Sm Shark tooth and Sm Unknown

[Shellseeker]

The long off season nightmare is over. The Peace River is open for fossil hunting !!!! I even saw Fred Mazza guiding a group of 11 tourists.

I went out today.. what a gorgeous day!! Sunshine, a cool breeze and water temps. Dug mostly in pea to golfball size gravel and among some very nice finds and a bunch of small shark teeth, found these 2.

A Shark tooth..size is .75 inch.

but, but, but where is the bourlette?

and then this one.  I have absolutely no idea. Size is one-half inch.

[NSRhunter]

Looks like a small megalodon to me

[The Jersey Devil]

The first is a Meg with a missing bourlette. The second one looks like a jaw at first, but it sort of seems like a vertebra with an odd wear pattern.

[MarcoSr]

I don't think the first tooth is a meg.  The lack of an evident bourlette doesn't eliminate a meg, as a bourlette can easily wear away.  However, the serration features and especially the fact that the serrations get noticeably smaller on the mesial crown edge of the tooth half-way to the crown tip really don't match a meg.  Although wear to the crown tip does accentuate this somewhat.  I believe the tooth is a Carcharhinus sp.  Although the tooth features, tooth size for the position and the lack of a noticeable nutrient groove eliminate most Carcharhinus species as possibilities, they don't eliminate all Carcharhinus species.  Species like Carcharhinus leucas have very faint nutrient groves that easily disappear in fossil teeth with minimal root wear.   The tooth size for the position and other tooth features would match a Carcharhinus tooth like C. leucas.

 

Marco Sr.

[digit]

With the larger serrations, my first thought would have been Great White. Does anybody have a lateral/posterior GW tooth to compare this to? I've only got a scant 2 specimens in my collection and they are both anterior teeth.

 

Glad to see the river finally opening up to fossil hunters this season--let's hope for a prolonged dry spell before hurricane season starts in June.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Shellseeker]

44 minutes ago, MarcoSr said:

I don't think the first tooth is a meg.  The lack of an evident bourlette doesn't eliminate a meg, as a bourlette can easily wear away.  However, the serration features and especially the fact that the serrations get noticeably smaller on the mesial crown edge of the tooth half-way to the crown tip really don't match a meg.  Although wear to the crown tip does accentuate this somewhat.  I believe the tooth is a Carcharhinus sp.  Although the tooth features, tooth size for the position and the lack of a noticeable nutrient groove eliminate most Carcharhinus species as possibilities, they don't eliminate all Carcharhinus species.  Species like Carcharhinus leucas have very faint nutrient groves that easily disappear in fossil teeth with minimal root wear.   The tooth size for the position and other tooth features would match a Carcharhinus tooth like C. leucas.

 

Marco Sr.

 

Exactly the source of my confusion here.  I spend a lot of time explaining to new Peace River fossil hunters (who want a Meg) that a Larger C. leucas does not count. Without disrespecting C. leucas, like most other hunters, I like finding Megs.

But I stopped as I picked this up. No obvious bourlette, not a particularly robust root and coarse serrations. I thought,  Is it a GW due to those coarse serrations ? then,  it has a C. leucas curve/shape. Can it possibly be that shark tooth ?

 

On the 2nd , is it bone ? tooth ? I am thinking it might be a really strange vert. I also am getting the feeling of fish.

 

This is part of the joy.  A tooth that looks like a Meg but may not be a Meg and (for me) a complete unknown.. after 10 years of intensive hunting on the Peace, a complete unknown ... how great is that

 

[digit]

Mysteries are the best--they are gateways to new knowledge.

 

Hoping to head to the Peace on Friday/Saturday--first time out there in over 14 months.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[The Jersey Devil]

On 3/28/2019 at 1:34 AM, MarcoSr said:

I don't think the first tooth is a meg.  The lack of an evident bourlette doesn't eliminate a meg, as a bourlette can easily wear away.  However, the serration features and especially the fact that the serrations get noticeably smaller on the mesial crown edge of the tooth half-way to the crown tip really don't match a meg.  Although wear to the crown tip does accentuate this somewhat.  I believe the tooth is a Carcharhinus sp.  Although the tooth features, tooth size for the position and the lack of a noticeable nutrient groove eliminate most Carcharhinus species as possibilities, they don't eliminate all Carcharhinus species.  Species like Carcharhinus leucas have very faint nutrient groves that easily disappear in fossil teeth with minimal root wear.   The tooth size for the position and other tooth features would match a Carcharhinus tooth like C. leucas.

 

Marco Sr.

 

From the photos at these angles the tooth seems too thick to be a Carcharhinus leucas. Do you have any pictures of robust Carcharhinus teeth? The fading serrations could possibly be a variation.

[MarcoSr]

6 hours ago, The Jersey Devil said:

 

From the photos at these angles the tooth seems too thick to be a Carcharhinus leucas. Do you have any pictures of robust Carcharhinus teeth? The fading serrations could possibly be a variation.

 

Haven't taken any pictures, but I have four extant bull shark jaws.  I can see the exact tooth position in each jaw.  When bull shark teeth get large, they are definitely robust.

 

EDIT:  I should have stated also that in my 15 inch jaw that position tooth is .75" across the root of the tooth.

 

Marco Sr.