Shark tooth from Bone Valley

[Max-fossils]

Hi all,

 

I bought this nice small shark tooth at a market in Middelburg, Netherlands.

It's from the Bone Valley, FL, USA. From (I think) the Peace River Formation, Miocene, 9 mya. 

 

Anyone know what species it could be? If more pictures are needed let me know!

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Max

 

[Max-fossils]

[Harry Pristis]

 

This appears to be a river tooth, rather than a mine tooth.  The vast majority of Peace River teeth are Early Pliocene.  For convenience, I often refer to the age as "Mio-Pliocene."  If the tooth is truly from the Peace River, I might first look at "sand tiger." 

 

Even though this is somewhat out of date already, here is a representative geological column:

[Max-fossils]

20 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

 

This appears to be a river tooth, rather than a mine tooth.  The vast majority of Peace River teeth are Early Pliocene.  For convenience, I often refer to the age as "Mio-Pliocene."  If the tooth is truly from the Peace River, I might first look at "sand tiger." 

 

Even though this is somewhat out of date already, here is a representative geological column:

 

 

Thanks Harry for your help!

I also thought that the colors were more Peace-River-like, but when I asked the stand owners they said it was Bone Valley and not Peace River. Then again they didn't collect the thing themselves, they got it from someone else. And as there are Bone Valley sediments in the Peace, it is possible that the original finder thought he was in Bone Valley sediments in the Peace, and that therefore there was a misunderstanding. 

 

"Sand tiger" doesn't really help though, because the name seems to refer to many species of different genera. so trying to find a good match is tricky... And that is why I come here to request the help of my most knowledgeable TFF friends, because they know so much more about shark teeth (or any kinds of fossils that is) than anyone else  

[Harry Pristis]

1 hour ago, Max-fossils said:

Thanks Harry for your help!

I also thought that the colors were more Peace-River-like, but when I asked the stand owners they said it was Bone Valley and not Peace River. Then again they didn't collect the thing themselves, they got it from someone else. And as there are Bone Valley sediments in the Peace, it is possible that the original finder thought he was in Bone Valley sediments in the Peace, and that therefore there was a misunderstanding. 

 

"Sand tiger" doesn't really help though, because the name seems to refer to many species of different genera. so trying to find a good match is tricky... And that is why I come here to request the help of my most knowledgeable TFF friends, because they know so much more about shark teeth (or any kinds of fossils that is) than anyone else  

 

The tooth collector WAS collecting in Bone Valley sediments in the Peace River.  The vast majority of marine fossils from the river are from the Upper Bone Valley Member, not the Lower BV Member.

 

Any identification you get for your fossils on TFF should be considered  an "opinion."  Error is always possible, even with a concensus of opinions.  If it is YOUR fossil, you have the primary responsibility for the research to identify it.  What I prefer to do is to point out a likely research direction, in this casee "sand tiger shark" (Carcharias [Odontaspis] taurus).  It's your responsibility to research the possibilities, and decide on an identification.  That research will help transform YOU into a knowledgeable TFF friend to someone in the future.

 

 

[Shellseeker]

49 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said:

 

The tooth collector WAS collecting in Bone Valley sediments in the Peace River.  The vast majority of marine fossils from the river are from the Upper Bone Valley Member, not the Lower BV Member.

 

Any identification you get for your fossils on TFF should be considered  an "opinion."  Error is always possible, even with a concensus of opinions.  If it is YOUR fossil, you have the primary responsibility for the research to identify it.  What I prefer to do is to point out a likely research direction, in this casee "sand tiger shark" (Carcharias [Odontaspis] taurus).  It's your responsibility to research the possibilities, and decide on an identification.  That research will help transform YOU into a knowledgeable TFF friend to someone in the future.

 

 

I am with Harry,  my IDs are definitely more opinion than expertise. 

I am thinking 3 possibilities depending on what is referred to as "Bone Valley"... Many think it is teeth and fossils from the phosphate mines.  Yours is not one of those,, A 2nd discussion could be river teeth and yours could be one of those, but I think it was more likely a creek tooth from the BV watershed...

