Allosaurus Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 I went to the Ernst Quarry a few weeks back and found a lot of teeth. I've never gone shark tooth collecting, so this was a very new experience that I really enjoyed. However as I know next to nothing about shark tooth identification, I have several teeth that are puzzling me. Ive tried using the elasmo site and the handout I was given at the quarry, but these don't match up. Apologies for the photos, my phone isn't too keen on very small items. If they are not good enough I can try to take a couple more. No serrations on either of these 2 teeth as far as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allosaurus Posted June 8, 2019 Author Share Posted June 8, 2019 I assume this is some sort of cetacean tooth. Any chance of narrowing it further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allosaurus Posted June 8, 2019 Author Share Posted June 8, 2019 These 4 pics are all of one tooth. Its root is very thick and it does have serrations on one side of the tooth only (right side of the 1st pic) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jersey Devil Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 The first two teeth are posterior teeth of Carcharodon hastalis. “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ― Mikhail Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 The whale tooth looks like a burrow cast. Agree the other is a posterior C. hastalis. The "serrations" look more like chirping. 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...
Allosaurus Posted June 9, 2019 Author Share Posted June 9, 2019 So I've seen C. hastalis also referred to as Cosmopolitudus and Isurus. Has the recognized genus changed recently? Also I included a couple other photos of the burrow cast/cetacean tooth. The tip end is what confuses me as it looks significantly more reflective (photos are not capturing it well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 With the better pictures it does look like a whale tooth. @Boesse may know more. 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...
Boesse Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Probably from a sperm whale - in all likelihood, Aulophyseter, which has pretty skinny teeth, or perhaps a small kogiid sperm whale. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 On 6/8/2019 at 10:38 PM, Allosaurus said: So I've seen C. hastalis also referred to as Cosmopolitudus and Isurus. Has the recognized genus changed recently? Also I included a couple other photos of the burrow cast/cetacean tooth. The tip end is what confuses me as it looks significantly more reflective (photos are not capturing it well). A good friend near STH traded me a set of STH whale teeth including this one that is about the size of your tooth. I love the thought of such a small sperm whale. The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 On 6/17/2019 at 10:31 PM, Shellseeker said: A good friend near STH traded me a set of STH whale teeth including this one that is about the size of your tooth. I love the thought of such a small sperm whale. Hi Jack, The Sharktooth Hill Bonebed has been assigned an age of between 15 and 16 million years ago (Prothero, et al., 2008). Jess Prothero, D.R., F. Sanchez, and L.I. Denke. 2008. Magnetic stratigraphy of the early to middle Miocene Olcese Sand and Round Mountain Silt, Kern County, California in Lucas, et al. (eds.). Neogene Mammals. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 44. p. 357–363. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Interesting Jess. Your accurate comment made me think... 1) What was I trying to convey or what was best to convey? Approximate age of the species (see below) or age of this specific member of the species, which would match STH bone bed at 15-16 mya. 2) What is the range of ages for Aulophyster morricei ? i.e what is the 1st and last member of the species.. Wikipedia places Aulophyster morricei in the Miocene between 15.97 and 5.332 MYAs. 3) When did Aulophyster morricei go extinct? If I believe Wikipedia, about 5 mya. I do not know if all this information is available, but I think I was attempting to convey #3. Many or Most of my extended family knows close to nothing about whales, fossils, paleontology. Many times the eyes of people who otherwise love me, glaze over as I discuss my favorite hobby. I am thinking of starting to use approx age range of the species (5-16 mya) when known, but I am open to persuasion. Your Thoughts? The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 On 6/18/2019 at 3:40 PM, Shellseeker said: Interesting Jess. Your accurate comment made me think... 1) What was I trying to convey or what was best to convey? Approximate age of the species (see below) or age of this specific member of the species, which would match STH bone bed at 15-16 mya. 2) What is the range of ages for Aulophyster morricei ? i.e what is the 1st and last member of the species.. Wikipedia places Aulophyster morricei in the Miocene between 15.97 and 5.332 MYAs. 3) When did Aulophyster morricei go extinct? If I believe Wikipedia, about 5 mya. I do not know if all this information is available, but I think I was attempting to convey #3. Many or Most of my extended family knows close to nothing about whales, fossils, paleontology. Many times the eyes of people who otherwise love me, glaze over as I discuss my favorite hobby. I am thinking of starting to use approx age range of the species (5-16 mya) when known, but I am open to persuasion. Your Thoughts? Hi Jack, When I make a label for a specimen and put the approximate age, I put the age of that specimen though I understand including the known chronologic range. It's just a matter of what you want to say on the label. I don't know the range for the species but it is also known from Japan (see Kimura et al., 2006 for more info on that whale). I don't know its most recent occurrence. Jess Kimura, T., Y. Hasegawa, and L.G. Barnes. 2006. Fossil sperm whales (Cetacea, Physeteridae) from Gunma and Ibaraki prefectures, Japan; with observations on the Miocene fossil sperm whale Scaldicetus shigensis Hirota and Barnes, 1995. Bull. Gunma Mus. Natu. Hist. 10. 23 pp. 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