Calvert Cliff Dweller Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Hi Folks, I recently acquired a Sharkstooth from Charles County Maryland. I was told it was found North of the 301 bridge on the Potomac River. Anyway this area of Maryland I rarely collect so I picked up this 2.05” tooth on a trade. Just looking to confirm the Identification on this beauty of a tooth. Thanks Calvert Cliff Dweller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert Cliff Dweller Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 Reverse pic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Calvert Cliff Dweller said: Reverse pic Say, she's kinda cute, single? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert Cliff Dweller Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 Yeah she’s my first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 You've been in the Aquia formation, collecting Paleocene Otodus obliquus. 2 "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...
Darktooth Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 With Serrations! I know its possible but rare. Are you sure that its an Otodus @Auspex? 1 I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Its probably early eocene, since its serrated, in the Nanjemoy Formation. Carcharocles possibly C. aksuaticus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazfossilator Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Beautiful tooth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Troodon said: Its probably early eocene, since its serrated, in the Nanjemoy Formation. Carcharocles possibly C. aksuaticus Yes, this ^ There's a couple hundred yard long stretch where these later Nanjemoy beds are exposed. Very. Cool. Tooth. 1 "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...
Calvert Cliff Dweller Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 My impression when I first saw it that I was looking at a Otodus Auriculatus or aka Transitional Otodus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Here's the scoop, from the Master: LINK "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...
Calvert Cliff Dweller Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 Thanks Auspex for the very informative link and all the help from TFF for getting answers to my questions regarding this rare tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 I agree with auriculatus, nice anterior one too! “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said: I agree with auriculatus, nice anterior one too! It is a transitional Otodus; read the link. "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...
sixgill pete Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Great tooth. I believe @Auspex and @Troodon have the ID nailed. Bulldozers and dirt Bulldozers and dirt behind the trailer, my desert Them red clay piles are heaven on earth I get my rocks off, bulldozers and dirt Patterson Hood; Drive-By Truckers May 2016 May 2012 Aug 2013, May 2016, Apr 2020 Oct 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SailingAlongToo Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 @MarcoSr Don't know much about history Don't know much biology Don't know much about science books......... Sam Cooke - (What A) Wonderful World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Otodus aksuaticus , like my avatar picture at the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 40 minutes ago, Auspex said: It is a transitional Otodus; read the link. In my opinion the same thing. I’ll explain myself: Otodus aksauticus is different from both O. Obliquus and O. auriculatus because of the subtle shape and continuousness differences of the serrations, this is such a minute difference I am skeptical they warrant a different species. It would be like saying that a human skull with thicker enamel than usual is a different species. It’s a lumper/splitter debate, but in my book if it has serrations it’s a auriculatus (though I may put O. auriculatus aksauticus) and if it does not, it’s an obliquus. So yes, transitional is right, but auriculatus is not wrong. 1 “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert Cliff Dweller Posted April 26, 2018 Author Share Posted April 26, 2018 Well would anybody put any monetary value to this Otodus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, Calvert Cliff Dweller said: Well would anybody put any monetary value to this Otodus? I am sure someone would, but the Fossil Forum does not do appraisals. 1 Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 One of the dealers at the show we just had locally had one of these. I was tempted, but he wanted such a ridiculously high price on it and wouldn't budge. So I walked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert Cliff Dweller Posted April 26, 2018 Author Share Posted April 26, 2018 Gotcha I forgot TFF rules momentarily anyway I don’t plan on letting it go unless somebody wants it REAL bad. Thanks for everyone’s help on IDing this rare gem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 2 hours ago, WhodamanHD said: In my opinion the same thing. I’ll explain myself: Otodus aksauticus is different from both O. Obliquus and O. auriculatus because of the subtle shape and continuousness differences of the serrations, this is such a minute difference I am skeptical they warrant a different species. It would be like saying that a human skull with thicker enamel than usual is a different species. It’s a lumper/splitter debate, but in my book if it has serrations it’s a auriculatus (though I may put O. auriculatus aksauticus) and if it does not, it’s an obliquus. So yes, transitional is right, but auriculatus is not wrong. I'm curious as to how many specimens in this lineage you've examined to base your statement on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 9 hours ago, Gizmo said: Otodus aksuaticus , like my avatar picture at the left. Is that name valid now for specimens from outside of Africa? "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...
Auspex Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 9 hours ago, WhodamanHD said: In my opinion the same thing.... So, are you claiming by the same logic that C. auriculatus (assigned a different genus) is also 'the same'? 10 hours ago, WhodamanHD said: I agree with auriculatus, nice anterior one too! "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...
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