 

The closest similar tooth would be Sand Tiger, but this is like no sand tiger that I have ever seen .. This is a BV sand tiger-- land find, NOT in a phosphate mine.  It is no where near as robust as your tooth..

I have never seen a tooth as robust as yours come out of Bone valley...

[Max-fossils]

@Harry Pristis

Ok thanks! And I didn't know that Carcharius taurus and Odontaspis taurus referred to the same species, that actually makes much more sense now. 

And you do make a good point about opinion and errors. You're totally right, even if many people have a similar opinion it may still be wrong in the end. 

And it is true that doing research on my own does help to bring more knowledge to me. But in order to do that research I do first need a starting point, and that is why I ask people here on TFF. And whenever someone gives me an ID, if it seems plausible, I do always look a bit around to see if that ID does match. 

 

 @Shellseeker

Thanks for the ID help! But there are, set aside the robustness of the tooth (mine might be wider, but it's actually rather thin), three more notable differences between your tooth and mine:

1) The crown on mine points towards the side, and is a bit curved, while your crown is pretty much straight. That may simply have to do with the position of the tooth in the jaw, but from what Iearned it can also sometimes separate species apart.

2) your root is really shaped like a V. My root is much more straight, with only a slight curve. That is something quite critical.

3) the cusps of my tooth are placed more or less on the edge of the root, while your cusps are much closer to the crown. Also, my cusps are much wider. Though my knowledge of shark teeth is limited, this again is one of the things that I have learned are species-defining. 

[Shellseeker]

Max, I think you did not get the flavor of what I was trying to impart.  I do not think your tooth is Carcharius taurus . I think because of the cusps and general similarity,  the closest thing in SW Florida to your tooth is Carcharius taurus .

Your tooth is exceedingly rare, almost to the point of non existence.  I have never seen anything that resembles it over my involvement with fossil hunting and the fossil community over the last 10 years.

 

[siteseer]

1 hour ago, Shellseeker said:

Max, I think you did not get the flavor of what I was trying to impart.  I do not think your tooth is Carcharius taurus . I think because of the cusps and general similarity,  the closest thing in SW Florida to your tooth is Carcharius taurus .

Your tooth is exceedingly rare, almost to the point of non existence.  I have never seen anything that resembles it over my involvement with fossil hunting and the fossil community over the last 10 years.

 

 

Hi Jack,

 

I was looking at this tooth this morning and had the same reaction - can't remember when I've seen a Bone Valley tooth like this whether from the mines or the Peace River or other locality.  At Tucson in the 90's there were a few dealers who brought a lot of Bone Valley shark teeth and in the early 2000's I had a chance to collect in a couple of mines just before access for collectors was shut down.  I looked through my stuff and a couple of publications and still couldn't find a good match (still one box to sort through).  I looked through a pub on Oligocene teeth from Europe and thought C. cuspidata was the closest even though the age wasn't in the range.   It does look like a river tooth with the worn root - worn to the point that the nutrient groove is gone assuming it's a sand tiger.  

 

I think it could be a Carcharias cuspidata lateral but it would be a bit late for the species if the age range is Late Miocene-Early Pliocene.  The lateral cusplets are rather large but that could be just a variation and sand tigers can show some variation.  It's an oddball tooth.  That's for sure.

 

Jess

 

 

[Harry Pristis]

It's not a "typical" C. taurus, whatever that is.  Carcharias cuspidata fits the 9 Ma. label; but, then the BV location becomes dubious.  I guess what Max has to do is decide among three (at least) options:

 

1.  The seller's information is totally unreliable.

2.  The tooth is an upper (Jack's is a lower) anomalous Carcharias taurus

from the Peace River drainage (Bone Valley) from about 5 Ma.

3.  The tooth is an upper Carcharias cuspidata out of the Peace River drainage

from about 9 Ma. -- as Jack says, rare to the point of non-existence. 

