma) tooth and at 0.5 inch it would be a huge shark.  This is Jack's find from the Peace River which (at 10mm) is the largest I think I've seen.

 

NurseSharkMergeTxt.jpg.7359f3bb16b61eb5e5ccb43296f13a69.jpg

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/81589-2-identifications-for-sharks/

 

If the tooth in question has fine serrations and a heckuva large root for its size so I'd be more in the posterior meg camp. I know that Jeff @jcbshark and Jack @Shellseeker have both seen their share of posterior megs so they might have a comment.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

The angle of the blade from the root does not say meg to me. I am not saying it is or is not, but looking at my posteriors ( i have 35 or so) it just does not fit. The tooth is extremely worn. This photo here IMG_6096.jpg  is the one that really does not say meg to me. Look at the blade in relation to the root.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digit

I hear you. It is not a "normal" easily identifiable tooth and there are things about it that puzzle. I'd like to know more about the serrations. I've seen Nurse Shark teeth that have the side cusps/serrations worn down quite a bit but never to the point of being that smooth edged.

 

I wonder if we are thinking about the wrong part of the jaw here? Could this be a worn tiny symphyseal? Those teeth are often curved extensively and much smaller than the rest.

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/collections-database/chordata/sharks-rays/megalodon-symphyseal-r714/

 

 

I'm well out of my depth with atypical shark teeth so I'll look forward to being schooled once some of our shark tooth experts on the forum weigh in. @Al Dente

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcbshark

While it is an oddball with the size of the root compared to the blade I am thinking posterior meg as well. Possibly pathological with the bend in the blade maybe @MarcoSr can shed some light as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot

I do not see a burlet on this tooth, which is present on all of the posterior meg teeth I have seen. (even on the worn ones.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
10 hours ago, jcbshark said:

While it is an oddball with the size of the root compared to the blade I am thinking posterior meg as well. Possibly pathological with the bend in the blade maybe @MarcoSr can shed some light as well

 

With the condition of the tooth it is really hard to tell.  Meg teeth don't have this much of a bend normally (they are flatter) in their crowns.  That makes me think it is not a meg posterior tooth but a Carcharhinus sp. tooth.  However I wouldn't completely rule out a posterior meg.

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shellseeker

My thought is posterior Meg, mostly because of the root... but like others, I leave open the possibility of pathological bull, dusky, nurse, etc... This one seems the closest...

BabyMegAtZolfo.thumb.jpg.930a557460a627745e0f9be6dbd8a236.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PalaeoArt

Thanks everyone @Shellseeker @MarcoSr @ynot @jcbshark @digit @sixgill pete. This tooth, due to it's wear and damaged root, is not an easy one to place. There are definitely fine serrations all the way up the blade which although a little worn, don't look like they would have originally been nurse-shark-like serrations. I spotted the photo below on Instagram this morning of a very small posterior meg which shows some upwards angle to the blade. This looks to be the closet tooth I've found. It also has a very narrow (even nonexistent) dental band or bourlette.

IMG_6113 (1).PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×