Jump to content

What Shark Was This?


Cainozoic

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

I found this tooth looking through a theodolite many years ago, I had to dig hand holds into the cliff to climb 10m to recover it from where it was weathering out. The quarry from which it came is known to contain limestones from the Early Miocene (Batesford formation, Geelong, Victoria, Australia). The tooth has a thickness of 9mm, 38mm wide (probably a little more as the enamel continues into the rock) and a height of 39mm from the tip to where it is buried on the lingual side, the root appears to extend about 12mm into the rock (it is exposed on the distal side). If there are any more pictures or measurements needed to aid in identification please let me know,

Cheers,

Cain

post-13683-0-55345600-1385610960_thumb.jpg post-13683-0-88107900-1385610996_thumb.jpg post-13683-0-19567100-1385611017_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Megatooth Collector

I took a look at this one before and found it difficult to be certain. Definitely a beautiful tooth and I am certain it is either Great White or Megalodon. To me there are some features suggesting each though. In view from the top, the tooth looks robust and thick for its size like a Meg. There is not a definite bourlette suggesting GW, but in one photo I can barely see an outline (or imagining one) where the bourlette may have once been possibly flaked off... I can't really tell for sure. The serrations are very prominent and perhaps have slight rounded points suggesting Megalodon, compared to the more sharp triangular point of a GW (see attached photo). The root is buried, so that doesn't help. I am stumped...

post-12849-0-57187700-1385613365_thumb.jpg

Edited by Megatooth Collector
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had a closer look at those serrations, they appear much more triangular than the Meg that I found in the same quarry.

post-13683-0-24213700-1385614771_thumb.jpg post-13683-0-36389500-1385614936_thumb.jpg

The thickness of this tooth is 18mm, it is 57mm wide and 78mm from tip to root. The serrations are much more round in shape although it really does look like a bourlette has eroded from the first tooth from the cliff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Megatooth Collector

The large one is a Meg or some might even suggest Chubutensis since it almost appears to have some cusplet remnants. The age of the formation is during the overlap time when either Chub or Meg could be present based on my understanding. But for practical purposes 100% Megalodon lineage for this large one! Real beauty! Congrats

Edited by Megatooth Collector
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chubutensis!!! I didn't even know what they were until your post. Here are the side views for the same tooth.

post-13683-0-03650900-1385616221_thumb.jpg

Anterior view?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Megatooth Collector

I am really enjoying this forum and the access to expert opinion it provides!

attachicon.gifMesial.JPG

Mesial View?

No expert here. Just a very passionate shark tooth enthusiast and collector. I guess over time of collecting, seeing enough teeth, and doing some reading, you pick up a few things. Anyway, please continue to post photos of your finds. You can even create your own photo gallery on the forum of your collection so your own reference and other to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Down under fossil hunter

Had no idea you could find Meg teeth in Geelong!?!?

Simply beautiful teeth, great work Cain!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks great-whitish to me. Large serrations, no bourlette, etc. But it is rather thick and I cannot see the root.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fossilselachian

Hi Guys,

I found this tooth looking through a theodolite many years ago, I had to dig hand holds into the cliff to climb 10m to recover it from where it was weathering out. The quarry from which it came is known to contain limestones from the Early Miocene (Batesford formation, Geelong, Victoria, Australia). The tooth has a thickness of 9mm, 38mm wide (probably a little more as the enamel continues into the rock) and a height of 39mm from the tip to where it is buried on the lingual side, the root appears to extend about 12mm into the rock (it is exposed on the distal side). If there are any more pictures or measurements needed to aid in identification please let me know,

Cheers,

Cain

I don't have the paper available at the moment but recall a recent report describing the oldest record of Carcharodon as originating in the late Miocene of Argentina rather than the early Miocene as is the tooth under discussion.

BTY. Great find with an excellent tooth in matrix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gone back to the literature and found that the Batesford limestone formed during the Early to Middle Miocene so I have to update my information. My apologies, looks like Carcharodon is a strong possibility, especially considering that it was higher up in the stratigraphic unit. Even in this quarry it was unusual to find teeth still in the matrix, I don't really want to dig this one out!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Megatooth Collector

I wouldn't dig it out either. Not only could you damage the tooth, I think it looks great the way it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I see of the root sticking out to the side tells me it is a megalodon tooth (what appears to be a natural indent in the side of the lobe).

