Search the Community

Hey friends! I am primarily interested in identifying this tooth (I think) found in Charleston, SC on Morris Island. Maybe tapir? (25 x 20 x 11 mm). Thank you! I've included some other misc. finds that typically end up being just rocks, but give me pause as a novice! Thank you all so much, you all were incredibly helpful on my first post! I also posted my haul from today at the end just for fun, a little over 100 teeth! Misc. #1: 28 x 21 x 4 mm; sturgeon osteoderm? Misc. #2: 55 x 21 x 13 mm; coprolite? Misc. #3: 25 x 15 x 4 mm Misc. #5: 28 x 19 x 6 mm Misc. #6: 27 x 28 x 11 mm Misc. #7: 31 x 28 x 11 mm Misc. #8: Top (20 x 9 x 4 mm); Bottom (11 x 10 x 4 mm) Misc. #9: 57 x 38 x 18 mm; turtle? Misc. #10: 37 x 10 x 5 mm; fossilized twig? Misc. #11: Top (20 x 30 x10 mm); Bottom (21 x 20 x 12 mm); human artifact vs. hole from drilling bivalve? Misc. #12: 20 x 19 x 7 mm; alligator osteoderm? Misc. #13: 11 x 9 x 5 mm Misc. #14: varying lengths (largest is 60 x 20 x 12 mm); I struggle with marine bone vs. phosphate vs. random rocks And here's my haul from today, just to show! Thank you!

Found this on Pawleys Island. South Carolina. It’s2 7/8” long by 1 7/8 at widest . 1/4”thick on one side (where chip is, shown in photo) . Little more narrow on other side where it’s worn a bit more rounded. Pitted. Somewhat larger dimpled sunken in spots . Jet black on outside and chipped area where inside shows. Smooth to touch. Matte sheen. Any ideas? Search kept coming up tekite (might have spelled it wrong.) If you aren’t familiar with Pawleys Island, SC, it’s known for fossil sharks teeth & some fossil shells like oysters. Any help appreciated.

I found this in Summerville, South Carolina this weekend, I was thinking a piece of mammoth tooth, any thoughts?

I took a trip up to Summerville this weekend and had a pretty successful trip, pulling out my best SC meg so far, and and a heartbreaker angustidens and deseri, here's the finds.