4.  ???

 

 

5 hours ago, siteseer said:

 

Hi Jack,

 

I was looking at this tooth this morning and had the same reaction - can't remember when I've seen a Bone Valley tooth like this whether from the mines or the Peace River or other locality.  At Tucson in the 90's there were a few dealers who brought a lot of Bone Valley shark teeth and in the early 2000's I had a chance to collect in a couple of mines just before access for collectors was shut down.  I looked through my stuff and a couple of publications and still couldn't find a good match (still one box to sort through).  I looked through a pub on Oligocene teeth from Europe and thought C. cuspidata was the closest even though the age wasn't in the range.   It does look like a river tooth with the worn root - worn to the point that the nutrient groove is gone assuming it's a sand tiger.  

 

I think it could be a Carcharias cuspidata lateral but it would be a bit late for the species if the age range is Late Miocene-Early Pliocene.  The lateral cusplets are rather large but that could be just a variation and sand tigers can show some variation.  It's an oddball tooth.  That's for sure.

 

Jess

 

 

 

[Max-fossils]

21 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

Max, I think you did not get the flavor of what I was trying to impart.  I do not think your tooth is Carcharius taurus . I think because of the cusps and general similarity,  the closest thing in SW Florida to your tooth is Carcharius taurus .

Your tooth is exceedingly rare, almost to the point of non existence.  I have never seen anything that resembles it over my involvement with fossil hunting and the fossil community over the last 10 years.

 

Oh okay, that is indeed not what I understood. My bad, sorry for the misunderstanding. 

 

 

 

 

@Shellseeker @Harry Pristis @siteseer well thanks all for your help! Seems like this shark tooth is really a mysterious one...  

I came across this website. Although most teeth are very different, The C. cuspidata #469 (page 1) and #453 (page 3) have somewhat similar cusps... But the similarities are still rather slim. 

https://www.mineralienatlas.de/lexikon/index.php/MediaDataShow#Medientabelle100

 

I can't really believe that I have bought an "exceedingly rare, nearly to the point of non-existence" tooth for just 1 euro at a small fossil stand in a market... Granted, the sellers know nothing about species, but it would still be very weird. Next time that I am in Middelburg, hopefully the stand will be there again and I will question the provenance once more. Maybe they confused this with another tooth (there were some typical Bone Valley teeth in the mix of teeth, with the recognizable white root and orange/dark blue enamel). If they are able to give me a correction on the location, maybe that will clear up the questions we have?

[hemipristis]

genus Carcharias.  w/striations, C. Taurus.  w/o could be C. cuspidate or Carcharias sp.

[hemipristis]

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 7:56 AM, Harry Pristis said:

It's not a "typical" C. taurus, whatever that is.  Carcharias cuspidata fits the 9 Ma. label; but, then the BV location becomes dubious.  I guess what Max has to do is decide among three (at least) options:

 

1.  The seller's information is totally unreliable.

2.  The tooth is an upper (Jack's is a lower) anomalous Carcharias taurus

from the Peace River drainage (Bone Valley) from about 5 Ma.

3.  The tooth is an upper Carcharias cuspidata out of the Peace River drainage

from about 9 Ma. -- as Jack says, rare to the point of non-existence. 

4.  ???

 

 

 

OOPS. just saw this. 

 

Great minds

[D.N.FossilmanLithuania]

Not sand tiger I would think, although could be specific species with flatter crown but in my opinion this appears to be from Lamniformes.

 

[sixgill pete]

5 hours ago, D.N.FossilmanLithuania said:

Not sand tiger I would think, although could be specific species with flatter crown but in my opinion this appears to be from Lamniformes.

 

I would agree that this is not a sand tiger. I agree it is a  Lamniforme, as are sand tigers. Which makes me think the seller did not have the correct info on this tooth. I think it is older than what is found in the Peace River. Eocene or even possibly Cretaceous. Just my 2 cents worth.