Shark teeth

[Meganeura]

Just now, Fin Lover said:

I typically just hear them called hastalis...no common name.

That's definitely a fair thing to call em. Probably what I'll start doing.

[SandiTN]

27 minutes ago, Meganeura said:

14, 16, 17, 42, 53, 64, 74  - carcharhinus sp.
50, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76 - Lemon Shark
54 - Sand Tiger
 

Thank you so very much!

[hemipristis]

If I may join in?

 

Carcharhinus perezii.   29, 34, 51

 

Carcharhinus plumbeus.  16. 36, 52, 74

 

Sphyrna sp.    70

 

Carcharhinus cf C.leucas   32, 46

 

Carcharhinus leucas   17, 18, 19

 

 

 

Could you provide clear photos of front/back to #25, 47?

[Coco]

Hi,

 

16 hours ago, Fin Lover said:

I typically just hear them called hastalis...no common name.

That is not a good thing. Calling a fossil carcharias, rex or hastalis is not a good name. These are species names, but they alone do not designate anything specific because the same species name can be found in several genus.

 

A scientific name (like the forum !) is composed of two Latin names : a genus name (with a capital letter at the beginning of the word) followed by a species name (all in lower case).

 

17 hours ago, Meganeura said:

They're both called Great Whites then? C. Hastalis and C. Carcharias?

You can refer to a shark as C. hastalis, but only if you’ve already spelled out what "C." means. In your text we don’t know what the two "C’" mean. The second means Carcharodon (if it hasn’t changed his name since...).

 

In the case of C. hastalis, the "C." means Carcharodon, but before it was called Cosmopolitodus hastalis, and even before it was Isurus hastalis (at the time it was thought to be a mako).

 

The above is just to support and complement what Marco said. I find that too often fossils are designated only by their species names, and ultimately we don’t know what we’re talking about, so I don’t dare think of those for whom the fossils we’re talking about are not their specialty. Good information is not done without the binominal name (genus + species). I’m sorry if I’m too specific in my explanations.

 

Coco

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Coco

[sixgill pete]

@SandiTN curious as no one who is giving you I.D.'s has asked, where were these teeth found. Do you know the age / Formation they were from. This can make a difference in the I.D. 

You are asking for 78 different teeth in one post, are they all from the same location? 

I have seen I.D.'s given that are teeth from different time frames. 

@Meganeura gave you angustidens for one tooth and C. carcharias for another. These sharks are from different epochs thar are about 30 million years apart.

Edited January 24, 2023 by sixgill pete

[Meganeura]

21 minutes ago, sixgill pete said:

@SandiTN curious as no one who is giving you I.D.'s has asked, where were these teeth found. Do you know the age / Formation they were from. This can make a difference in the I.D. 

You are asking for 78 different teeth in one post, are they all from the same location? 

I have seen I.D.'s given that are teeth from different time frames. 

@Meganeura gave you angustidens for one tooth and C. carcharias for another. These sharks are from different epochs thar are about 30 million years apart.

Oh they’re Georgia - she mentioned that in one of the other threads. So depending where, the mix can make sense, I believe. But I don’t know Georgia fossils much.

[Fin Lover]

1 hour ago, Coco said:

Hi,

 

That is not a good thing. Calling a fossil carcharias, rex or hastalis is not a good name. These are species names, but they alone do not designate anything specific because the same species name can be found in several genus.

 

A scientific name (like the forum !) is composed of two Latin names : a genus name (with a capital letter at the beginning of the word) followed by a species name (all in lower case).

 

You can refer to a shark as C. hastalis, but only if you’ve already spelled out what "C." means. In your text we don’t know what the two "C’" mean. The second means Carcharodon (if it hasn’t changed his name since...).

 

In the case of C. hastalis, the "C." means Carcharodon, but before it was called Cosmopolitodus hastalis, and even before it was Isurus hastalis (at the time it was thought to be a mako).

 

The above is just to support and complement what Marco said. I find that too often fossils are designated only by their species names, and ultimately we don’t know what we’re talking about, so I don’t dare think of those for whom the fossils we’re talking about are not their specialty. Good information is not done without the binominal name (genus + species). I’m sorry if I’m too specific in my explanations.

 

Coco

 

Thank you, Coco.  As a newer hobbyist, I did not realize that it was not sufficient to say even C. hastalis, since that is the only hastalis I knew about in my area.  It makes sense from an international perspective, but I guess I picked up bad habits from others in my area without realizing it.

[Meganeura]

52 minutes ago, Fin Lover said:

Thank you, Coco.  As a newer hobbyist, I did not realize that it was not sufficient to say even C. hastalis, since that is the only hastalis I knew about in my area.  It makes sense from an international perspective, but I guess I picked up bad habits from others in my area without realizing it.

Yeah this is fair reasoning. Kogiopsis floridanus and Holmesina floridanus and Glyptotherium floridanus all exist - can’t exactly go around calling a whale an armadillo, after all. 

[SandiTN]

6 hours ago, sixgill pete said:

@SandiTN curious as no one who is giving you I.D.'s has asked, where were these teeth found. Do you know the age / Formation they were from. This can make a difference in the I.D. 

You are asking for 78 different teeth in one post, are they all from the same location? 

I have seen I.D.'s given that are teeth from different time frames. 

@Meganeura gave you angustidens for one tooth and C. carcharias for another. These sharks are from different epochs thar are about 30 million years apart.

These are all found in GA except #1, it was found in AL

[bthemoose]

On 1/22/2023 at 1:58 PM, Meganeura said:

Okay so still thinking 11 is an Angustidens here.

 

I'm not seeing an angustidens here. No visible serrations, no bourlette, and I'm not sure there are cusplets.

[debivort]

1 hour ago, bthemoose said:

 

I'm not seeing an angustidens here. No visible serrations, no bourlette, and I'm not sure there are cusplets.

I'm kind of doubting angustidens myself too now. It would help a lot to have high res photos focused on each tooth now remaining unid'd, one tooth per photo.

[sixgill pete]

7 hours ago, SandiTN said:

These are all found in GA except #1, it was found in AL

 

Georgia and Alabama are big states. There are many different formations and epochs. Teeth can be from Cretaceous ~90 mya to Pleistocene ~1 mya. 

 

[Meganeura]

8 hours ago, bthemoose said:

 

I'm not seeing an angustidens here. No visible serrations, no bourlette, and I'm not sure there are cusplets.

You know I think you’re right on that - I had originally thought I had seen a small bourlette but it seems that was just shadow. Im going to say it’s another C. Hastalis 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Meganeura

[Fin Lover]

I think I asked for a better picture of that tooth in one of the many posts we had going that day (thank you to whichever moderator merged some of them ) but, if another picture was posted, I haven't seen it.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Fin Lover