Jump to content

fossilsonwheels

Recommended Posts

fossilsonwheels

I had some excellent luck with the micro fossils from the Mesaverde formation today. I came across a really beautiful tooth that I believe belonged to a Bamboo Shark. 

 

I think this tiny 1mm beauty is a Chiloscyllium tooth. I am not real sure what else this might be. It is attached to a tiny piece of matrix so I can not get pictures of the other side.

 

The described species from the formation is Chiloscyllium missouriense and I found little on line about that particular species. This micro matrix comes from Colorado. The paper I have describes the Mesaverde in Wyoming. The am assuming the fauna is similar given it is the same formation. 

 

Any thoughts??? 

 

3BC5600C-F47F-4746-A2A8-51973AC466A1.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Chiloscyllium is a good possibility for this tooth.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
fossilsonwheels
12 hours ago, Al Dente said:

I think Chiloscyllium is a good possibility for this tooth.

Thank you for the input. I am going to try to take better pictures of it today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 1:41 AM, Al Dente said:

I think Chiloscyllium is a good possibility for this tooth.

 

Al Dente,

 

I agree but its crown is taller, more slender than the teeth figured in Case (1987) as C. missouriense.  I'm also wary of any species like C. missouriense that is based on a single tooth (Case 1979), which the given tooth also does not resemble.  However, I have seen researchers discuss the species since.  I did read somewhere that the species may actually belong to Cantioscyllium.

 

Jess

 

 

Case, G.R.  1979.
Additional fish records from the Judith River Formation (Campanian) of Montana.  Géobios, 12 (2): 223–233, 1 fig., 2 pl. 

 

Case, G.R.  1987.
A new selachian fauna from the Late Campanian of Wyoming (Teapot Sandstone Member, Mesaverde Formation, Big Horn Basin).  Palaeontographica, Abt. A, 197 (1–3): 1–37, 12 fig., 15 pl., 3 tbl.

 

 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, siteseer said:

 

Al Dente,

 

I agree but its crown is taller, more slender than the teeth figured in Case (1987) as C. missouriense.  I'm also wary of any species like C. missouriense that is based on a single tooth (Case 1979), which the given tooth also does not resemble.  However, I have seen researchers discuss the species since.  I did read somewhere that the species may actually belong to Cantioscyllium.

 

Jess

 

 

Case, G.R.  1979.
Additional fish records from the Judith River Formation (Campanian) of Montana.  Géobios, 12 (2): 223–233, 1 fig., 2 pl. 

 

Case, G.R.  1987.
A new selachian fauna from the Late Campanian of Wyoming (Teapot Sandstone Member, Mesaverde Formation, Big Horn Basin).  Palaeontographica, Abt. A, 197 (1–3): 1–37, 12 fig., 15 pl., 3 tbl.

 

 

I agree that Case’s C. missouriense looks more like a Cantioscyllium than a typical Chiloscyllium. Here are a modern Chiloscyllium and a fossil one more typical of the tooth in question. Both pictures are from the Shark-References website.

 

 

792FCE6E-3203-4EBA-A009-13245003574A.jpeg

38A682F1-67B6-46FF-AAA4-8B5F5D52ADE0.jpeg

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
fossilsonwheels
On 8/25/2019 at 3:04 PM, siteseer said:

 

Al Dente,

 

I agree but its crown is taller, more slender than the teeth figured in Case (1987) as C. missouriense.  I'm also wary of any species like C. missouriense that is based on a single tooth (Case 1979), which the given tooth also does not resemble.  However, I have seen researchers discuss the species since.  I did read somewhere that the species may actually belong to Cantioscyllium.

 

Jess

 

 

Case, G.R.  1979.
Additional fish records from the Judith River Formation (Campanian) of Montana.  Géobios, 12 (2): 223–233, 1 fig., 2 pl. 

 

Case, G.R.  1987.
A new selachian fauna from the Late Campanian of Wyoming (Teapot Sandstone Member, Mesaverde Formation, Big Horn Basin).  Palaeontographica, Abt. A, 197 (1–3): 1–37, 12 fig., 15 pl., 3 tbl.

 

 

Jess

 

That is very helpful. I could not find a picture of C. Missouriensis teeth so my assumption was based entirely it being the described species. I am perfectly fine with saying Chiloscyllium sp. for the time being for the education programs while continuing to investigate it. 

I am actually pretty proud of this find and having a bit of mystery to it adds to the fun. The Mesaverde micros proved to be really fun. 

Fantastic information

 

Kurt

Link to post
Share on other sites
fossilsonwheels
On 8/25/2019 at 4:08 PM, Al Dente said:

I agree that Case’s C. missouriense looks more like a Cantioscyllium than a typical Chiloscyllium. Here are a modern Chiloscyllium and a fossil one more typical of the tooth in question. Both pictures are from the Shark-References website.

 

 

792FCE6E-3203-4EBA-A009-13245003574A.jpeg

38A682F1-67B6-46FF-AAA4-8B5F5D52ADE0.jpeg

It is really cool to see how those teeth look in the jaw. Thank you very much for the additional information 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...