Jump to content
Sonic0627

Shark teeth

Recommended Posts

Sonic0627

I’m pretty sure the white tooth is a fossilized mako and I think the dark is a juvenile Megalodon or great white. Pretty sure it’s a meg what do you guys think?

6B2F18A8-A0FB-4753-AB66-454AE294686A.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Macrophyseter

Yessir, you are right! :)

 

White tooth is from a Carcharodon hastalis and dark is from a Carcharocles megalodon. If it were to be a great white shark tooth, it would look more like the C. hastalis tooth but with serrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixgill pete

I agree. Carcharodon hastalis and Otodus megalodon. Used to be Carcharocles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonic0627
12 minutes ago, Macrophyseter said:

Yessir, you are right! :)

 

White tooth is from a Carcharodon hastalis and dark is from a Carcharocles megalodon. If it were to be a great white shark tooth, it would look more like the C. hastalis tooth but with serrations.

Wow I’m so glad I got this right. My kiddo will be so excited for both of these and thank you for replying with the scientific names so I can tell him about them! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caldigger

What are our sizes on these "bad boys"?

Always a good practice to include a ruler in pictures so we have an idea of scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
1 hour ago, sixgill pete said:

Used to be Carcharocles. 

Gonna start a fight with that!

 

Its a debate whether it should be Carcharocles or Otodus, I personally lean Otodus but many researchers think otherwise. However, many lean otodus. Just to confuse everyone some even put Megaselachus for some reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonic0627
28 minutes ago, caldigger said:

What are our sizes on these "bad boys"?

Always a good practice to include a ruler in pictures so we have an idea of scale.

 

 

1AE71BD0-810F-473C-8179-850C7EAFE530.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caldigger
1 hour ago, WhodamanHD said:

Gonna start a fight with that!

 

Its a debate whether it should be Carcharocles or Otodus, I personally lean Otodus but many researchers think otherwise. However, many lean otodus. Just to confuse everyone some even put Megaselachus for some reason. 

OK, on the count of three...rocks, paper, scissors!

 

Its a nice looking  _?_ hastalis by whatever you want to call it! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonic0627
3 minutes ago, caldigger said:

OK, on the count of three...rocks, paper, scissors!

 

Its a nice looking  _?_ hastalis by whatever you want to call it!

:ighappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Macrophyseter
1 hour ago, WhodamanHD said:

Gonna start a fight with that!

 

Its a debate whether it should be Carcharocles or Otodus, I personally lean Otodus but many researchers think otherwise. However, many lean otodus. Just to confuse everyone some even put Megaselachus for some reason. 

 

Adding to Whodaman,

 

True, as of now as far as I know, three genera are currently used for megalodon- CarcharoclesOtodus, and Megaselachus. At this point, this is a -phyly debate that has been raging since Carcharodon megalodon. As far as I know, Megaselachus was supposed to be a genus for megalodon and chub only to differentiate from other Carcharocles species (true cusps vs no full cusps) for those who disagree with the current popular evolutionary lineage, it's complicated. There are many, many alternative lineages for megalodon. In fact, I'll just pull up a strange proposal by Diedrich (2013):

image.thumb.png.b88e459415d2c13740f068837e2802f1.png

 

As for Carcharocles vs Otodus, this debate has been a thing since decades, but has recently grown in popularity after Shimada (2017)'s paper assessing that Otodus can only become monophyletic if it absorbs the Carcharocles genera. To be exact, popularity on this could be because Shimada's paper became heavily reported on by news.

 

The consensus over whether or not paraphyly within a genera is okay or not is still debated and divided over scientists across all biology. Proponents of anti-paraphyly argue that such degrades consistency by grouping based on phylogeny rather than classification, while "paraphyly is okay" proponents argue that it can be necessary in order to accurately group certain taxons. In the realm of shark-paleontology, the consensus between Carcharocles or Otodus is also divided. Shimada, Cappetta and others use Otodus megalodon while Siverson, Kent and others use Carcharocles megalodonMegaselachus megalodon is also still used by some paleontologists, but it is not well recognized outside the scientific community.

 

I personally side with Carcharocles although it not a popular opinion with paleo-amateurs, but as long as the debate over paraphylys within genera rage on, both Carcharocles and Otodus are still very possible valid taxons and neither should be called "former" or "outdated" until this debate is officially settled.

 

Here is an except of Shimada (2017) regarding Otodus paraphyly:

image.thumb.png.2e8ac8ee93f758888256e2f65b690009.pngimage.thumb.png.37b93e411fb499ebb5a7a173b097db65.png

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Macrophyseter
13 hours ago, caldigger said:

Its a nice looking  _?_ hastalis by whatever you want to call it! ;)

Cosmopolitodus or Carcharodon. You too can have your own scientific views on things, if you disagree with the current understandings of the taxon, why not propose the scientific name Kalopachymegaloenmegalodonodontmachomaiotoduscarcharoclesdemetisphrontihotibaldeodontkalos hastalis:P (The name is not gibberish, it has a meaning!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
10 hours ago, Macrophyseter said:

 

Adding to Whodaman,

 

