More Cretaceous Micro Shark ID help wanted

[fossilsonwheels]

Here are a couple more micro teeth that I think are very interesting. I picked these up a month or so ago. They were sold as a pair and labeled as Cantioscyllium. They are from the Taylor Marl, Campanian stage, Cretaceous of Landonia Texas. 

 

That is the information the seller provided along with an uncertainty about the ID. I purchased them believing the ID was not correct. I thought the larger one was a Cat Shark tooth. The smaller one I had no clue about. 

 

I have found nothing on line about the fauna of the formation so I am flying blind as far as that goes. I still think the larger one may be a Scyliorhinus. That is based only on similarities with some teeth I have seen from Cretaceous New Jersey. The little one I am still absolutely clueless on. I did find a Eocene Cat shark tooth that looked similar but I really do not know. 

 

Pic 1 and Pic 2 are the larger tooth. Right around 4mm 

 

 

[fossilsonwheels]

Apparently I only took pictures of one side. This one is so small, 1mm, that is hard to work with. I don’t want to break it. 

[digit]

@MarcoSr @Al Dente @ynot This may be earlier (Cretaceous) and distant (Texas) from your normal micro-chondrichthyan teeth but I wonder if you have broader knowledge of Catshark teeth?

 

They both seem to match my (inexperienced) concept of Catshark teeth but I'm not finding any matching images in searches for the genus Cantioscyllium.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[digit]

A bit more research has turned up what is likely the bible on Cretaceous fossil shark teeth from Texas:

 

https://dallas-paleontological-society.myshopify.com/products/the-collectors-guide-to-fossil-sharks-and-rays-from-the-cretaceous-of-texas

 

 

 

Assuming this book covers some of the tinier species (and it looks like it from the images on the cover), this would likely be a good source to ID your little teeth. Maybe someone here on the forum from the Texas area already owns this book and may be able to research it a bit further. @JohnJ ?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[JohnJ]

Still don't have that one.  

[digit]

Looks like it would be the best place to find the answer. I wonder if we have other members of the DPS on the forum or if the author has a good contact email?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Al Dente]

No resemblance to Cantioscyllium which is an Orectolobiforme. These teeth look like two different species, both some type of sandtiger-like Lamniforme. 

[hemipristis]

10 hours ago, fossilsonwheels said:

Here are a couple more micro teeth that I think are very interesting. I picked these up a month or so ago. They were sold as a pair and labeled as Cantioscyllium. They are from the Taylor Marl, Campanian stage, Cretaceous of Landonia Texas. 

 

That is the information the seller provided along with an uncertainty about the ID. I purchased them believing the ID was not correct. I thought the larger one was a Cat Shark tooth. The smaller one I had no clue about. 

 

I have found nothing on line about the fauna of the formation so I am flying blind as far as that goes. I still think the larger one may be a Scyliorhinus. That is based only on similarities with some teeth I have seen from Cretaceous New Jersey. The little one I am still absolutely clueless on. I did find a Eocene Cat shark tooth that looked similar but I really do not know. 

 

Pic 1 and Pic 2 are the larger tooth. Right around 4mm 

 

 

Odontaspid?

[fossilsonwheels]

1 hour ago, hemipristis said:

Odontaspid?

I thought about that as a possibility. I did find some that bore a resemblance. I also found some similar looking teeth that belonged to Protolamna but nothing that gave me any certainty. 

[fossilsonwheels]

2 hours ago, digit said:

A bit more research has turned up what is likely the bible on Cretaceous fossil shark teeth from Texas:

 

https://dallas-paleontological-society.myshopify.com/products/the-collectors-guide-to-fossil-sharks-and-rays-from-the-cretaceous-of-texas

 

 

 

Assuming this book covers some of the tinier species (and it looks like it from the images on the cover), this would likely be a good source to ID your little teeth. Maybe someone here on the forum from the Texas area already owns this book and may be able to research it a bit further. @JohnJ ?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

I need to get that book. I have been telling myself to for awhile. Thank you for the suggestion

[fossilsonwheels]

1 hour ago, Al Dente said:

No resemblance to Cantioscyllium which is an Orectolobiforme. These teeth look like two different species, both some type of sandtiger-like Lamniforme. 

