Jump to content
Fossilhound2014

Megalodon skeleton from Peru

Recommended Posts

siteseer
21 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

No problem. Know that’s a larger example. They range from around four inches up to that. Here’s one from the CMM

 

Link

DC3FBE6C-3780-4D54-8FD2-A909E0832F56.jpeg

 

 

At first glance I thought that centrum was from Carcharodon hastalis.  How was it identified as megalodon?

 

Jess

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siteseer
On 11/27/2019 at 9:49 PM, Abstraktum said:

 

Even though we get a little off Topic, this is something I always wondered: How does a Megalodon vert look like? I have never seen one. Not for sale, not on pictures, not in museums.

 

And as a follow up: Why do we have shark verts in the first place? I have seen several shark verts at Museums / online shops and so on, but I never understood why? Aren't teeth the only parts of sharks that remain? So why do we have them? :) 

 

 

The sharks orders represented today all date back to at least the Late Cretaceous.  They all bear centra (plural of centrum) that are calcified (one indicator of common ancestry?) so they have a better chance of fossilization than the cartilaginous parts of the skeleton.  I have read that the oldest order, the Hexanchiformes, have centra with the least level of calcification - so low that they barely form an image in an x-ray.  

 

Fossil shark vertebral centra are uncommon.  Although they are calcified, they aren't has resistant to erosion as bone.  If you've ever found fossil shark vertebral centra, you'd notice that they are rather fragile.  They have a porcelain quality in that they're easily chipped or broken and tend to be found that way even in a deposit that allowed for preservation of fragile things like Hexanchus teeth.

 

You might think the centra of a shark as large as megalodon would mean that they would be perhaps better mineralized and therefore more sturdy and more likely to be found in identifiable condition.  Sadly, this is not the case.  Their centra are rare - rarer than those of other sharks in the same deposit.  I've seen thousands of shark teeth from the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed but I've seen just one shark centrum that could have come only from megalodon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
7 hours ago, siteseer said:

 

 

At first glance I thought that centrum was from Carcharodon hastalis.  How was it identified as megalodon?

 

Jess

 

 

After looking a bit closer I agree. I couldn’t find a picture of a normal sized one (which is in between that and the hubbell). I’ll ask the curator or collections manager next time I’m there if identifying characteristics other than size exist, perhaps they know something I don’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash
On 28/11/2019 at 5:06 AM, WhodamanHD said:

Strange this thread has been revived. This is definitely fake, I’ve since learned what megalodon verts look like and these definitely aren’t them. 

 

I brought it back to make the point of colour not being a key factor in whether fossils are together or not. Next time I’m in the local museum I’ll take a picture of a roo toe that was found in 2 pieces, and are different colours despite being the same specimen.

 

As for this being fake - got a link to an article, or why the museum got it if it’s fake? What’s the story behind it?

 

I agree the Verts are wrong, but what about the head/teeth? Even if that’s legit that’s a big find.

 

And the part about Hubbell not knowing about it - well, there’s plenty floating around experts don’t know about so *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
51 minutes ago, Ash said:

And the part about Hubbell not knowing about it - well, there’s plenty floating around experts don’t know about so *shrugs*

That’s his turf, he has found some nice and very real skeletons there. Word tends to percolate through experts like that. Though you are right, it is conceivable he’s missed it, I’m not sure he gets to the field much anymore.

 

I don’t see tesserae on the cartilage which is suspect. If I had to guess the teeth are real but placed. It’s even possible they are associated, but still placed. There are a few associated dentitions known of megalodon and it’s predecessors. C. angustidens has a reasonably whole skeleton published from New Zealand (Gottfried and Fordyce 2001)

 

The link provided has a video in it, unfortunately I don’t know German so I cannot say if they are presenting it as real or not. It could just be a reconstruction for the purpose of education. 

 

It’s simply really suspicious. Especially when there are verified specimens in existence, albeit slightly more partial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steelhead9

If oilshale is correct that the presenters of this specimen are reputable (which they appear to be), I guess the vertebra would be more in the nature of a last meal. From a preparation point of view, some of the teeth show evidence of placement, while others appear prepared in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash
On 03/12/2019 at 11:07 AM, WhodamanHD said:

That’s his turf, he has found some nice and very real skeletons there. Word tends to percolate through experts like that. Though you are right, it is conceivable he’s missed it, I’m not sure he gets to the field much anymore.

 

I don’t see tesserae on the cartilage which is suspect. If I had to guess the teeth are real but placed. It’s even possible they are associated, but still placed. There are a few associated dentitions known of megalodon and it’s predecessors. C. angustidens has a reasonably whole skeleton published from New Zealand (Gottfried and Fordyce 2001)

 

The link provided has a video in it, unfortunately I don’t know German so I cannot say if they are presenting it as real or not. It could just be a reconstruction for the purpose of education. 

 

It’s simply really suspicious. Especially when there are verified specimens in existence, albeit slightly more partial. 

 

 

You cant base an opinion on something being real or not simply based on whether it’s known to experts, was my point. Plenty of stuff found and never shown, some big,

some small. Just slips quietly into the coffers of collectors.

 

Im keen to see this NZ specimen. Will find the paper after work :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oilshale
On 3.12.2019 at 1:56 PM, steelhead9 said:

If oilshale is correct that the presenters of this specimen are reputable (which they appear to be), I guess the vertebra would be more in the nature of a last meal. From a preparation point of view, some of the teeth show evidence of placement, while others appear prepared in place.

 

This is exactly what the paleontologists from Siber & Siber say: The skull is from a Megalodon and the small vertebrae are probably from the shark's last meal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manbearpig

How large was this specimen?

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.

×