Jump to content
Maxsg

Chubutensis or Angustiden

Recommended Posts

Maxsg

So I have posted a picture of this tooth before but I was recently showing it to a buddy and he said it looked like a chub but the cusps make me think angustidens. I want to know what you all think. I found this in an area that the formation is exposed in spots. The clay is a thick white clay speckled with tiny pebbles and other fossils. my geological maps that i used to find the location say that it is of Miocene age in the hawthorn group. However I am starting to think that there might be older clays exposed in the area. Please help me figure out what kind of tooth I have here, thank you. 

5d49796fb0159_IMG_2677(1).JPG.10db998796ab022063ac6818c068bfd9.JPG5d49797068e34_IMG_2678(1).JPG.eabd3184381cd916481a8a34cf98d27b.JPGIMG_2679.JPG.a186e5e59aa2649f805681d68fd1d80b.JPGIMG_2684.JPG.d729a065d8eb612b90cd3d5246870594.JPG5d497974d166b_IMG_2772(1).JPG.aad4d34300fbee21878a63f13b509c86.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

There is no flawless scheme for putting a fine label on an individual otodontid tooth based on morphology alone.  As I read the Perez et al. paper, the most reliable basis for labeling such a tooth is geochronological - the age of the surrounding sediments.  "There might be older clays exposed in the area" is not the sort of data that is useful for this purpose.

 

Maxsg is asking for a morphological identification based on features that are variable over long periods of time and, most critically, are variable in individual sharks, perhaps ontogenetically.  And this ask is not accompanied the crucial geological clues.

 

Most of us amateurs are accustomed to biochronological dating of our float finds.  If we find and identify a Holmesina floridanus fossil, we assume with some confidence that the fossil dates to the Early Pleistocene.  We do something similar with mega-shark teeth, but without the same confidence.  But, we must have labels, so we adopt models of typical chronomorphs that allow us to put a name to a fossil tooth. 

 

 

shark_auriculatussynonomy.jpg

shark_auroratrio.jpg

shark_carcharocles chubutensis UVA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shellseeker

Max,

I have found numerous small Megalodons (About the size of your tooth) in the Peace River (Arcadia to Bartow) that have cusps  - I believe regressive cusps.  These are Megalodons because that identification "fits" the geological Peace River formation (Miocene). No Chubs, Rics, or Angys here. I believe I am in basic agreement with @Harry Pristis.  Copy to @digit

 

JackWholeMeg1cmSM.JPG.891ad58a5cd0945ea3a01f7d00120b04.JPGDSCN0855.thumb.jpg.29fc6c50ae52c34fd9f41c143c0e6dd6.jpgRSCN0953t.thumb.jpg.54af972c9c6099f9bc8d46019411697b.jpg.d45313362d21963943848370e3973bfe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hemipristis
6 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

Max,

I have found numerous small Megalodons (About the size of your tooth) in the Peace River (Arcadia to Bartow) that have cusps  - I believe regressive cusps.  These are Megalodons because that identification "fits" the geological Peace River formation (Miocene). No Chubs, Rics, or Angys here. I believe I am in basic agreement with @Harry Pristis.  Copy to @digit

 

JackWholeMeg1cmSM.JPG.891ad58a5cd0945ea3a01f7d00120b04.JPGDSCN0855.thumb.jpg.29fc6c50ae52c34fd9f41c143c0e6dd6.jpgRSCN0953t.thumb.jpg.54af972c9c6099f9bc8d46019411697b.jpg.d45313362d21963943848370e3973bfe.jpg

 

 

Point of note: C. chubutensis is considered by many authors as the Miocene member of the megalodon lineage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×