True, as of now as far as I know, three genera are currently used for megalodon- CarcharoclesOtodus, and Megaselachus. At this point, this is a -phyly debate that has been raging since Carcharodon megalodon. As far as I know, Megaselachus was supposed to be a genus for megalodon and chub only to differentiate from other Carcharocles species (true cusps vs no full cusps) for those who disagree with the current popular evolutionary lineage, it's complicated. There are many, many alternative lineages for megalodon. In fact, I'll just pull up a strange proposal by Diedrich (2013):

image.thumb.png.b88e459415d2c13740f068837e2802f1.png

 

As for Carcharocles vs Otodus, this debate has been a thing since decades, but has recently grown in popularity after Shimada (2017)'s paper assessing that Otodus can only become monophyletic if it absorbs the Carcharocles genera. To be exact, popularity on this could be because Shimada's paper became heavily reported on by news.

 

The consensus over whether or not paraphyly within a genera is okay or not is still debated and divided over scientists across all biology. Proponents of anti-paraphyly argue that such degrades consistency by grouping based on phylogeny rather than classification, while "paraphyly is okay" proponents argue that it can be necessary in order to accurately group certain taxons. In the realm of shark-paleontology, the consensus between Carcharocles or Otodus is also divided. Shimada, Cappetta and others use Otodus megalodon while Siverson, Kent and others use Carcharocles megalodonMegaselachus megalodon is also still used by some paleontologists, but it is not well recognized outside the scientific community.

 

I personally side with Carcharocles although it not a popular opinion with paleo-amateurs, but as long as the debate over paraphylys within genera rage on, both Carcharocles and Otodus are still very possible valid taxons and neither should be called "former" or "outdated" until this debate is officially settled.

 

Here is an except of Shimada (2017) regarding Otodus paraphyly:

image.thumb.png.2e8ac8ee93f758888256e2f65b690009.pngimage.thumb.png.37b93e411fb499ebb5a7a173b097db65.png

 

 

 

 

 

There have been a good number of shark species name controversies and name changes over the years.  That is why I don't label the shark teeth with name labels in my collection.  I got tired of changing name labels.

 

If you haven't picked a side in a name controversy you can use aka (also known as).  As example:  Carcharodon hastalis aka Isurus hastalis or Otodus megalodon aka Carcharocles megalodon.

 

There really aren't universal standards that govern when feature differences are sufficient enough to name a new genus or a new species.  Some researchers are splitters who name a new species on minor feature differences (what I consider minor) and seem to want to describe as many genera and species as possible.   For example, is the appearance of serrations enough of a feature change to change a species name or even a genus name?  Some researchers, who I call combiners, accept a good bit of feature variation before changing a genus or species name.  The name changes that I agree with relate to new and additional data discovered on shark lineage.  That is why I support Carcharodon over Isurus for hastalis.

 

I study extant shark jaws and teeth.  I see a good deal of tooth feature variation within a good number of extant shark species and sometimes even within an individual shark jaw.  So I'm definitely a combiner and not a splitter.

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
5 hours ago, MarcoSr said:

who I call combiners,

AKA lumpers.

 

I like the way it was put by elasmo.com.

“How many slices can you get out of a loaf of bread?”

Natures given you our loaf, scientists bicker on how to slice it. Species ae an artificial construct.

What is a species? 3 ways to answer that, the genetic species concept, the biological species concept, and the Morphological species concept. All three are flawed, but by far the most flawed is the morphological species concept which just so happens to be the one we have to use on fossils. Not to mention, most of the time we are working with isolated teeth. Imagine if you had to classify all hominins based off their teeth alone, you’d start to get into some real problems. We fight even with full skeletons! This means there really is no definite answer, only one that a majority will choose to accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarcoSr
15 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

AKA lumpers.

 

I like the way it was put by elasmo.com.

“How many slices can you get out of a loaf of bread?”

Natures given you our loaf, scientists bicker on how to slice it. Species ae an artificial construct.

What is a species? 3 ways to answer that, the genetic species concept, the biological species concept, and the Morphological species concept. All three are flawed, but by far the most flawed is the morphological species concept which just so happens to be the one we have to use on fossils. Not to mention, most of the time we are working with isolated teeth. Imagine if you had to classify all hominins based off their teeth alone, you’d start to get into some real problems. We fight even with full skeletons! This means there really is no definite answer, only one that a majority will choose to accept.

 

There are a number of DNA testing projects being conducted on sharks.  Currently it is hard to get data from these projects.  I've only seen a couple of rudimentary papers.  As the results of these projects go mainstream, you will see more naming controversies beginning with extant species.

 

Marco Sr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhodamanHD
3 hours ago, MarcoSr said:

 

There are a number of DNA testing projects being conducted on sharks.  Currently it is hard to get data from these projects.  I've only seen a couple of rudimentary papers.  As the results of these projects go mainstream, you will see more naming controversies beginning with extant species.

 

Marco Sr.

Yeah, it’s already sent shockwaves through other extant families. Things can look exactly the same but be genetically worlds apart. The gray tree frog and copes gray tree frog for example.

 

Edit: think about the implications of this in the world of paleontology, morphology doesn’t cover these changes.

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.

×