Griffgator Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 Sorry for the bad picture and if this post is in the wrong spot. I’m am trying to get this identified for my dad. He found this in Jacksonville, FL on the bank of the St. John’s River, far inland from the beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 Welcome to the Forum. Topic moved to Fossil ID. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcbshark Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 Looks like a mako to me, can’t see any serrations Every once in a great while it's not just a big rock down there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 Welcome to the forum from Texas. There are quite a number of some shark tooth guys on here. I’m sure one of them will chime in shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 Looks like a lower anterior Carcharodon hastalis. “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 24 minutes ago, josephstrizhak said: Looks like a lower anterior Carcharodon hastalis. Yep, nice white shark. Like the colors on it! “...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 More sharing options...
caldigger Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 It looks like the tip curves toward the labial side so C. hastalis for me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 2 hours ago, josephstrizhak said: Looks like a lower anterior Carcharodon hastalis. I think the root lobes would fork more if it were a lower anterior. Because it is so straight, I think it's an upper first anterior. It might even be a Carcharodon carcharias but I can't tell if there's any hint of serrations - looks pretty worn but a great tooth to find for the locality. Jess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 For comparison: both very worn. C. hastalis on left, C. carcharias on right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 8 hours ago, siteseer said: I think the root lobes would fork more if it were a lower anterior. Because it is so straight, I think it's an upper first anterior. It might even be a Carcharodon carcharias but I can't tell if there's any hint of serrations - looks pretty worn but a great tooth to find for the locality. Jess Hi Jess, Yeah it's definitely an upper first C. hastalis narrow form tooth. I was thinking of the broad form when I made the ID. Do you know if Xiphodon and Hastalis are considered two separate species now, or is it still unknown? Thanks, Joseph “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 19 hours ago, josephstrizhak said: Hi Jess, Yeah it's definitely an upper first C. hastalis narrow form tooth. I was thinking of the broad form when I made the ID. Do you know if Xiphodon and Hastalis are considered two separate species now, or is it still unknown? Thanks, Joseph Hi Joseph, There is an argument to have a different name for the broad form and leave the narrow form as hastalis but it probably won't be "xiphodon" if that distinction is officially made. I saw a paper that tried to minimize the reasoning against the formal use of xiphodon but Ward and Bonavia (2001) presented a good case that xiphodon is a nomen dubium, a formal term of invalidity. First, the name is based on type specimens that cannot be located (therefore unavailable for study and comparison). Second, the type locality cannot be determined (origin unknown). A scientific name may be ruled a nomen dubium for either of those reasons. A nomen dubium is literally a "doubtful name," meaning that it is a name of unknown or doubtful basis (nothing substantial to support its validity). When a name is so determined, it may be declared a rejected name and never be eligible for formal use in that case again. With all that, it's possible the name could still be saved if new type specimens were proposed (neotypes) and/or if the type locality could be figured out with certainty. That's how I understand that whole situation. Jess Ward, D.J. & C.G. Bonavia. 2001. Additions to, and a review of, the Miocene shark and ray fauna of Malta. Central Mediterranean Naturalist, 3 (3): 131–146. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 3 hours ago, siteseer said: Hi Joseph, There is an argument to have a different name for the broad form and leave the narrow form as hastalis but it probably won't be "xiphodon" if that distinction is officially made. I saw a paper that tried to minimize the reasoning against the formal use of xiphodon but Ward and Bonavia (2001) presented a good case that xiphodon is a nomen dubium, a formal term of invalidity. First, the name is based on type specimens that cannot be located (therefore unavailable for study and comparison). Second, the type locality cannot be determined (origin unknown). A scientific name may be ruled a nomen dubium for either of those reasons. A nomen dubium is literally a "doubtful name," meaning that it is a name of unknown or doubtful basis (nothing substantial to support its validity). When a name is so determined, it may be declared a rejected name and never be eligible for formal use in that case again. With all that, it's possible the name could still be saved if new type specimens were proposed (neotypes) and/or if the type locality could be figured out with certainty. That's how I understand that whole situation. Jess Ward, D.J. & C.G. Bonavia. 2001. Additions to, and a review of, the Miocene shark and ray fauna of Malta. Central Mediterranean Naturalist, 3 (3): 131–146. Thank you, that helped a lot! “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now