Largest Mako Ever Found?

[Tomsteeth]

Here are some photos of a tooth found in the Atlantic ocean off Eastern NC. When I was cleaning the bunch of teeth I had this tooth stuck out immediately.

I have heard some arguments for both a very large mako and a worn meg....although no one can produce a meg that looks like this yet for comparison.

Measurements :

Side 1 = 4.10 inches

Side 2 = 3.86 inches

Width = 2.72 inches

What do you think?

Edited October 3, 2014 by Tomsteeth.com

[Carcharodontosaurus]

Not a tooth. It's a rock.

[Tomsteeth]

Isn't every fossil a rock?

Sorry it is not a rock, it was pulled from the fossil bed with about 40 other teeth. This one just doesn't have enamel let on it.

Also a top Smithsonian Paleontologist has already verified that it is a tooth.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Tomsteeth.com

[Carcharodontosaurus]

Still looks like a suggestive rock to me. Even worn teeth are more recognizable than this.

[Auspex]

It is very, very worn, but the length alone suggests that it is a Carcharocles sp.

[Carcharodontosaurus]

Could it be an angustidens or auriculatus?

[sixgill pete]

As Auspex noted, it is very very worn. I agree with his thought as Carcharocles sp. Definitely not a mako in my opinion.

[calhounensis]

I usually don't jump into shark teeth conversations, but I think Auspex is right. Carcharocles sp. is really the most accurate ID you could give this. Unless of course you were in a strictly Miocene/Pliocene locality, which in that case it would have to be C. megalodon. It could possibly be angustidens or auriculatus but any evidence of cusps is long gone. I don't know much about jaw position, I'd take a stab that this is a lower lateral though. Which in this state of wear could easily be confused for a large mako.

[Carcharodontosaurus]

Just curious, what was the largest mako ever found?

[Tomsteeth]

My biggest gripe with the Carcharocles Sp. is that there is no bulbus rise in the middle of the tooth. I can post some of the other teeth found with it and you will see what I mean by the wear. Only the enamel is worn off the teeth that are found in this location, the teeth themselves are not worn away.

I'm leaning away from the cusps too, the shape doesn't really lend itself for the presence of cusps.

The general thin nature of this tooth is why I even suggest mako, and the non bulbus nature of it.

[Tomsteeth]

Other teeth from the same layer.

First tooth is before fresh water soak , second tooth is after fresh water soak.

Note the enamel peel on the second tooth.

[Troodon]

What I see is a very very worn meg.

[Auspex]

The thinness of the tooth is evident, but could easily be attributed to the extensive wear.

I do not think that any case for Isurus hastalis can be made based on the physical evidence, and such would be an extraordinary claim (due to size) that would require solid proof.

[Troodon]

If one compares a large approx 3" mako tooth to yours there are distinctive differences between the two. Mako's typically come to a sharp point and have a somewhat compressed crown. If you try to add those features to your tooth it becomes that much longer and just on the physical evidence excludes it from being a mako. The largest mako I've seen is 3 1/2".

[Carl]

Isn't every fossil a rock?

Sorry it is not a rock, it was pulled from the fossil bed with about 40 other teeth. This one just doesn't have enamel let on it.

Also a top Smithsonian Paleontologist has already verified that it is a tooth.

I'll leave the shark biz to the others but I'll throw in that fossils are definitely not always rocks. I find the most useful definition of fossil to be any evidence of life over 10k years old. It need not be mineralized at all.

[Tomsteeth]

This tooth is now barnacle/coral free and I have posted a video of it. I still stand by my first opinion of this tooth. And still to this day no one has been able to post a meg tooth of this shape and type.

http://youtu.be/8Td1-_vnA5c

[fossilized6s]

Your tooth has a deep "V" shaped root that goes down into the exremely water worn crown. Also the tip is rounded. All defining characteristics of a Meg. The serations are not present because it is so beat up.

[calhounensis]

It's a lower meg, all the speculation and opinions in the world won't change that.

