AndrewBorn Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 These were both found along Calvert Cliffs where the older, Calvert Formation, is present. The first tooth with the cusps is smooth edged. The 2nd tooth is a bit worn, but does seem to have had serrations. I have been identifying it as a small worn posterior Meg. The new tooth made me check it again and wonder, but it does still appear to be a Meg and not something older to my eyes. What I come up with for ID puts the tooth with cusps out of place at Calvert. Seems like it should be from an older formation. Both were found this season, but many months apart. Distance between the finds was pretty close, I'd say 1/8 mile or less . I am a kayaker; these were both from an area easier to reach by kayak, and where I do tend to find older, smaller teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilsAnonymous Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 Tooth number 1: This one is tricky.. I haven't seen a tooth like that in miocene calvert so maybe paleocene? Maybe you could call it otodus but that may be a stretch. Number 2: This may sound weird but it may be a worn down Carcharhinus sp or a worn down tiger? Definitely not meg. I have found some of those worn down teeth. @WhodamanHD @Calvert Cliff Dweller @MarcoSr @Fossil-Hound On The Hunt For The Trophy Otodus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossil-Hound Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 The first tooth appears to be an Otodus obliquus but I'm not sure how it ended up at that location as the Calvert formation was Miocene based and O. obliquus is typically not found there (at least I've never heard of it). Where exactly where you looking for these fossils? Here's a picture for reference: Also see the O. obliquus here (it's a big one): https://www.calvertmarinemuseum.com/DocumentCenter/View/718/Volume-25-Number-1-March-2010?bidId= Do or do not. There is no try. - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewBorn Posted November 12, 2018 Author Share Posted November 12, 2018 Yeah, the strange thing is that I came up with the same thing for the 1st tooth. Otodus, and a Paleocene. A possibility that crossed my mind is that there is an older Paleocene formation in the area, and that it is either exposed there, or perhaps at some point in the past a river/creek/stream cut through it. These were found right at the base of cliffs with the older, dark sediment exposed in that area. 3 hours ago, FossilsAnonymous said: Tooth number 1: This one is tricky.. I haven't seen a tooth like that in miocene calvert so maybe paleocene? Maybe you could call it otodus but that may be a stretch. Number 2: This may sound weird but it may be a worn down Carcharhinus sp or a worn down tiger? Definitely not meg. I have found some of those worn down teeth. @WhodamanHD @Calvert Cliff Dweller @MarcoSr @Fossil-Hound It does not match a worn Carcharhinus or Tiger. I have a lot of them, several hundred. It is possible that this one wore down in just the right way to appear how it it, but I don't believe that's the case. I know the picture is not the best, but if it's not a worn (really small) posterior Meg, it's one of the older species and that seems like even more of a longshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixgill pete Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 Tooth number 2 is gonna be tough to positively ID. It has a broken root and is extremely worn. But, if I would have to hazard a guess I would agree with @FossilsAnonymous that it is a worn down / broken Carcharhinus sp. And I too have hundreds of them also, possibly in the thousands. From many different locations.. It closely resembles an upper from several of the Carcharhinids. Better, more close up, in focus pictures could possibly shed a different light on the tooth. Pictures with the tooth being the central object of the photo, not a quarter. I realize you used the quarter for scale, but there are a lot of members here from outside of the U.S. that have no idea how big a quarter is. Give good, precise measurements, preferably metric. Lenght, width and thickness if possible. Bulldozers and dirt Bulldozers and dirt behind the trailer, my desert Them red clay piles are heaven on earth I get my rocks off, bulldozers and dirt Patterson Hood; Drive-By Truckers May 2016 May 2012 Aug 2013, May 2016, Apr 2020 Oct 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewBorn Posted November 16, 2018 Author Share Posted November 16, 2018 The second tooth being a Meg isn't terribly important to me; it was just the best I could come up with. I agree its pretty worn. I don't want to distract from the 1st tooth, that must be an Otodus. That makes it out of place at Calvert, but there must be a small exposure of an older formation or something like past water action through an older exposure that caused it to show up there. With a few million years for a river or creek or other action to expose that layer, it's the best I can guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomotodon Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 If there are no Paleogene formations in the area, I would guess Megalolamna paradoxodon for the first tooth, it is an uncommon Miocene species. Labial enamel bulge on the crown-root margin is not very typical for Otodus anyway, maybe more for the late Cretalamna-early Otodus, like "O. minor". If it is actually Megalolamna, this would be a very very rare find, there are only a handful of teeth described. The Tooth Fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewBorn Posted November 17, 2018 Author Share Posted November 17, 2018 On 11/16/2018 at 11:46 AM, Anomotodon said: If there are no Paleogene formations in the area, I would guess Megalolamna paradoxodon for the first tooth, it is an uncommon Miocene species. Labial enamel bulge on the crown-root margin is not very typical for Otodus anyway, maybe more for the late Cretalamna-early Otodus, like "O. minor". If it is actually Megalolamna, this would be a very very rare find, there are only a handful of teeth described. That's a really interesting possibility and something I had never heard of before. Thank you for the thoughts and link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleoc Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 I agree Megalolamna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.51c371f10936bbc883322324e44cc518.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.