Yes, the bourlette can wear off in the right circumstances while the rest of the tooth looks good. I'm not sure but I think it can happen with a tooth that gets wet and then thoroughly dries out.(perhaps repeatedly but not yet enough to visibly weaken the root or discolor the crown). Be careful handling that tooth because it might be easily chipped or cracked. You might want to brush a coating of Butvar solution on what's visible.

Another thing about the Batesford...a partial Parotodus dentition was once found in it. I'm not sure if it's on display but the National Museum of Victoria in Melbourne once sold a postcard with a photo of it on the front (had other fossil photo post cards as well - crinoid, a bird feather, and a Cretaceous fish skeleton)..

.

Hi Guys,

I found this tooth looking through a theodolite many years ago, I had to dig hand holds into the cliff to climb 10m to recover it from where it was weathering out. The quarry from which it came is known to contain limestones from the Early Miocene (Batesford formation, Geelong, Victoria, Australia). The tooth has a thickness of 9mm, 38mm wide (probably a little more as the enamel continues into the rock) and a height of 39mm from the tip to where it is buried on the lingual side, the root appears to extend about 12mm into the rock (it is exposed on the distal side). If there are any more pictures or measurements needed to aid in identification please let me know,

Cheers,

Cain

attachicon.gifLabial.JPG attachicon.gifLingual.JPG attachicon.gifLingual_zoom.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi siteseer,

I think I still have that set of postcards tucked away somewhere and that rock full of teeth was awesome!

I went through my collection and have these to offer in support of the Megaladon identification, one clearly still has a bourlette and the other shows signs off the bourlette wearing off. They could be Chubutensis but I see no real sign of cusplets. Please let me know what you think!

post-13683-0-11696800-1385900981_thumb.jpg post-13683-0-02901500-1385901007_thumb.jpg

This tooth is 41mm wide and 48mm from root to tip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the other, this one is 45mm wide and 57mm from root to tip.

post-13683-0-26271600-1385901211_thumb.jpg post-13683-0-16838700-1385901233_thumb.jpg

Do both of these teeth look like Megalodon or something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Megatooth Collector

Agreed the last two are Megs and the original is most likely too the more I look at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is it, I have decided to label all three teeth Carcharodon megalodon. Would these be teeth from juvenile sharks? I heard there was a ratio to calculate the approximate size of the shark based on the size of the tooth, is that true and how accurate would it be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I am not sure if I should start a new thread but has anyone got any idea what this is? I think that it is a tooth because it definitely looks like an enamel surface with a distinctive root which definitely is bone. The specimen is 20mm long, 10mm wide and 7mm thick. There is a deep groove running straight down the middle. I am sorry about the poor quality of photographs but all I have is an iphone 4. Thanks for your input as usual,

post-13683-0-70661400-1385986084_thumb.jpg post-13683-0-96965000-1385986101_thumb.jpg post-13683-0-98285500-1385986115_thumb.jpg

Side View Top View Bottom View

Cheers,

Cain

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I am not sure if I should start a new thread but has anyone got any idea what this is? I think that it is a tooth because it definitely looks like an enamel surface with a distinctive root which definitely is bone. The specimen is 20mm long, 10mm wide and 7mm thick. There is a deep groove running straight down the middle.

Cain

It is part of the stinging barb from a stingray.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cain, that is a piece of stingray barb. you will notice the barbs running down both sides.

I'm at work at the moment but I am sure you can do a search and see one that is longer so you can visualize it.

Edited by AeroMike
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, I did google it and it matches perfectly. I had never seen one before, are they commonly fossilised?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, I did google it and it matches perfectly. I had never seen one before, are they commonly fossilised?

They can be common in Neogene deposits where shark teeth are found but of the hundreds of pieces that I have found I have never found a whole one. They can be very brittle. Stingrays will shed these just like teeth so if the ray lives long enough it might shed dozens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, I did google it and it matches perfectly. I had never seen one before, are they commonly fossilised?

I only have found pieces of barbs and vary rarely find the tip. I do have one piece that is a tip and section about 4" long but that is my best piece.

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...