Ural finds

[Hyaena]

Hello dear forum participants.

I present to your attention a tooth that has caused some discussion among us.

The main version is that this is a rounded Physogaleus tooth, but in appearance it seems that its roots are not broken.
Curious to know your opinion.

The tooth was shown to specialists, and there is literature on our regional sharks. It appears to be Physogaleus but would like more clarity.
Age: Upper Eocene, Middle Urals

Thanks for your attention

 

 

Question - if there are new questions and findings, is it possible to continue posting in this topic or is it better to create a new one based on our findings, if, of course, the reader is interested?
Best regards, Anton.
 

[Fossildude19]

Anton,

Please feel free to add any additional finds, questions,  or information about this tooth to this topic. 
As long as it is related to the same location, it should be fine.

[Fossildude19]

Cropped and brightened:

 

 

[Fossildude19]

@Al Dente  @MarcoSr @fossilselachian 

[Al Dente]

Physogaleus secundus would be my first guess. The teeth labeled D through P in this illustration are all Physogaleus.

 

 

[Hyaena]

4 hours ago, Al Dente said:

Моя первая догадка — Physogaleus secundus. Все зубы, обозначенные на этой иллюстрации от D до P, принадлежат Physogaleus.

 

 

Thank you very much for your answer! Apparently it's just damaged

[Hyaena]

23 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Антон,

Пожалуйста, не стесняйтесь добавлять в эту тему любые дополнительные находки, вопросы или информацию об этом зубе. 
Если это связано с одним и тем же местом, все должно быть в порядке.

Regarding this location, there may still be teeth on which questions have arisen and my comrades and I have not come to a common opinion. Is it possible to post these findings here? I was going to go this. Thank you and thank you for editing the photos!

[Fossildude19]

You could do that if you wish. As long as you post one at a time in the topic.

[MarcoSr]

23 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

@Al Dente  @MarcoSr @fossilselachian 

 

It is hard for me to confirm an ID of a single tooth as Physogaleus, when the features don't exactly match the features that I'm familiar with or those shown in the literature (Eric's post of Physogaleus secundus teeth from Uzbekistan).  I'm also not at all familiar with the shark species in the fauna, and you need to see multiple teeth of the species from the fauna to make a valid judgement.  To me, the tooth has a lot of the characteristics of Physogaleus for Physogaleus to be a possible ID, but I'm not 100% convinced.  Your specialists should have a much better ID opinion, knowing the fauna, than I do.

 

Marco Sr.