[siteseer]

You're running up against a lot of collecting experience telling you that the specimen is a meg if it is a tooth. I'm afraid I have to agree with them too.

If we assume that the specimen is a tooth (top Smithsonian paleontologists have been wrong before about megalodon - its level of relatedness to the modern great white), it is most consistent with the shape of what a meg would look like if it were abraded rather evenly all around the surface. A tooth wearing down like that would be very unusual, because with any object (even metal) dropping, rolling, and sitting (and perhaps tumbling again after that) on the ocean bottom, any micro-weakness in the surface would be exploited and the specimen would start to suffer deterioration at that point. In most cases the enameloid peels away with the less durable underlying surface and more porous root disintegrating to the point that the specimen breaks into two or more pieces. When such a worn tooth does survive in one piece, the average tooth hunter would be less likely to keep it because it wouldn't be recognizable enough for collectors, serious or casual. Therefore, your reason for thinking it's not a meg because no one can produce a similar shape is not strictly evidence of that. It could be just evidence that such a heavily-worn meg still keeping its general shape is rare and that most collectors wouldn't be interested in something that worn so any that are found are not likely to end up in anyone's collection. The average collector doesn't keep and display the most beat-up meg he's ever seen.

I also agree with Troodon that it cannot be a mako because your tooth would have had to have been even larger to wear down to that size. We would be looking at perhaps a 4 1/4 to 4 3/8-inch mako. Using your argument that no one has shown you a meg like that, well, no one has been able to provide evidence of even a 3 3/4-inch mako. Three inch makos are tough enough to find. One of my friends used to hunt the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed about 300 days out of the year and he used to find a 3-incher maybe once per year. Every few years he found a 3 1/8 to 3 1/4-incher and maybe every 3-10 years he found one right at or just over 3 1/4 inches. The largest one he ever found in his life was just over 3 1/2 inches. He didn't find a piece of one that appeared to be larger than that if complete and he would have kept anything like that. There are a number of South Carolina divers who have found their share of 3-inch makos but the number of 3 1/4 to 3 1/2 teeth among them drops off in a similar pattern to the longtime Sharktooth Hill collector. I think a few guys have a tooth close to 3 1/2 but I've never heard a reliable source say he has ever seen one close to 3 3/4 inches. There seems to be a point of extreme unlikelihood in finding a tooth towards 3 1/2 inches. Maybe someone can better explain it mathematically. Sharks keep growing until they die but the odds are against any animal surpassing its optimal size and reaching the maximum possible for its form because the natural hazards of life (disease, injury, aging) tend to cut down individuals of any species before they can reach a milestone beyond the likely milestones.

This tooth is now barnacle/coral free and I have posted a video of it. I still stand by my first opinion of this tooth. And still to this day no one has been able to post a meg tooth of this shape and type.

http://youtu.be/8Td1-_vnA5c

[Al Dente]

This tooth is now barnacle/coral free and I have posted a video of it. I still stand by my first opinion of this tooth. And still to this day no one has been able to post a meg tooth of this shape and type.

The reason for the odd shape of your tooth is it has been sand blasted into that shape. Tooth enamel is much harder than the root material and all the enamel on your tooth has been worn off so you can imagine how much the root has been eroded. I have a couple meg teeth that are unusually thin for their size. Here is a 4.6 inch Lee Creek meg that is very thin. If it had been subjected to as much erosion as your tooth has, it would be much thinner and the root would be mostly gone.

[Troodon]

Nice clean up but its still a meg. If you choose to believe otherwise its certainly your prerogative.

[Auspex]

Your video is, frankly, making hyped-up claims that cannot be supported by the evidence. The thing is so far gone that all anyone can say for sure is that it is what's left of a large fossil shark's tooth (and one that is well beyond the size parameters of a Mako).

[RickNC]

Very worn Carcharocles sp. We find worn ones like that fairly frequently around here in the creeks and rivers.