Carcharocles Auriculatus

[fossilselachian]

Although I have an interest in all fossil shark teeth, I have that "special interest" in the teeth of C. auriculatus. In my first attempt to post some pictures to this forum, I have attached (hopefully) three pics of such teeth.

[fossilselachian]

Here are some additional examples of C. auriculatus

[fossilselachian]

And for today, a final picture post

[Auspex]

Primo assemblage! The color on that Flint River tooth is especially wonderful; thank you for posting them.

[Hogtownfossil]

killer teeth, just where do you find such nice rics? I'm guessing the rivers of SC.

[Northern Sharks]

You have some really nice rics there. If I may make a suggestion though, white text on the red background would be easier to read in my opinion. Keep posting pics

[Gatorman]

Nice teeth!

[Guest Cris]

Those are some beautiful teeth

[Megalodon1]

Awesome teeth!!!!! :applause:

[Roz]

Really great teeth in excellent condition. If you don't mind my asking, what led to your special interest in the C. auriculatus?

[MB]

Great !!! :thumbsup:

[Harry Pristis]

You have some really nice rics there. If I may make a suggestion though, white text on the red background would be easier to read in my opinion. Keep posting pics

I agree with NS, these are nice teeth. I also agree that the use of black script on a red background is difficult to read.

How do you deal with the widely-accepted argument that Florida "auriculatus" (and that would include Georgia/Flint River teeth) from the Ocala Group Limestone are not C. auriculatus but are Late Eocene and Oligocene Carcharodon sokolowi?

CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THIS TAXONOMIC PROBLEM

[fossilselachian]

You have some really nice rics there. If I may make a suggestion though, white text on the red background would be easier to read in my opinion. Keep posting pics

And my post comes from someone who personally has a difficult time reading black print on a red background - DUMB move on my part. It will not happen again. Thanks

[fossilselachian]

I agree with NS, these are nice teeth. I also agree that the use of black script on a red background is difficult to read.

How do you deal with the widely-accepted argument that Florida "auriculatus" (and that would include Georgia/Flint River teeth) from the Ocala Group Limestone are not C. auriculatus but are Late Eocene and Oligocene Carcharodon sokolowi?

CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THIS TAXONOMIC PROBLEM

Yes, the name game. Just when in time does an evolving species hit a "speed bump" sufficient to warrant a new species name, i.e., a new chronospecies? I pretty much agree with the transition forms starting with Otodus according to the Russian writer Zhelezko. His is one book that I wish was in English so that I could understand more of his writing except for what is shown in his graphs, figures and English summary. However, I don't particularly like the use of the genus name Otodus in lieu of Carcharocles for all the evolving lineages.

I have no problem whatsoever with C. sokolovi and understand the differences in both geologic time and morphology between the evolving species. In general the name C. auriculatus is somewhat generic but is more recognizable to more collectors than use of the name C. sokolovi.

In general I have an understanding of the various schools of thought on how we arrived at the end point of C. megalodon. Also, to some extent I have come to the point where I can appreciate the beauty and agelessness of fossil shark teeth without getting to to caught up with the specifics of taxonomy.

Your point on black type on a read background is well-taken and answered in another reply-post as well.

thanks

I did note your use of "Carcharodon" sokolowi rather than Carcharocles sokolovi.

[Carl O'Cles]

Nice ric's, I really like the one from rocky point. In looking at the ones from georgia i would say they are closer to angies than ric's, smaller cups, broader blades and finer serrations. Hence i would agree with them more likley being C. Sokolovi. Do you have a formation and time period for the ones from georgia

[worthy 55]

Great collection of ric's !!!!

Red

[PrehistoricFlorida]

I would not say that sokolowi is widely accepted by any means.

[Harry Pristis]

Yes, the name game. Just when in time does an evolving species hit a "speed bump" sufficient to warrant a new species name, i.e., a new chronospecies? I pretty much agree with the transition forms starting with Otodus according to the Russian writer Zhelezko. His is one book that I wish was in English so that I could understand more of his writing except for what is shown in his graphs, figures and English summary. However, I don't particularly like the use of the genus name Otodus in lieu of Carcharocles for all the evolving lineages.

