Estimating Megalodon Tooth Size

[snolly50]

Does anyone know of a formula or "rule of thumb" to estimate the original size of a Meg tooth from a shard? Here is an example. As you can see, the extant portion of the tooth laps over the edges of a 4"x4" square. Can anyone offer an approximation of its dimensions before it was damaged?

Thanks.

[Auspex]

I used to just draw lines that "looked right", and considered the result a very rough guesstimate, and good enough for what it was worth (which wasn't much...).

[THobern]

Yeah, draw the probable contours of the tooth. Just looking at it, and based on the position and width, I'm guessing it was 5 5/8" long.

Edited July 8, 2012 by THobern

[snolly50]

Thanks Auspex and THobern. I did spend a couple of minutes tracing the existing contour of the blade and attempting to extend it out into a correct Meg tooth shape. I am pleased to announce that tooth (in its prime) was exactly 6 1/4" aslant! It was kind of fun to try and visualize the tooth as a complete object.

Next I will measure other, unbroken teeth I have. I will try and determine if there is a predictable ratio between width of the root lobes and blade length. If so, that could prove to be a useful metric.

[THobern]

I'd be surprised; could you post a picture of your reconstruction?

[THobern]

I take that back, my first estimate was probably too low; I'm guessing that it would have been around 6".

[Coco]

Hi,

I will try and determine if there is a predictable ratio between width of the root lobes and blade length. If so, that could prove to be a useful metric.

I don't think you can calculate a ratio between width of the root lobes and blade lenght because width of the rooth lobes depends of the position into the jaw. For example, upper teeth have larger ones (width of the root lobes) than lower teeth.

Coco

[THobern]

...Next I will measure other, unbroken teeth I have. I will try and determine if there is a predictable ratio between width of the root lobes and blade length. If so, that could prove to be a useful metric.

There won't be an easily discernible one, and certainly not a linear relationship. Look at some dentitions, and you'll see the range of shapes; there is an increase in the ratio of the root width to height as you progress farther back into the mouth. However, teeth of the same position vary wildly in shape, so you won't get a clean metric between the two.

[snolly50]

Coco and THobern, thanks for your thoughtful replies. I had considered the natural variance between "types" of teeth as a confounding variable. However, your responses have introduced the fact of a wide range of root dimension seen in teeth from the same jaw position and/or the same "type" of tooth. Obviously, this would make my scheme of measurement and prediction of dubious worth.

THobern, of course I was trying to be funny when I asserted I now knew the exact measure of the tooth in hand. Actually, your neatly done rendering is very close to my hand drawn scribble in size.

It would appear that simple visualization of the missing portion (guided by the extant shape and size) may be the best approach to an accurate guesstimate.

As a new member here, this has been my first fossil related topic post. I am so pleased to have found this resource. To be able to access this pool of knowledge and experience is invaluable. I think it's great.

[Auspex]

...I was trying to be funny when I asserted I now knew the exact measure of the tooth in hand...

You got me