Gabe Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Hi guys, I found this specimen on megalodonsharkteeth.com : http://www.megalodonsharkteeth.com/index.php?generallayout=shop&cat=_Megalodon_Chile The total width of this chilean specimen is reported 6,75 inches. Of course, it has been eroded and separated, but I guess the original width may not have been greatly reduced. It seems that the tooth width is more revelant for estimate the size of the jaws and the overall body length among lamniforms sharks than slant height. If this is true, this is another indication that C.megalodon could have reached/exceeded 70 feet long. What do you think about ? Also, I can't determine which position tooth is it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 There is just no way to know for sure how long a C. megalodon was by extrapolating from the teeth; educated guesstimates, sure, but it seems that every time I hear one repeated, it has gotten bigger...<such is the way with fish stories> "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...
Terry Dactyll Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Its a shame they stopped exporting these teeth for collectors...I remember ebay every week had a dozen or so for a while...I think they look fabulous in matrix... I wonder if there were any ' doubles' ever found still attached to matrix?.... Imagine 2 6 inchers on a big slab of seabed... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 Well, there is a skeleton of the beast which will be reveled on these days... But awaiting this, there are some interesting work done based on the teeth. I think this is an upper anterior, but so wide, using Jeremiah regression, the owner may have been a tad greater than 70 feet long... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Why are they so shiny? Those teeth look really high gloss to me. Is it natural for them to have that kind of gloss? RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm not sure what they coat them in... Or are they just natural and polished?... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 ...The total width of this chilean specimen is reported 6,75 inches. Of course, it has been eroded and separated, but I guess the original width may not have been greatly reduced....Also, I can't determine which position tooth is it ?... Are you referring to the top picture in the link? If so, I question whether any valid conclusions as to the size of this shark are even possible: these are two massively pathological teeth! "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...
Gabe Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Are you referring to the top picture in the link? If so, I question whether any valid conclusions as to the size of this shark are even possible: these are two massively pathological teeth! Well, I contacted the owner of the website and he confirmed me it was not a pathologic, only a particulary wide upper anterior, broken in half, found in that shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Well, I contacted the owner of the website and he confirmed me it was not a pathologic, only a particulary wide upper anterior, broken in half, found in that shape. This one? It appears to have two tips! "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...
Gabe Posted October 13, 2012 Author Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) This one? It appears to have two tips! The angle of the picture is misleading, this is apparently a broken crown and a bit twisted by the fossilization pressures, but not a pathologic, it is not listed as such in the website. Here is his statement : The tooth is broken in half...it was found this way in matrix. It is not pathological but it is very wide. Some of the width is due to the space in between the tooth but if you just measure from root corner to the end of the tooth on both sides....the width is still naturally over six inches...not counting the small amount of matrix in between. Edited October 13, 2012 by Gabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 You dont have to mention Chile Megs to many times before I get my photo out... Its the one in the centre on matrix ... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 You dont have to mention Chile Megs to many times before I get my photo out... Its the one in the centre on matrix ... wow very nice. Yours are not as shiny as those in the link (I like the look of yours better), am I assume then that they polish their teeth or put something on them? I think the natural sheen that your teeth have looks better myself. RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 The angle of the picture is misleading, this is apparently a broken crown and a bit twisted by the fossilization pressures, but not a pathologic, it is not listed as such in the website. Here is his statement : The tooth is broken in half...it was found this way in matrix. It is not pathological but it is very wide. Some of the width is due to the space in between the tooth but if you just measure from root corner to the end of the tooth on both sides....the width is still naturally over six inches...not counting the small amount of matrix in between. I remain skeptical, for I can discern no way to fit these two 'halves' together at the tip(s) short of folding it backwards at a rather extreme angle, in which event the root 'halves' cannot be mated. Teeth from that formation are simply not distorted by geologic forces; broken, yes, but not bent and warped. "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...
Terry Dactyll Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 wow very nice. Yours are not as shiny as those in the link (I like the look of yours better), am I assume then that they polish their teeth or put something on them? I think the natural sheen that your teeth have looks better myself. Robert... Thanks... I wish I could of gone to Chile and found one, now wouldnt that be something... I wonder if the high glossy sheen on the teeth could be down to professional lighting for the photo's? Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 I remain skeptical, for I can discern no way to fit these two 'halves' together at the tip(s) short of folding it backwards at a rather extreme angle, in which event the root 'halves' cannot be mated. Teeth from that formation are simply not distorted by geologic forces; broken, yes, but not bent and warped. The only way to be certain would be to examine properly the specimen but I'm quite confident regarding the owner indication. Added that if it was a pathological, it would be obvious and described as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raistlin Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) Robert... Thanks... I wish I could of gone to Chile and found one, now wouldnt that be something... I wonder if the high glossy sheen on the teeth could be down to professional lighting for the photo's? Good point and that might be. I thought maybe they did something to make them shine lol. Edited October 14, 2012 by Raistlin RobertSoutheast, MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jocky Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Good point and that might be. I thought maybe they did something to make them shine lol. The teeth I find in the desert sometimes look like they just fell out of the sharks mouth: those 2 are as they came out of the sand. I have had a look for information about legal meg hunting in Chile. Can anyone point me at some definitive information as I have seen some contradictions and the Atacama Desert looks like a place I would love to visit. CHEERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Good point and that might be. I thought maybe they did something to make them shine lol. They probably do that to ... to justify the money ;o) Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 Hello there, I've found that pic on the web, and I wonder if it is authentic ? At the first look, it looks too big to be real but the source is elasmo.com, which is a quite serious, though I cannot found the original page. And as it is in the hand of the lady, maybe it looks bigger at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm pretty sure that's a photoshopped joke. "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...
cowsharks Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm pretty sure that's a photoshopped joke. It was an April fools joke at the time. Jim B. later replaced the giant tooth with the original. Daryl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 It was an April fools joke at the time. Jim B. later replaced the giant tooth with the original. Daryl. I remember that one; you hovered your mouse over the photo and it reverted to an image of a 5" meg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowsharks Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I remember that one; you hovered your mouse over the photo and it reverted to an image of a 5" meg. Yes, that was it - excellent memory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I would have to agree with Auspex on this one. Even allowing for the photographic angle, the matrix specimen appears to include two near-half specimens locked close together. One cutting edge seems longer than it should be if the other "half" is supposed to fit onto it. The only way to be certain would be to examine properly the specimen but I'm quite confident regarding the owner indication. Added that if it was a pathological, it would be obvious and described as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeloiVarden Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I would have to agree with Auspex on this one. Even allowing for the photographic angle, the matrix specimen appears to include two near-half specimens locked close together. One cutting edge seems longer than it should be if the other "half" is supposed to fit onto it.Having taken pictures of thousands of megs in macro mode on my camera, I do believe these halves belong to each other, but both halves are rotated inward in the matrix and seperated. The left tooth appears to be a little further from the camera and thus appears to be shorter. I bet a caliper measurment along the broken side of each half would reveal very close lengths. 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