I have no problem whatsoever with C. sokolovi and understand the differences in both geologic time and morphology between the evolving species. In general the name C. auriculatus is somewhat generic but is more recognizable to more collectors than use of the name C. sokolovi.

In general I have an understanding of the various schools of thought on how we arrived at the end point of C. megalodon. Also, to some extent I have come to the point where I can appreciate the beauty and agelessness of fossil shark teeth without getting to to caught up with the specifics of taxonomy.

Your point on black type on a read background is well-taken and answered in another reply-post as well.

thanks

I did note your use of "Carcharodon" sokolowi rather than Carcharocles sokolovi.

For the most part, we don't yet have to worry about "when" one species changes into another (your "speed-bump") because all we get are snapshots in time -- there is no video. The only thing we can do is try to determine if one snapshot resembles the next.

If the name Carcharocles auriculatus is somewhat generic, it is so only for newbies or those collectors who don't need the taxonomy. Systematic collecting demands some awareness of the taxonomy. Trophy collecting ("the beauty and agelessness of fossil shark teeth") doesn't require taxonomy, I suppose.

I followed Hulbert's use of the Case-Cappetta designation as Carcharodon sokolowi, even though I subscribe to the "Carcharocles" school, myself.

I did puzzle over the "sokolowi" spelling. I'm pretty sure that is a result of Latinizing the proper name under the rules of nomenclature. My undergraduate minor was in Russian language, and this is not how one would transliterate a Russian name directly into English. I am fairly confident that the pronunciation is "so-ko-LO-vaye."

I didn't see a "Flint River" tooth, but perhaps it was one of the super-size images I didn't try to open. The Flint river cuts the Ocala Group Limestone of Late Eocene age, about 39 Ma.

You have some great teeth, whatever you call 'em, FS!

-----Harry Pristis

[fossilselachian]

killer teeth, just where do you find such nice rics? I'm guessing the rivers of SC.

There are only four teeth from SC and they are all from a land site. As has been correctly brought to my attention, the use of black type on a red background is hard to see. However, there is some locality info attached to each tooth.

[fossilselachian]

Nice ric's, I really like the one from rocky point. In looking at the ones from georgia i would say they are closer to angies than ric's, smaller cups, broader blades and finer serrations. Hence i would agree with them more likley being C. Sokolovi. Do you have a formation and time period for the ones from georgia

The only locality data I have for the teeth is that they were found in the Alapaha River in Lowndes County, GA. The age was reported as Eocene but as is often the case, the assignment of age to river teeth can be problematic.

[fossilselachian]

Really great teeth in excellent condition. If you don't mind my asking, what led to your special interest in the C. auriculatus?

An interesting question for which I don't have a real answer. I've just always seemed to favor fossil shark teeth with lateral cusps. Such cusps do not have to be associated with large teeth as evidenced by the attached photo. This one-quarter inch Hypotodus grandis was collected in northern Montana.

[isurus90064]

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new but I just found these ric pics tonight and there are some gorgeous examples there!!!! especially the 1. the Peruvian 2. the Rocky Point tooth, 3. the Flint River tooth 3. the Kazakhstan teeth. Very very nice!

[eddie]

Here are some additional examples of C. auriculatus

Wow, great collection of rics!!! Thanks for posting all those pics. Here's one

of the more unusual teeth I have. I got if from a friend overseas. It's labeled

as angustidens, but to me it looks like what's normally referred to as an auriculatus.

Whatever it's called, it's a cool tooth, I'm not that big on semantics. Just looks

like it's from an older age.

Last pic is of a Isurus I found in Aurora. (It was in the same display case as the other tooth. )

Thanks,

Eddie

[fossilselachian]

Hey Eddie:

I would agree it certainly looks like an example of C. auriculatus. Where is it from?

VERY Nice!

[eddie]

Hey Eddie:

I would agree it certainly looks like an example of C. auriculatus. Where is it from?

VERY Nice!

I don't know anything more than what's on the id card, which says Sudan, Africa.

Do you know of any other teeth from that location??

Thanks!

Eddie