I figured they different. Sand-tiger like Lamniforme seems to be the direction to lean. Thank you.

[MarcoSr]

4 hours ago, digit said:

Looks like it would be the best place to find the answer. I wonder if we have other members of the DPS on the forum or if the author has a good contact email?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

2 hours ago, fossilsonwheels said:

I need to get that book. I have been telling myself to for awhile. Thank you for the suggestion

 

Check out the below link:

 

http://texassharks.org/contact.php

 

 

Marco Sr.

[DPS Ammonite]

3 hours ago, fossilsonwheels said:

I need to get that book. I have been telling myself to for awhile. Thank you for the suggestion

You also can order the book from the Dallas Palaeontology Society’s website where they have other good books: link

[The Jersey Devil]

The first tooth would be a great match for Protolamna if it didn’t have a nutrient groove. But the groove makes it a sand tiger.

[fossilsonwheels]

On 8/30/2019 at 12:02 PM, MarcoSr said:

 

 

Check out the below link:

 

http://texassharks.org/contact.php

 

 

 

Marco Sr.

Thank you. I am familiar with the website but just had not ordered the book. I need to though 

[fossilsonwheels]

18 hours ago, The Jersey Devil said:

The first tooth would be a great match for Protolamna if it didn’t have a nutrient groove. But the groove makes it a sand tiger.

Thank you. That is what everyone seems to think so that is what we will go with

[siteseer]

On 8/30/2019 at 6:54 AM, digit said:

@MarcoSr @Al Dente @ynot This may be earlier (Cretaceous) and distant (Texas) from your normal micro-chondrichthyan teeth but I wonder if you have broader knowledge of Catshark teeth?

 

They both seem to match my (inexperienced) concept of Catshark teeth but I'm not finding any matching images in searches for the genus Cantioscyllium.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

Hi Ken,

 

I agree that they are both likely cat sharks - probably undescribed.  I would need to go through some papers to see.  At 4mm and of that shape the first tooth is probably too small to be a sand tiger and it would have to be one that has those pronounced vertical ridges on both the labial and lingual faces.  That is a tooth character seen in some cat sharks even today.

 

The Welton and Farish book mentioned cat sharks devoting a couple of pages to them but the authors just refer to them generally by family because none of the forms they figured were formally described at the time.

 

That book is over 25 years old now (suddenly).  Parts of it are outdated but it is still useful particularly the introductory section.  If you read the pages on the Scyliorhinidae (cat shark family) you learn that even modern cat sharks and their dentitions are poorly-understood.  This is still true though there has been progress.  Not having a good understanding of modern cat sharks hampers the study of fossil ones.

 

Jess

 

 

[fossilsonwheels]

10 hours ago, siteseer said:

 

Hi Ken,

 

I agree that they are both likely cat sharks - probably undescribed.  I would need to go through some papers to see.  At 4mm and of that shape the first tooth is probably too small to be a sand tiger and it would have to be one that has those pronounced vertical ridges on both the labial and lingual faces.  That is a tooth character seen in some cat sharks even today.

 

The Welton and Farish book mentioned cat sharks devoting a couple of pages to them but the authors just refer to them generally by family because none of the forms they figured were formally described at the time.

 

That book is over 25 years old now (suddenly).  Parts of it are outdated but it is still useful particularly the introductory section.  If you read the pages on the Scyliorhinidae (cat shark family) you learn that even modern cat sharks and their dentitions are poorly-understood.  This is still true though there has been progress.  Not having a good understanding of modern cat sharks hampers the study of fossil ones.

 

Jess

 

 

Jess

 

Great information. Thank you. You convinced me to stick to my original ID for our programs. We have plenty of sand tiger teeth to talk about but just a couple of possible Cat Shark teeth. 

 

Kurt