Tooth Identification

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Hi Folks,

 

   I recently acquired a Sharkstooth from Charles County Maryland. I was told it was found North of the 301 bridge on the Potomac River. Anyway this area of Maryland I rarely collect so I picked up this 2.05” tooth on a trade. Just looking to confirm the Identification on this beauty of a tooth.

 

  Thanks Calvert Cliff Dweller 

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Reverse pic

[caldigger]

1 minute ago, Calvert Cliff Dweller said:

Reverse pic

Say, she's kinda cute, single?

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Yeah she’s my first.

[Auspex]

You've been in the Aquia formation, collecting Paleocene Otodus obliquus.

[Darktooth]

With Serrations! I know its possible but rare. Are you sure that its an Otodus @Auspex?

[Troodon]

Its probably early eocene, since its serrated, in the Nanjemoy Formation.   Carcharocles possibly C. aksuaticus

[Jazfossilator]

Beautiful tooth!

[Auspex]

5 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Its probably early eocene, since its serrated, in the Nanjemoy Formation.   Carcharocles possibly C. aksuaticus

Yes, this ^

There's a couple hundred yard long stretch where these later Nanjemoy beds are exposed.

Very. Cool. Tooth.

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

My impression when I first saw it that I was looking at a Otodus Auriculatus or aka Transitional Otodus.

[Auspex]

Here's the scoop, from the Master: LINK

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Thanks Auspex for the very informative link and all the help from TFF for getting  answers to my questions regarding this rare tooth.

[Miocene_Mason]

I agree with auriculatus, nice anterior one too!

[Auspex]

7 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

I agree with auriculatus, nice anterior one too!

It is a transitional Otodus; read the link.

[sixgill pete]

Great tooth. I believe @Auspex and @Troodon have the ID nailed.

[SailingAlongToo]

@MarcoSr

[Gizmo]

Otodus aksuaticus , like my avatar picture at the left.

[Miocene_Mason]

40 minutes ago, Auspex said:

It is a transitional Otodus; read the link.

In my opinion the same thing. I’ll explain myself:

Otodus aksauticus  is different from both O. Obliquus and O. auriculatus because of the subtle shape and continuousness differences of the serrations, this is such a minute difference I am skeptical they warrant a different species. It would be like saying that a human skull with thicker enamel than usual is a different species. It’s a lumper/splitter debate, but in my book if it has serrations it’s a auriculatus (though I may put O. auriculatus aksauticus) and if it does not, it’s an obliquus. So yes, transitional is right, but auriculatus is not wrong.

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Well would anybody put any monetary  value to this Otodus?

[ynot]

4 minutes ago, Calvert Cliff Dweller said:

Well would anybody put any monetary  value to this Otodus?

I am sure someone would, but the Fossil Forum does not do appraisals.

[caldigger]

One of the dealers at the show we just had locally had one of these. I was tempted, but he wanted such a ridiculously high price on it and wouldn't budge. So I walked.

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Gotcha I forgot TFF rules momentarily anyway I don’t plan on letting it go unless somebody wants it REAL bad. Thanks for everyone’s help on IDing this rare gem.

[Gizmo]

2 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

In my opinion the same thing. I’ll explain myself:

Otodus aksauticus  is different from both O. Obliquus and O. auriculatus because of the subtle shape and continuousness differences of the serrations, this is such a minute difference I am skeptical they warrant a different species. It would be like saying that a human skull with thicker enamel than usual is a different species. It’s a lumper/splitter debate, but in my book if it has serrations it’s a auriculatus (though I may put O. auriculatus aksauticus) and if it does not, it’s an obliquus. So yes, transitional is right, but auriculatus is not wrong.

I'm curious as to how many specimens in this lineage you've examined to base your statement on.

[Auspex]

9 hours ago, Gizmo said:

Otodus aksuaticus , like my avatar picture at the left.

Is that name valid now for specimens from outside of Africa?

[Auspex]

9 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

In my opinion the same thing....

So, are you claiming by the same logic that C. auriculatus (assigned a different genus) is also 'the same'?

 

10 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

I agree with auriculatus, nice anterior one too!