Galeocerdo That Seems A Little Different?

[fossiljunkie]

hey everyone,

i found this tooth on a recent hunt.i find tigers all the time but this one seems to have a few oddities i'd like opinions on.

the serrations on both sides of the crown seem quite coarse. it doesn't really look like any of my cuviers, although all signs point to that.i was searching miocene/pliocene formation. it just looks different. possibly some type of pathological difference i'm seeing?.the mesial side of the crown seems to have a different curvature.in addition when looking at the crown it comes up in a more vertical line than usual almost forming an unusual notch on the distal side.

in person the tooth immediately says there is something just a little different about it for a cuvier.it has been suggested by a friend that maybe its myumbensis.seems to have a crown like a Galeocerdo myumbensis with a root of a Galeocerdo cuvier. the more i look the more i think myumbensis.

i'm having a hard time getting it to show in the photos the way i'm seeing it in person. i did show this tooth to someone else and they also see something unusual or maybe a slight pathological difference. looking at the photo with the coin for scale,the crown itself also seems too small for the size of the tooth/root. are we both wrong and nothing unusual. maybe just a problem during growth? any opinions from the experts? tooth doesn't show what we are seeing in the photos but giving it a shot anyway. thanks in advance.

Edited December 11, 2010 by fossiljunkie

[bear-dog]

If its from the Miocene,have you checked out G.mayumbensis?

[fossiljunkie]

If its from the Miocene,have you checked out G.mayumbensis?

clayton,

thanks for that i forgot myumbensis. the few myumbensis i've seen have quite a different root, but i haven't seen complete dentition sketches. maybe it is myumbensis and if so that would be pretty rare here. hope to hear others opinions also. thank for the thoughts, as usual i always appreciate them.i think i'll edit the subject line too.

Edited December 11, 2010 by fossiljunkie

[xonenine]

[Northern Sharks]

Not sure about a pathology, but it could be a positional thing. Here are a couple of different positions, granted they are G.mayumbensis, but the differences between the species is pretty minor. I think mainly, G.cuvier has more complex serrations than G.mayumbensis (each serration is itself serrated)

[fossiljunkie]

Not sure about a pathology, but it could be a positional thing. Here are a couple of different positions, granted they are G.mayumbensis, but the differences between the species is pretty minor. I think mainly, G.cuvier has more complex serrations than G.mayumbensis (each serration is itself serrated)

thanks northern,

i'm not seeing serrations on each serration so i'm thinking myumbensis. what would be your guess?

[Northern Sharks]

thanks northern,

i'm not seeing serrations on each serration so i'm thinking myumbensis. what would be your guess?

Well preserved G. mayumbensis has the serrated serrations as well, but they aren't as complex as on G.cuvier. Obviously, these serrations are tiny and you'd need a decent magnifier to see them

[fossiljunkie]

Well preserved G. mayumbensis has the serrated serrations as well, but they aren't as complex as on G.cuvier. Obviously, these serrations are tiny and you'd need a decent magnifier to see them

northern,

i looked at the serrations on the tooth and the serrations have approximately 3 serrations on them. so i guess it is possible it is either cuvier or myumbensis, but appears different than most cuviers i've found. i will probably need a local expert to look at it in hand since i can't photograph it that close.thanks again.

Edited December 11, 2010 by fossiljunkie

[Paleoc]

northern,

i looked at the serrations on the tooth and the serrations have approximately 3 serrations on them. so i guess it is possible it is either cuvier or myumbensis, but appears different than most cuviers i've found. i will probably need a local expert to look at it in hand since i can't photograph it that close.thanks again.

Yes, myumbensis. The posterior notch angle between the main cusp and the posterior should is nearly as acute in myumbensis then in the aduncus/cuvier lineage.

myumbensis

http://www.elasmo.com/heim/belgrade/pics/bh366-sml.jpg

aduncus

http://www.elasmo.com/heim/belgrade/pics/bh365-sml.jpg

from the late Oligocene (same location).

cuvier

http://www.elasmo.com/genera/pics/neogene/ds1163o-web.jpg

early Pliocene

Edited December 11, 2010 by Paleoc