UK Sharks Teeth ID Please

[TomWhite]

Hi,

Most of these specimens i have found at Bawdsey, Suffolk. Is anyone able to give an identification on them please? After looking on the internet a bit, i think the majority are Cosmopolitodus Hastalis? However i am probably completely wrong!

There are no visible serrations on any of the larger teeth.

 

The first tooth was given to me, so i have no idea of where it was found.

I will attach more photos in the thread.

Thanks.

[TomWhite]

More attached photos.

[ynot]

Welcome to TFF!

They do look like a Carcharodon hastalis, but very worn.

[Plax]

looks like a tooth reworked into one of the Crags from an earlier Eocene or Paleocene deposit? Am not sure any of us on this side of the pond can give a qualified guess and I will defer to local UK expertise.

[Troodon]

Welcome to the forum

The ones with fat roots look like megatoothed sharks so could be meg depending on age. They are to worn to see serrations.  Typical of ones Ive seen from the UK

[Kosmoceras]

Very nice teeth from the Crag. You've got a mix of Cosmopolitodus hastalis and Otodus obliquus. However, the top tooth is interesting (meg?), can you post some more photos of it?

[Miocene_Mason]

The second one (third pictures) makes me think meg, but I’d wait for local opinions as well.

[thelivingdead531]

I’m leaning towards the second and third teeth being well worn megs (pictures 2,3,4).

[TomWhite]

43 minutes ago, Kosmoceras said:

Very nice teeth from the Crag. You've got a mix of Cosmopolitodus hastalis and Otodus obliquus. However, the top tooth is interesting (meg?), can you post some more photos of it?

Thanks for your reply, please see additional photos. Apologies about the photo quality. 

[Bobby Rico]

Number 6 looks like Carcharodon carcharias or great white shark to me. 

Here is mine to compare found in Norwich crags in Victorian times not by me of course. 

[TomWhite]

22 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

Number 6 looks like Carcharodon carcharias or great white shark to me. 

Here is mine to compare found in Norwich crags in Victorian times not me of course. 

 

 

Thanks for your reply, i have got a few like that. All found at the base of the cliff.

[Kosmoceras]

Thanks for the extra photos; I think it’s another Cosmopolitodus hastalis. I think the tooth in the 4th photo is an Otodus obliquus; its patina suggests it was derived from the Eocene London Clay rather than Miocene deposits. All of the other teeth all look like Cosmopolitodus hastalis.

 

Comparing to Bobby’s tooth, Cosmopolitodus and Carcharodon are practically the same; just one bares serrations, so as per traditional naming the serrated ones are called Charcharodon. However, it’s difficult with the Crags because the teeth are derived leading to the teeth being very worn, often removing the serrations. Luckily the Carcharodon carcharias and Cosmopolitodus hastalis tend to be less worn than the megalodon teeth so you can usually still identify between the two. All but one of my megs from the Crag don’t have any serrations, the one that does has only a few traces left.  

 

You’ve got some lovely teeth there, particularly the rooted ones. Teeth from the Crags are a particular favourite of mine – they’ve got such a lovely and distinctive patina.

[ynot]

3 minutes ago, Kosmoceras said:

Cosmopolitodus hastalis.

This is the wrong genus name.

Should be Carcharodon hastalis, by current thinking.

[Kosmoceras]

11 minutes ago, ynot said:

This is the wrong genus name.

Should be Carcharodon hastalis, by current thinking.

The name Cosmopolitodus hastalis is still commonly used in the UK with regard to teeth from the Crags.

[Miocene_Mason]

1 hour ago, Kosmoceras said:

The name Cosmopolitodus hastalis is still commonly used in the UK with regard to teeth from the Crags.

It’s a subject of debate, and a complicated one at that. One problem is that C. hastalis comes in different forms, and the hooked Mako (species planus) is supposed to have evolved from C. hastalis, which (if correct) means that planus certainly can’t be Isurus,  but is very different from the great white (Carcharodon) so Cosmopolitodus could encompass planus and hastalis but that leaves Carcharodon carcharias in a weird spot because it almost certainly evolved from hastalis. Stay tuned, maybe science will figure it out, maybe not. Nature doesn’t care about our definitions.

[Plax]

As long as everyone knows what species we're talking about the genus in current fashion isn't as relevant. Look at any synonomy and you'll see how frequently many names have changed. Indeed many genus name changes aren't accepted by a large number of paleontologists. The lumping of chronologically variable genera doesn't make sense to me any more than species. If one applied this logic to species there would only be one species of mega-toothed shark for instance, that varied over time. Evolutionary trends and cladistics are additional tools but to me taxonomic descriptions should define genera and species. Just my opinion and please don't take this as gospel.