Megaselachus13 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Hello everybody, Years ago I bought on ebay these two teeth that were auctioned as auriculatus. The case is that them doesn't appear to others that I have seen from auriculatus, by the size of the ears on everything. In the case of lower I think they are too united (chubutensis?) And the upper lateral while wearing it seems that they're very small (angustidens?). The truth is that both are supposedly from the same place and the seller told me that they came from South Carolina. Let's see what you look like you, thank you in advance. Best regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megaselachus13 Posted October 15, 2008 Author Share Posted October 15, 2008 The other one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharktoothguy11222 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Ironically, the first thing I noticed was your 1940 Mercury dime lol The first one I'm kind of iffy about. It could be a chubutensis or Angustidens. Maybe Northern Sharks or another more experienced collector could offer a bit more of insight. As for the second one, I'm pretty sure it is a Angustidens. It looks to be a fairly thick tooth, and I have an Angustidens from Lee Creek that looks almost identical. Hope this helps! Tha tighin fodham, fodham, fodham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Both Angustidens. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Ironically, the first thing I noticed was your 1940 Mercury dime lolThe first one I'm kind of iffy about. It could be a chubutensis or Angustidens. Maybe Northern Sharks or another more experienced collector could offer a bit more of insight. As for the second one, I'm pretty sure it is a Angustidens. It looks to be a fairly thick tooth, and I have an Angustidens from Lee Creek that looks almost identical. Hope this helps! As far as I know there is no Oligocene at Lee Creek so your tooth would be a chubutensis. Some of the Pungo teeth can have very prominent cusps. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 This would be a case where knowing the specific age/location would help greatly. The first tooth looks like a chub, but I have an angustidens with 1 very weak cusp, so I'm not 100% sure. Age of the formation would solve the issue. The second tooth is likely angustidens. It's too late now, but I always ask the seller for a more detailed location if it is listed as vaguely as just South Carolina. Most reputable sellers will at least narrow it down for you. There's no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 the first one i would call a chub but if it was found at the same place as the other which is Angustidens then they both are i have seen Angustidens with very week cusps so i wouldnt be suprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 This would be a case where knowing the specific age/location would help greatly. The first tooth looks like a chub, but I have an angustidens with 1 very weak cusp, so I'm not 100% sure. Age of the formation would solve the issue. The second tooth is likely angustidens. It's too late now, but I always ask the seller for a more detailed location if it is listed as vaguely as just South Carolina. Most reputable sellers will at least narrow it down for you. I get the impression the person that sold this wasn't reputable if he auctioned them off as auriculatus teeth. One jerk in particular was selling anything with a hint of cusps as auriculatus and novice collectors with a bunch of BS about how rare these teeth were. I think the punch line was something like," auriculatus are the rarest of the megalodon lineage and the most expensive so bid all you can or you'll miss out" or something along that line. It's obvious he knew the difference because when someone else tried the same scam he posted an auction and basically said to watch out for Dealer X, he's trying to rip you off. Both teeth look like they could comfortably fit in a late Oligocene / early Miocene timeframe so I agree 100% that the formation they came from is the key to identification. Without the formation it's just a case of best guess on the exact ID. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-remanié Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I have seen an incredible amount of SC teeth on ebay being sold as rics that are blatantly angustidens instead. I think the problem comes from people have no idea about the geology they just know there are a ton of big sharks teeth at many sites, some of which probably have Eocene and Oligocene fossils mixed together. The reworked nature of the deposits in SC probably also makes it tough to differentiate the exact time period except by what the fossils in it look like. Whether it is ignorance or purposeful deceit, I can not say, but I'm sure many people have had the same thing happen to them. 1 ---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen--- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now