Between 2020-23, two collectors who scuba dive for fossils throughout Florida and Georgia have recovered 5 chesapecten (including two paired valves) with morphological characteristics that signal a Miocene age. These characteristics include an acute byssal notch and a byssal fasciole that is strongly differentiated from the shell’s auricle in terms of sculpture and elevation. The largest of the adult shells also displays an active ctenolium. Additionally, one of the paired specimens displays significant gapes between valves when matched (the other pair was preserved as found by glue according to the collector and cannot be matched). These aforementioned traits are also emblatic of Miocene age for Chesapecten. These shells were recovered from the following areas in Georgia and Florida: Savannah River, Effingham County, Georgia (Collector 1) Specimen 1 (W = 108.0 mm) R valve L valve R valve - close up of byssal notch and fasciole (most of fasciole has been degraded) R valve - close up of ornamentation L valve - close up of ornamentation Profile Close up of matrix, gray sand Savannah River, Effingham County, Georgia (Collector 1) Specimen 2 (W = 101.6 mm) R valve R valve - interior R valve - close up of byssal notch and fasciole L valve - note barnacles are modern species, not fossilized L valve - interior L valve - close up of ornamentation on auricle Side profile of pair, showing gapes Front profile of pair, showing gapes Cumberland Island, Camden County Georgia (Collector 2) Specimen 3 (W = 114.3 mm) R valve, note encrustation is recent not fossilized R valve interior, thick shell apparent Close up of byssal notch and fasciole Close up of ctenolium, although modern encrustation makes it difficult to see what is going on in the ctenolium Close up of ornamentation St Mary’s River, Nassau County, Florida (Collector 2) Specimen 4 (W = 117.5 mm) R Valve R valve interior, active ctenolium and thick shell apparent Byssal notch and fasciole Close up of original sediment, note the olive and gray coloration Profile Suwanee River, Hamilton County, Florida (Collector 2) Specimen 5 (W = 69.9 mm) R valve, subadult specimen R valve interior, shell is thick for a subadult Unfortunately, stratigraphic data are unavailable for these shells. However, among the Miocene strata from Coastal Georgia and NE Florida currently described in the literature, the Ebenezer Formation of Weems and Edwards (2001), of Upper Miocene (Tortonian age), appears to be the most suitable match based on the age of the Ebenezer and the characteristics of the shells found. The shells collected resemble Chesapecten middlesexensis of the Upper Miocene of Virginia and North Carolina. The Ebenezer was originally defined by Huddleston (1988) as a member of the Coosawhatchie Formation (Middle Miocene). Weems and Edwards later elevated it to formational rank based on differences in lithological and dinoflagellate composition compared to the rest of the Coosawhatchie. The Ebenezer formation consists of gray to olive-gray, fine- to medium-grained micaceous sand and stretches from South Carolina to NE Florida. Five mappable members are apparent and separable by distinct unconformities. The lower four members correspond to dinoflagellate zone DN 8, while the uppermost member corresponds to DN 9. Revision of the Ebenezer to Formational Rank from Weems and Edwards (2001) According to the dinoflagellate zonation of de Verteuil and Norris (1996), DN 8-9 aligns with the Little Cove Point Member (DN 8) and the Windmill Point Member (DN 9) of the St Mary’s Formation of Maryland and Virginia. Alignment of the Ebenezer to St Mary's Formation of MD and VA from Weems, Self-Trail and Edwards (2004) These specimens share characteristics such as an acute byssal notch, differentiated byssal fasciole, slightly inflated right valve, and a hinge size in adult specimens that is relatively small for adult chesapecten with the exception of Chesapecten covepointensis (DN 8 St Mary’s Formation) and in some cases Chesapecten santamaria (DN 9 St Mary’s Formation). Also, these shells could possibly be divided into two distinct variants although issues with preservation which appears to be somewhat better outside the Savannah River region may exaggerate these differences. Nevertheless, the Chesapecten collected outside of the Savannah River Region exhibit stronger, more raised ribs and have thicker, heavier shells compared to the specimens collected within the Savannah River region whose shells are thinner and ribs are lower and less pronounced. This is especially true of Specimen 1. These variants might originate from different members of the Ebenezer Formation. According to Weems and Edwards, “outside of the Savannah region, beds no older than dinoflagellate zone DN 9 occur”. This suggests that the shells collected outside of the Savannah River Region could belong to Bed 5 of the Ebenezer Formation. Figure 3 of Weems and Edwards (2001) [shown below] suggests that someone scuba diving for fossils in the Savannah River is likely to collect in Bed 4 - at least from my POV. So, perhaps the Chesapectens recovered from the Savannah River belong to Bed 4 of the Ebenezer Formation. This stratigraphic information aligns with the observed morphological differences among the specimens and tentatively supports the significance of these variations. Needless to say, more specimens accompanied by detailed fieldwork are needed to confirm. Otherwise, these thoughts are largely speculation. Lateral Gradation of the Ebenezer from Georgia to Florida - Fig. 3 from Weems and Edwards (2001) Ward (1992) has remarked that the period between Chesapecten santamaria (DN 9) and Chesapecten middlesexensis (DN 10) represents a considerable loss of the fossil record in the stratigraphic succession of chesapecten. These Chesapecten, which bear a strong overall resemblance to Chesapecten middlesexensis while displaying traits of preceding species (smaller hinge, more differentiated byssal fasicole), could help bridge this apparent gap. Notably, no other Chesapecten in this age range outside of Maryland and Virginia have been reported in the literature. Personal Remarks The equivalency of these shells to the St Mary’s Formation, not the Eastover formation is surprising to me given the strong resemblance to C. middlesexensis. If anyone knows of any findings correlating DN 8-9 to the Eastover, or of the Ebenezer to DN 10 please let me know. Also, if anyone has any additional samples of similar shells from similar sites, even in SC please let me know. Thank you! References de Verteuil, L., and Norris, G., 1996, Miocene dinoflagellate stratigraphy and systematics of Maryland and Virginia: Micropaleontology, vol. 42 (Supplement), 172 p. Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A revision of the lithostratigraphic units of the coastal plain of Georgia; the Miocene through the Holocene: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin, no. 104, 162 p. Ward, L.W, 1992, Molluscan biostratigraphy of the Miocene, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain of North America, VMNH Memoirs, no 2, 152p. Weems, R.E, Edwards, L.E., 2001, Geology of Oligocene, Miocene, and younger deposits in the Coastal Area of Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey, no 131, 129 p. Weems, R.E, Self-Trail J., Edwards, L.E., 2004, Supergroup stratigraphy of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (Middle? Jurassic through Holocene, eastern North America): Southeastern Geology, volume 42, p 191-216

