edd Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 they all come from the same creek in Gainesville - Fla....i just wanna know if i have them "right" or there's a tooth in there from a different species?.(1)photo G. cuvier, (2)photo G.contortus? " We're all puppets, I'm just a puppet who can see the strings. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenixflood Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I think you have them all right Wow, look at all the variation in the color. That's a sweet spot The soul of a Fossil Hunter is one that is seeking, always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Actually contortus is not Galeocerdo but it is now Physogaleus according to Ward & Bonavia (2001:138). Physogaleus is a requiem shark. And as I stated before most of the material found in those creeks are Miocene which would make the majority of the teeth aduncus not cuvier. It does happen from time to time that you find either cuvier or mayumbensis but it is rare and hard to determine with certainty, since geologic age is a major deciding factor when it comes to identifying shark teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edd Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) Hmmm... so they are aduncus and physogaleus. Edited September 18, 2009 by edd " We're all puppets, I'm just a puppet who can see the strings. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serack Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Hmmm... so they are aduncus and physogaleus. no they are still curvier just not g. curvier, rather p. curvier for Physogalus. Different genus (I think that's how it works) http://www.elasmo.com/frameMe.html?file=genera/cenozoic/sharks/physogaleus.html&menu=bin/menu_genera-alt.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Galeocerdo cuvier, Galeocerdo aduncus and Physogaleus contortus are the current correct names There's no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Galeocerdo cuvier, Galeocerdo aduncus and Physogaleus contortus are the current correct names Have not been able to figure out the reason the names get changed.....? Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 If you look at the other Physogaleus you can see very similar tooth structure. I think they are correct in changing the genus of this species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoPutz Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Have not been able to figure out the reason the names get changed.....? Taxonomists are constantly reviewing and describing critters. I work with spiders a lot and the names change about every week it seems like. There are always going to be problems especially considering they are primarily looking at teeth. The worst for me is when you have old species described as new. Then you have synonymy when they catch it, with some using the correct name and others using the junior. I have conversed with someone who once made a living primarily describing worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Taxonomists are constantly reviewing and describing critters. I work with spiders a lot and the names change about every week it seems like. There are always going to be problems especially considering they are primarily looking at teeth. The worst for me is when you have old species described as new. Then you have synonymy when they catch it, with some using the correct name and others using the junior. I have conversed with someone who once made a living primarily describing worms. No wonder it gets confusing.. Old species described as new... is that based on huge changes that were never noticed before mainly? Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 No wonder it gets confusing.. Old species described as new... is that based on huge changes that were never noticed before mainly? Genetic advances, sometimes it transpires that similarities are actually homologous and not analogous; this results in reinterpretations of clades etc. 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