Chilean fossils

[Notidanodon]

Hi guys, I don’t really know the Chilean fauna so any help would be appreciated.

 

1. Label is outdated so it should read Bahia inglesa fm, rather than huarra, however, I didn’t know the scientific name of a dogfish from here.

 

  

 

 

 

2. some sand tiger shark? Not sure of species or even genus

 

 

 

 

3. could be another sand tiger but could be a small hastalis?

 

 

 

 

 4. Carcharhinus Priscus?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hemipristis]

The first couple, labeled "dog fish" resemble a fish tooth, family Labridae, or wrasses.  In NA & Europe, "dogfish" is a nickname for a small shark, genus Squalus.  It is certainly not a Squalus tooth.  However, the common name "dog fish" may be something different in Chile, I don't know.

 

Teeth 2 & 3 do resemble C. hastalis teeth, and I"d have certainly considered that a possibility if it weren't for size.  I guess 'sand tiger' isn't a bad guess.

 

Regarding the 4 teeth ID'd C. priscus, as the formation is considered late Miocene to early Pliocene, I would think they could be ID'd to an extant genus, or genera. I did some digging in my reference library on the formation.  Four Carcharhinus species were noted in the references that I have.  C. galapagensis, C. obscures, C. brachyurus, and C. albimarginatus.  The teeth are very similar, and don't resemble the first two, which are also much larger when adults (and the odds of these four being all juvenile teeth are unlikely).  The blade is a bit wide for C. brachyurus, but it could be.  But when I opened up a photo of an extant C. albimarginatus dentition (below), I think I found the winner.  What do you think?

*Image courtesy of sharkimages.com

 

 

[Notidanodon]

2 hours ago, hemipristis said:

The first couple, labeled "dog fish" resemble a fish tooth, family Labridae, or wrasses.  In NA & Europe, "dogfish" is a nickname for a small shark, genus Squalus.  It is certainly not a Squalus tooth.  However, the common name "dog fish" may be something different in Chile, I don't know.

 

Teeth 2 & 3 do resemble C. hastalis teeth, and I"d have certainly considered that a possibility if it weren't for size.  I guess 'sand tiger' isn't a bad guess.

 

Regarding the 4 teeth ID'd C. priscus, as the formation is considered late Miocene to early Pliocene, I would think they could be ID'd to an extant genus, or genera. I did some digging in my reference library on the formation.  Four Carcharhinus species were noted in the references that I have.  C. galapagensis, C. obscures, C. brachyurus, and C. albimarginatus.  The teeth are very similar, and don't resemble the first two, which are also much larger when adults (and the odds of these four being all juvenile teeth are unlikely).  The blade is a bit wide for C. brachyurus, but it could be.  But when I opened up a photo of an extant C. albimarginatus dentition (below), I think I found the winner.  What do you think?

*Image courtesy of sharkimages.com

 

 

Thanks so much for your help, I was a bit stumped by the dog fish label as well, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it. The sand tiger shark teeth I agree look like hastalis but as you said the size indicates against this, does anyone know the minimum sizes of not juvenile hastalis teeth? They could be juvenile but I think that’s unlikely, also you do seem to have found a winner on the Carcharhinus teeth! No mean feat! Thanks once again for your help