FossilForKids Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I realize I am the one with a ton of Bakersfield hours but this tooth has always baffled me. I think it is either: 1. Megachasma 2. Funky posterior of something.....wow that was real scientific wasn't it 2. A pathological Cow Shark upper. If only my teeth are so prized a million years from now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Hey John, Not the biggest expert on Megachasma, but I'm not sure if Megachasma teeth are known from STH yet - they are known from Pyramid Hill/Jewett Sand. In any event, this tooth appears to differ from Megachasma by not having much of a lingual protuberance, and hence a more flattened root. Also, I believe the teeth that are known from at least the early Miocene have lateral cusplets. Weird tooth, anyway. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilForKids Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Hey John,Not the biggest expert on Megachasma, but I'm not sure if Megachasma teeth are known from STH yet - they are known from Pyramid Hill/Jewett Sand. In any event, this tooth appears to differ from Megachasma by not having much of a lingual protuberance, and hence a more flattened root. Also, I believe the teeth that are known from at least the early Miocene have lateral cusplets. Weird tooth, anyway. Bobby Thanks Bobby. I've only seen three of these and they all look the same so i don't think they're pathological. I really don't have a clue. If only my teeth are so prized a million years from now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilForKids Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Bobby, it's hard to see in the picture but this tooth has definitive cusps. If only my teeth are so prized a million years from now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 i hit google images and quickly found six or eight megachasma teeth, but they don't look like that one, so i'd go with your number 2 choice. of course you have two number 2 choices, so you get to guess which one i mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I realize I am the one with a ton of Bakersfield hours but this tooth has always baffled me. I think it is either:1. Megachasma 2. Funky posterior of something.....wow that was real scientific wasn't it 2. A pathological Cow Shark upper. i dont think megachasma but good guess, looks like a posterior mako of some kind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Could you please post a side view of this tooth, that may help in identification. 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...
Carl O'Cles Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 i dont think megachasma but good guess, looks like a posterior mako of some kind I agree looks like a mako Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Here are three Megachasma from Chile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Bobby, it's hard to see in the picture but this tooth has definitive cusps. John, I know what it is. It's an Isurus fossilsforkidzus. Do you have any more pics, maybe from a few different angles? Thanks for sharing, Eddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilForKids Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 John,I know what it is. It's an Isurus fossilsforkidzus. Do you have any more pics, maybe from a few different angles? Thanks for sharing, Eddie Hi Eddie! I like that name. Here's a view of the other side. I'm sure now it's not a Megachasma but I don't know what it is. If only my teeth are so prized a million years from now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Hi Eddie!I like that name. Here's a view of the other side. I'm sure now it's not a Megachasma but I don't know what it is. My very first impression is "what's wrong with that tooth?" (as in 'looks pathologically mis-shapen'). You did say that you have two more just like it, so patho would be a looooooong shot. I'm thinking it's something way posterior. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Very interesting tooth! Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I put my vote in for a way posterior tooth from some lamniform. It doesn't have much of a lingual protuberance, like Megachasma, and it isn't some sort of weird Carchariniform, as it lacks the nutrient groove; I'd say that the flat-ish lingual surface of the root suggests its lamniform, but not Megachasma. Still, a neat tooth, and hopefully identifiable. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 From modern jaws I have noticed that most of the really odd teeth show up at the symphysis of the jaw. The upper symphysis seems to produce more odd teeth than the lower. I have wondered if struggling prey torques the symphysis and damages the developing parasymphyseal teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makoken Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I have a couple that look loke that. I was told they were Galeocerdo parasymphyseals (sp.?) I'm away from home ,so I can't post a pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I have a couple that look loke that. I was told they were Galeocerdo parasymphyseals (sp.?) I'm away from home ,so I can't post a pic. It's a little "bent-up" but I would say it's a hastalis posterior. It might have gotten compressed or struck mesiodistally while still developing. Galeocerdo parasymphyseals have a narrower cusp. In the third Lee Creek volume (Purdy et al., 2001) on page 106, figures l and m are Galeocerdo parasymphyseals - not Megachasma. I can't take credit for noticing that as it was pointed out by Ward and Bonavia (2001), the article on Malta teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 I'm revisiting this thread from last year because of a tooth recently posted for identification. The tooth in question in that thread is a Physogaleus contortus lower symphyseal. I believe now that makoken and Paleoron were on the right track with tiger shark symphyseals/parasymphyseals on this one - not Galeocerdo but P. contortus also. It's not a match for the crown though parasymphyseals often have coronal irregularities but the pronounced lingual protuberance and overall shape does point to a tooth near the symphysis particularly if this is a small tooth...say around a half-inch or smaller. Other opinions? I have a couple that look loke that. I was told they were Galeocerdo parasymphyseals (sp.?) I'm away from home ,so I can't post a pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nandomas Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 I agree with some kind of patology, in any case that is a great find. Definitely a keeper Erosion... will be my epitaph! http://www.paleonature.org/ https://fossilnews.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason longboard Posted September 11, 2010 Share Posted September 11, 2010 I gotta say it looks a little deformed, not ragging on it but Ive found a few from Bakersfield that were a little deformed as well and have also seen some on line. You guys know all that already I know. Ok back to why Im posting anyways, Ive hit these hills about 30 times in the last couple months and have not found one like that. So unless it just a deformed something else, then I would say its rare for sure. Im very tired so Im sure this post seems tired as well lol. Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable is my mentor. 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