Gizmo Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said: Hastalis doesn’t usually, at least not the broad form, right? I figured, Maryland’s Miocene would be too early for full C. carcharias (or so I’ve been told). I have heard a few times of east coast C. hubbelli, though I’m skeptical they may be misidentified Carcharomodus escheri (genus possibly misspelled by me). Dr. Kent has one he swears came from Plum Point in situ. I've seen it, it looks exactly like one of my North Carolina teeth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 20 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said: Hastalis doesn’t usually, at least not the broad form, right? I checked, the earlier ones don't seem to have more of a u shaped root. Although - https://www.google.com/search?q=escheri+shark+tooth&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=peG-rEW5PHZjgM%3A%2Cxx-ux-mVdh73UM%2C_&usg=__I65V7p_eax-Hd2JROW9a3zmio7s%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivv7Sb8fLbAhWPCDQIHUwYC_sQ9QEIOzAE#imgrc=_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 27 minutes ago, Gizmo said: Dr. Kent has one he swears came from Plum Point in situ. I've seen it, it looks exactly like one of my North Carolina teeth. He’s not one to lie, but everyone can make a mistake from time to time. I bet it fell out of someone’s pocket and the waves lodged it in a chunk of clay or the cliff. That, or some horrid person stuck it in there. It’s 8 million years prior to C. hubbelli in South America. One must discount C. hubbelli’s validity as a GW ancestor to accept his tooth as genuinely from the time period. “...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...
Gizmo Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said: He’s not one to lie, but he has overlooked things from time to time. I bet it fell out of someone’s pocket and the waves lodged it in a chunk of clay or the cliff. That, or some horrid person stuck it in there. It’s 8 million years prior to C. hubbelli in South America. One must discount C. hubbelli’s validity as a GW ancestor to accept his tooth as genuinely from the time period. His proof is quite convincing and his study, reputation and scholarship of fossil shark teeth is astounding. He's not one to make a claim like this carelessly. He's at University of Maryland, call him up and discuss it with him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Gizmo said: His proof is quite convincing and his study, reputation and scholarship of fossil shark teeth is astounding. He's not one to make a claim like this carelessly. He's at University of Maryland, call him up and discuss it with him. I have no doubt of his skill and his smarts, he is world-renowned, but it is quite a claim. I might ask him about, I’m sure anything he tells me will be something I don’t know! “...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...
RickNC Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 It's a Great White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 I'm not convinced that this tooth is a great white. I would need to see better pictures of the serrations. What especially is causing me problems can be seen in the below picture where I've added the red lines. Sure looks like this tooth had a bourlette from the picture. It is possible that what I'm seeing is only enamel peel but it sure is suggestive. The root is badly eroded but it is also suggestive of a meg. Also some juvenile megs can have very prominent and sometimes irregular serrations. See the picture of the juvenile meg below. Seeing the tooth in profile does look more like a great white. However, I just looked at some of my smaller megs in profile and a number of my upper megs are fairly thin and flat (straight) just like this tooth. It is very difficult to id damaged/worn teeth from even good pictures. juvenile meg tooth: Marco Sr. 4 "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 My understanding is that the marine sediments exposed in the Gainesville creeks is considerably older than the Mio-Pliocene-Pleistocene marine transgressions of South Florida. I believe that the tooth in question is far more likely to be a worn megalodon rather than a great white tooth. 1 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 My initial thought was also worn meg. ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cthulhu2 Posted July 2, 2018 Author Share Posted July 2, 2018 I spoke to Dr. Hulbert (Vertebrae Paleontology Collections Manager of the Florida Museum of Natural History) and he believes it is great white. The argument goes on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 On 6/26/2018 at 11:07 PM, Gizmo said: Dr. Kent has one he swears came from Plum Point in situ. I've seen it, it looks exactly like one of my North Carolina teeth. I believe a couple years ago I heard Dr. Kent give a talk to DVPS and he brought up this enigma specimen. If I recall correctly he changed his opinion on the tooth and explained why it was a juvenile chubutensis or megalodon and why there was so much confusion. My memory is a bit fuzzy so don't quote me on this. I do recall that for many years prior I remember hearing from collectors about this Calvert GW specimen and I was just never convinced. I think it was obviously incorrectly IDed as GW but Kent finally figured out why. 1 ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- 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