Is this a Fragalodon?

[Miocene_Mason]

Here’s a Miocene Brownie’s beachfind from a while ago, I quickly hailed it as my first meg. However, I’ve had my doubts and I have since found a Fragalodon I am pretty sure is a Fragalodon, so if this turns out to not be a meg, I’m not unhappy. It’s a little over an inch, the root is .7 inches so that should give you a scale. I considered C. hastalis, but some quick unscientific math said that we’re it complete it would be around 3 inches which is not typical. Also the roots got too much curve. All edges are worn off so no serration info. It’s been stress fractures to Timbuktu (pictures don’t do justice) , and if it had a bourlette it’s worn off. However it does have a space for a bourlette. It’s root would also be weird for a meg. I’ve got one other idea but I’m gonna keep it to myself unless someone says it. Thanks for any help!

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Desori possibly.

[Miocene_Mason]

Just now, Calvert Cliff Dweller said:

Desori possibly.

That would be one huge I. desori when complete! What leads you to this conclusion?

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Here are two Brownies fragalodons I picked up a few years ago when the trail to the beach was a mud whole and not a paved road. Those were the days.

 

 

 Dweller 

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

[Miocene_Mason]

2 minutes ago, Calvert Cliff Dweller said:

Here are two Brownies fragalodons I picked up a few years ago when the trail to the beach was a mud whole and not a paved road. Those were the days.

 

 Dweller 

Very nice! Below is my confirmed one. I originally thought the tooth above could be a juvenile anterior?  Now I’m not so sure.

I often wish I’d gotten to hunt in Maryland decades ago. Just can’t take what things you have for granted, who knows what sites will be there 40 years from now? If the past 40 is any indication, not many.

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

Wishful thinking aside .. I do it all the time.  The source for this image (Megatooth Collector)

 

 

 

(Image Credit: www.fossilguy.com)

Yeah .. can you find Isurus Desori in that location .. ? ... in South Carolina they grow them big and approaching 3 inches while uncommon is not unheard of ... I would call it a I. desori too if I found it.

 

Cheers,

Brett

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

That Red Brownies Meg  root frag is 3.3”

[Calvert Cliff Dweller]

Here is another complete specimen from Brownies 

[Miocene_Mason]

4 minutes ago, Brett Breakin' Rocks said:

Yeah .. can you find Isurus Desori in that location .. in South Carolina we grow them big and approaching 3 inches while uncommon is not unheard of ... I would call it a I desori too if I found it.

You can, and I have every now and then but nothing on this scale! Gosh, that would have been three easy, perhaps over! Better than a meg fragment IMO!

 

5 minutes ago, Calvert Cliff Dweller said:

That Red Brownies Meg  root frag is 3.3”

Missed that, that thing must’ve been huge complete!

 

Just now, Calvert Cliff Dweller said:

Here is another complete specimen from Brownies 

I’ve never seen a desori of that placement, that could mess with my size estimates a bit. Gorgeous tooth though. I think you all are right, Isurus desori it is!

[Miocene_Mason]

Did some quick math, if I’m going off the ratios of Dwellers desori, mine is would be 2.1, so that’s a good conservative guess. With a lower, I wouldn’t know because I don’t have measurements. Again, unscientific but ballpark.

[Miocene_Mason]

Found some measurements for lowers, also came out to 2.1. Wonder if the ratios work better than I thought.

[FossilsAnonymous]

I found this bad boy on a trip, the lower shortfin mako. This may be what your tooth is. Notice the same curve at the root. It is about 2" long and the cusp space is about 3/4 of an inch, and it's the same age, Miocene.

[Miocene_Mason]

14 minutes ago, FossilsAnonymous said:

I found this bad boy on a trip, the lower shortfin mako. This may be what your tooth is. Notice the same curve at the root. It is about 2" long and the cusp space is about 3/4 of an inch, and it's the same age, Miocene.

Same thing my friend, I. desori is just what we call fossil I. oxyrhincus, morphologically they are virtually identical. Though I think yours may be Carcharodon hastalis (white shark), it has “shoulders” and looks a bit broader. Root is also more compact.

[FossilsAnonymous]

Thanks. The one reason I wonder is because of the cusp shape on mine, it kind of hooks like the others. (Far Left) Though you are probably right, its the cusp which gets me. These have little shoulders too, and that may be because they were worn down. (I found this in fresh matrix that had just fallen out of the cliff...)

 

 

[FossilsAnonymous]

You're right again. Time to get a new fossil identification book. Definite Carcharodon hastalis. It's a lower tooth, is it not?

[Miocene_Mason]

4 minutes ago, FossilsAnonymous said:

Thanks. The one reason I wonder is because of the cusp shape on mine, it kind of hooks like the others. (Far Left) Though you are probably right, its the cusp which gets me. These have little shoulders too, and that may be because they were worn down. (I found this in fresh matrix that had just fallen out of the cliff...)

 

 

Makos and white sharks (which are descended from makos) are not known for their cusps (C. hastalis can have extremely reduced cusps, as can juvenile C. Carcharias in rare cases) so I’m not sure exactly what you mean there.

 

2 minutes ago, FossilsAnonymous said:

You're right again. Time to get a new fossil identification book. Definite Carcharodon hastalis. It's a lower tooth, is it not?

Yes, which are pretty hard to tell apart.

 

heres your C, hastalis on the left and the I. desori on the right. You can see the enamel continues longer along the root in yours.

[FossilsAnonymous]

Dude you are now my go to identifier... My book is going down the trash can... Lol

[Miocene_Mason]

25 minutes ago, FossilsAnonymous said:

Dude you are now my go to identifier... My book is going down the trash can... Lol

I’m not nearly as good at IDing as some of the others on this thread, most of what I know I’ve learned from them. What book are you using? 

[fossilguy]

56 minutes ago, FossilsAnonymous said:

You're right again. Time to get a new fossil identification book. Definite Carcharodon hastalis. It's a lower tooth, is it not?

 

It's definitely a lower anterior Carcharodon (Cosmopolitodus) hastalis tooth.  The root is way too massive for a mako.

The whole isurus, cosmopolitodus/carcharodon thing is really confusing.

 

This page tries to explain all the the evolution lines of the White shark, including the giant whites (C hastalis).

https://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/vert/fish-shark/carcharodon/index.htm

  

 

[FossilsAnonymous]

@WhodamanHD The book is called Fossils of Calvert Cliffs and I also have a pamphlet that is decent for basic IDing.

[FossilsAnonymous]

@fossilguy I agree, thanks for the link

[Miocene_Mason]

2 minutes ago, FossilsAnonymous said:

@WhodamanHD The book is called Fossils of Calvert Cliffs and I also have a pamphlet that is decent for basic IDing.

I’ve never read that one, but sharks teeth can get pretty specific on what separates one from another. The best book you can get is Bretton Kent’s book “Fossil sharks of the Chesapeake bay region.” It’s expensive to get new, so keep an eye out for it at garage sales. Incredible for IDs and just learning a bit. You won’t be sorry if you can get ahold of it.

[FossilsAnonymous]

@WhodamanHD Thank you very much.

[Miocene_Mason]

@fossilguy Just wanted to say thank you for the site, really helped me when I firsted started out!