JBMugu Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Hello, found this tooth in the Round Mountain Silt formation in Bakersfield this weekend. The tooth had serrations, but they are worn down. At first I thought the tooth was a small meg, or a large hemi. Upon closer inspection it does not seem to fit either of those species well. The root is not consistent with that of a meg nor a hemi. Now I am thinking it could be some kind of Requiem shark. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Carcharhinus obscurus (LeSUEUR, 1818) Dusky shark Very scarce in the STH fauna. (according to elasmo.) Edit- missed this one by a mile ao two. Change My opinion to agree with the common consensus of a meg. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Not to question Tony on a fauna he knows infinitely better than me but that would be a whomping big Dusky Shark tooth. The thickness of this tooth and the faint appearance of a bourlette in the first photo had me leaning to a small (young or posterior) meg tooth. Willing to be educated. Cheers. -Ken 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTexan Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 @caldigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 @siteseer @MarcoSr @Al Dente Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 My resources show the Dusky being 1/8" -3/4" in size and having a very defined nutrient groove in the center of the root. I'm no expert, but the thickness on this guy screams Meg. to me 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixgill pete Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 52 minutes ago, digit said: Not to question Tony on a fauna he knows infinitely better than me but that would be a whomping big Dusky Shark tooth. The thickness of this tooth and the faint appearance of a bourlette in the first photo had me leaning to a small (young or posterior) meg tooth. Willing to be educated. Cheers. -Ken I agree with Ken on this. Undoubtedly a small or young worn meg to me. 1 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...
JBMugu Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 45 minutes ago, caldigger said: My resources show the Dusky being 1/8" -3/4" in size and having a very defined nutrient groove in the center of the root. I'm no expert, but the thickness on this guy screams Meg. to me I agree, this is probably too big for a dusky. However, as far as I know megs at STH are mature adults sharks. I have never seen a juvenile tooth from this location. Here are a slightly better pictures that I think show a very worn nutrient groove in the center of the root (maybe?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBMugu Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 The other thing that bothers me and makes me think its not a meg is the back of the tooth seems to be domed towards the center near the root. All of the other STH megs I have are flat or recessed at the back of the tooth near the root. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronzviking Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 When I saw the first pics before the comments I thought baby meg. Very nice tooth and find! @JBMugu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinoguy89 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Thickness and general look of the tooth says Meg to me, where you found it could have once been a shallow breeding ground, I have a few teeth that are in this size range. Regardless nice tooth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 The unusual serrations made me think serrated Alopias but I don’t know if they have ever been found at this location. Might be too thick for that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Alopias ?latidens? is reported as rare from the faunal list. After more exposure to this rare genus of fossil shark teeth in North Carolina, I had this on my (expanded) list of considerations as well. The curvature didn't seem to be there and the thickness and the appearance of what seems to be a bourlette swayed me to considering meg. Posterior megs tend to have a larger root to blade ratio but maybe a more lateral tooth from a smallish individual might result in a tooth of this size and shape. Cheers. -Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 I would have said megalodon if it wasn’t for the unusual serrations. I’ve never seen these on a meg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darktooth Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 Maybe pathological? I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 I'm not seeing a worn nutrient groove in the pictures. Juvenile megs can have irregular large serrations. My sons and I have a number of juvenile megs like that. All of the features that I can see in the pictures match a juvenile meg. Marco Sr. 1 "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBMugu Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 5 hours ago, Al Dente said: I would have said megalodon if it wasn’t for the unusual serrations. I’ve never seen these on a meg. That's one of the things I find interesting about this tooth. The pictures don't do it justice, when I see the pictures it looks like a Meg. When you get it in your hand it looks off. To bad it's so worn, I would love to see it whole. I might take it to the Buena Vista museum and see what they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSRhunter Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Hubbell Meg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 I have to agree that it's a baby megalodon. I have one from Bone Valley that has the same kind of inflation to the crown - the unusual thickness. I've seen three baby megs from the STH Bonebed. I have one that Bill Hawes found in the 80's. Bob Ernst found one that I recall but that one could have been the second one he collected. The tooth in question is the third. Hang on to that one, JBMugu! Jess 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilselachian Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Agree with Siteseer 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