PrehistoricFlorida Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 I was lucky enough to add two small Auriculatus teeth to my collection yesterday. One is from the Flint River, and one is from the Suwannee River. The larger tooth measures 2". www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cris Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Beautiful teeth! I really gotta find me one of those. I can't believe how perfect both of them look..amazing for something that old that's been sitting at a river bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 Here's an updated pic of the frame... Only two more left to cull, and they will be hard to replace as they're both 1 1/8" long. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Nice teeth :Thumbs-up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Nice couple of teeth, but that green one is a KILLER. That color, and the "burnt yellow" color that comes out of the Suwanee are a couple of my favorites and both on my must have list. 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...
worthy 55 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Cool !! :Thumbs-up: It's my bone!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Those are in really excellent shape and I like they way you have them displayed. I also love the colors. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalodon1 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Awesome Ric's!!! I wish teeth like that could be found in Texas rivers, would never come out of the water! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Beautiful Rics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbstedman Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Those teeth are really great. They prompt what is actually a tooth id question. I am struggling to figure out how to distinguish C. angustidens from C. auriculatus. From what I've figured out, the rics have a narrower, more pointed crown. Mark Renz stresses that the serrations on the rics fade away as you reach the very top of the crown. I guess time period is also important. Bottomline, what are the keys elements any of you use to tell rics from angustidens? Besides fossils, I collect roadcuts, Stream beds, Winter beaches: Places of pilgrimage. Jasper Burns, Fossil Dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 this should be a good topic I have not done any research on this yet I had just assumed there was a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Owens Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I was lucky enough to add two small Auriculatus teeth to my collection yesterday. One is from the Flint River, and one is from the Suwannee River. The larger tooth measures 2". Nice teeth. Superb photos! You need to post them in the Gallery. -----"Your Texas Connection!"------ Fossils: Windows to the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Those teeth are really great. They prompt what is actually a tooth id question. I am struggling to figure out how to distinguish C. angustidens from C. auriculatus. From what I've figured out, the rics have a narrower, more pointed crown. Mark Renz stresses that the serrations on the rics fade away as you reach the very top of the crown. I guess time period is also important. Bottomline, what are the keys elements any of you use to tell rics from angustidens? Here's my 2 cents worth. The age is an obvious tell (auriculatus = eocene, angustidens = oligocene) but if that isn't known here's a couple of pics to help show some differences. The first pic L-R is what I'm calling Carcharocles aksuaticus. It has fine serrations over the top 2/3 of the crown and is the oldest of the 3. Middle tooth is a C.auriculatus. The serrations are quite coarse and irregular, specially on the cusps. The serrations fade out at the very tip. These 2 teeth are from Kazakhstan. The last one is a C.angustidens from Summerville SC. It has a fully serrated blade and all the serrations, including the cusps are fairly consistent in size. The second shot is a close up of the ric and the angustidens. The difference is pretty clear. Hope this helps 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...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted March 29, 2008 Author Share Posted March 29, 2008 Location is the primary identifier when differentiating the two. True rics will be found associated with archaeocete (zeuglodon) "whale" teeth. Many teeth from SC are angustidens misidentified as rics. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbstedman Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 Thanks for the input. In your experience, does the angustidens show up in the early Miocene as well? Besides fossils, I collect roadcuts, Stream beds, Winter beaches: Places of pilgrimage. Jasper Burns, Fossil Dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 Well, guys, I am a bit puzzled that you've boiled down the taxonomy issues here to a matter of distinguishing Carcharocles angustidens from C. auriculatus. Richard Hulbert (Ed.) in his THE FOSSIL VERTEBRATES OF FLORIDA (2001) sums up the situation with these megatooth sharks as well as anyone. He points to research that says that the Florida holotype specimen labeled as Carcharodon auriculatus is actually another species, C. subauriculatus. Depending on which authors you go with, C. subauriculatus is synonymous with C. angustidens OR it is a synomym for C. sokolowi. Hulbert favors C. sokolowi, following Case and Cappetta (1990). In either case, many (no one can say "all") of the Florida teeth are NOT C. auriculatus, but are either C. angustidens or C. sokolowi. Has there been some new taxonomy that straightens out this situation? If you accept the Hulbert-Case-Cappetta species name for Florida megatooth sharks, Carcharocles sokolowi, I believe that the trivial name is acceptably pronounced SO-KO-LAW-VAYE, recognizing someone named Sokolow or Sokolov. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted March 30, 2008 Author Share Posted March 30, 2008 Comparing Florida Auriculatus teeth with SC Angustidens, I just don't see the similarity. Smaller cusps, smaller more regular serrations, wider bourelets, etc. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbstedman Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 For what it's worth, I guess this may just stir the pot a bit more. Kent in Fossil Sharks of the Chesapeake Bay Region clearly distinguishes C. auriculatus from C. angustidens. He uses Northern Sharks' time period distinction, placing auriculatus in the Eocene, and says it appears that angustidens is from the middle Oligocene. To suggest some of the confusion that has applied (and may still apply), what he calls C. chubutensis (and places in the early to middle Miocene), he and others used to include among angustidens. He also distinguishes auriculatus from chubutensis in terms of their features -- chubs having smaller and more regular serrations, broader crowns, smaller cusplets, etc. I assume that means that angustidens has features that are intermediate between auriculatus and chubutensis. Cretaceous and Paleogene Fossils of North Carolina (North Carolina Fossil Club) states, "investigators have assigned these [angustidens and auriculatus] and other names to a variety of Eocene-Oligocene sharks having large cusped and serrate teeth, e.g., C. debrayi, C. disauris, C. sokolowi, C. toliapicus, and C. turgidus. Several species or one? This is exactly the kind of question which separates the splitters from the lumpers in paleontology." The authors are lumpers, deciding Eocene = auriculatus; Oligocene = C. angustidens. This is what keeps this interesting. Besides fossils, I collect roadcuts, Stream beds, Winter beaches: Places of pilgrimage. Jasper Burns, Fossil Dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) Hello. I know this post its speaking about USA sharks, just to coment atleast sokolowi from Dakhla has some clear diferences with USA chubus or angustidems, sokolowi from marroco has 2 lateral cusps at both sides depending wich area of the mouth they come from... also rooth its so different to chubus or angustidens... Check this pictures: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150741635725274.721290.613910273#!/photo.php?fbid=10150741636660274&set=a.10150741635725274.721290.613910273&type=1&theater Almost if you check quitelly the rooth of marrocan sokolowi, i think its so clear it`s otodus obliquus evolutios, its the same tooth just with serrated edges, just now i have at home around 20 sokolowi, tomorrow ill post a big album so you can check it carefully... Edited August 8, 2011 by Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonewuff Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I'm glad you guys brought up the C. sokolowi. For years I wondered what teeth Point A Dam was producing. My research showed C. Sokalowi was found at the Vulcan mine in W. Florida which is Oligocene in age. The Point A Dam site is Eocene in age. It has produced some of the best C. Sokalowis I have ever seen. Does anyone have other sites these have been found at in the USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I'm glad you guys brought up the C. sokolowi. For years I wondered what teeth Point A Dam was producing. My research showed C. Sokalowi was found at the Vulcan mine in W. Florida which is Oligocene in age. The Point A Dam site is Eocene in age. It has produced some of the best C. Sokalowis I have ever seen. Does anyone have other sites these have been found at in the USA? How about showing us your C. sokolowi teeth from Point A Dam. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
florida_fossils Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Since I lack the gray matter to wax the science of the aforementioned with you, I can only say, wow-wee. I can only imagine what your personal collection would look like, given the caliber of pieces you sell. I bet you could charge the cable guy admission next time. I would love to see more please. Simplicity is not the goal. It is the by-product of a good idea and modest expectations. Paul Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilselachian Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 How about showing us your C. sokolowi teeth from Point A Dam. Here are a few. 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