What the heck is an oplegnathid? I had the same question just over a week ago. Now, it's my new obsession. Oplegnathids have teeth that look remarkably similar (convergent evolution) to the teeth of parrotfish while the fish themselves look nothing like parrotfish. They feed on barnacles and mollusks with their fused teeth while parrotfish scrape algae from coral or rocky substrates. https://www.google.com/search?q=oplegnathus While helping a researcher (Lazaro) here at the FLMNH to try to locate additional scarid (parrotfish) specimens as comparative material for a paper he is writing, I remembered @Fin Lover winning the VFOTM contest back in 2023 with an unusual "parrotfish beak": https://www.thefossilforum.com/topic/129777-winner-of-the-january-2023-vertebrate-fossil-of-the-month/ When I showed the image of this specimen to Lazaro he was intrigued. This was not another scarid specimen to help him with his paper that he was working on but instead was the spark for the idea for a new paper. Seems oplegnathid fossils are not well known in the scientific literature and the author of the scant few papers that do exist is eager to collaborate on a paper about the new specimens that have turned up from South Carolina. Fin Lover has graciously donated her specimens to the FLMNH for study. I've quickly imaged those photographically (see below) and these specimens are going to be 3D imaged in more detail today. The digital imaging department of the FLMNH is having the specimens scanned in the university's micro-CT scanner. We'll be able to rotate the images in 3D, zoom in to see details and examine the tooth structure internally (something that cannot be done with photogrammetry). I'm currently working with another TFF member to secure some additional specimens for study and imaging. It seems there might possibly be more of these in the collections of members of this forum, so I'm putting out the call for anybody who has similar specimens or knows of another collector in the area who might. This is another case where the avocational paleontologists may have known (for some time) about a type of fossil that has flown under the radar of the professionals. We're working on plugging this hole in the fossil record by writing a short paper introducing South Carolina as a novel locality for fossil oplegnathid material. I'd love to learn of any more specimens to strengthen the collaboration between the amateurs and the professionals. Cheers. -Ken

Hi All, I found this tooth during a recent trip diving the Cooper River in South Carolina. I believe it's a Cetacean tooth. It's 1 3/8 inch long (35mm). This type of tooth is not a common find (for me) in the Cooper River. Thanks for looking.

Hi all, Thanks for stopping by! Last week I was on my yearly North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina beach trip. This year was great for fossils, we found well over 100 specimens. Because we found so much variety, I have a large number of fossils I'd love to have confirmation or help IDing. Some I have an idea on and others I have no clue. Any information on my finds would be greatly appreciated. #1 Jaw and teeth, but to what? #2 - Fish Vert or tooth? #3 Are either of these Coprolites? The first example has fossil sand stars or similar within. Both are just over an inch long. #4 Fish tooth or crab claw tip? #5 Skull plate? #6 Part of fish or rodent skull? About 1/2 Inch long. #7 Sea Robin skull fragment? #8 Sea robin or other fish? #9 Similar to the above? #10 Burrfish or similar mouth plate? #11 Is this a small hastalis tooth? #12 Is this part of Requiem group? #13 Dusky shark or something else? #14 Fish tooth? #15 Similar to #5. Skull plate? #16 Shells? Sea urchin spines? Fish Spines? I knew what these were at one point but have forgotten. #17 Turtle shell fragment or random bone? #18 Fish crusher tooth? #19 Fish crusher tooth? #20 No clue? #21 Tooth or shell fragment?

Hello! I am a novice in Charleston, South Carolina primarily interested in shark teeth. While I have a few fossil books, I am not a very visual learner so I struggle with some of my identifications. I wanted to create a key for myself with my actual finds, so I can compare future finds to my physical specimens instead of printed pictures. I was hoping to get confirmation or correction on my bigger/better teeth and other beach finds that I have. I've also included a picture of teeth I'm not too certain on, as well as a number of finds that I'm nearly certain are rocks but I can't convince myself to toss them. Please help me put these rocks out of their misery! I've included an anterior and posterior picture. Thank you so much for your help and expertise! Hopefully creating this key for myself will help me be more self reliant in the future! Close Ups: Oops, top right is a ray mouth plate I think.

I know fossils and shark teeth are abundant in the creeks of Summerville, SC. I also know you can find them on the beaches and sandbar islands around Charleston. But there are lots of creeks that run through West Ashley, James Island and areas of North Charleston that one could actually walk through. Some feed off the Stono River, Wappoo Creek and the Ashley River (closer to North Charleston). Does anyone know if the geology of the area would make those creeks active producers of fossils and sharks teeth? Or is this too far south from the conditions that are conducive to this? Thanks everyone!

Apologies in advance for the low quality pictures. We are on vacation and I snapped a few of these very quickly as we were running about. Hoping to get some insight here. I found this on the beach in Hilton Head, South Carolina USA (July 2024). I’ve always wanted to find a shark tooth and this is the closest object I’ve found that resembles a fossilized shark tooth. Looking for a “gut check” of sorts to determine if it’s a shark tooth, part of an oyster shell, or something else. It’s incredibly dense and isn’t at all fragile like a typical shell, although the ridges are unlike any of the typical shark teeth I’ve researched online. Any insight is greatly appreciated!

Here is another South Carolina beach find that I need an ID on. It appears to be a peripheral osteoderm from either Glyptotherium sp., or Holmesina septentrionalis. I have not found enough of these to be sure of an ID on this position or shape. @Harry Pristis @Fin Lover @Shellseeker All help is appreciated.