Iskandar Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I was confused with my shark tooth found on the saltwater beach of Sarawak. My shark tooh is from a freshwater Glyphis glyphis, the Speartooth shark. The shark is still extant. Most of the local shark found here not produce this large tooth like I found. Some of the tooth still attached to sandstone matrix but I've cleaned its and break some root. I have measure the length from roots to tips of the tooth; 28mm diagonally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 My opinion on these teeth is that they are not recent; they appear to be quite mineralized, and while everything eventually goes downstream, i think it took a long time for these to make the journey. "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...
tracer Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 actually, my guess would be that they didn't go downstream, but perhaps what was once a freshwater area is now a beach. seas were a lot lower and further out at various times in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iskandar Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 Is these teeth qualified as fossil too even the species still extant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Were they mine, I would happily call them fossils. The bone of the root looks to be well mineralized, and the coloration of the enamel didn't happen overnight. The fact that some matrix was still adhering is a very good indication of antiquity. "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...
Gatorman Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 They do appear to be fossil but for some reason I cannot find any sources for "fossil" Glyphis teeth I can only find modern ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) Is these teeth qualified as fossil too even the species still extant? Yes many living creatures have been around for quite a long time. Being extant does not automatically disqualify a bone or tooth or anything as being a fossil. Edited October 5, 2009 by Smilodon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicranurus Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Were they mine, I would happily call them fossils. The bone of the root looks to be well mineralized, and the coloration of the enamel didn't happen overnight. The fact that some matrix was still adhering is a very good indication of antiquity. I agreed. They are not recent. "It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living." -Sir David Attenborough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iskandar Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share Posted October 6, 2009 So if the expert says it is fossil, I'm going to find more in future... Thanks all guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I was confused with my shark tooth found on the saltwater beach of Sarawak. My shark tooh is from a freshwater Glyphis glyphis, the Speartooth shark. The shark is still extant. Most of the local shark found here not produce this large tooth like I found. Some of the tooth still attached to sandstone matrix but I've cleaned its and break some root. I have measure the length from roots to tips of the tooth; 28mm diagonally. I see these teeth are now in more than one thread. Yes, I brought up that these are larger than Glyphis teeth I have seen (the largest one is about one-third larger). It is possible that this shark (or an ancestral species) was larger in the past and lived in saltwater with some descendants moving into brackish and then freshwater. It might have evolved to a smaller form in response to its environment but it still might be capable of living in saltwater. The fossil record of Glyphis goes back to the Pliocene at least. There must be a bed offshore where wave action is eroding it and washing fossils onto the beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleoc Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I see these teeth are now in more than one thread. Yes, I brought up that these are larger than Glyphis teeth I have seen (the largest one is about one-third larger). It is possible that this shark (or an ancestral species) was larger in the past and lived in saltwater with some descendants moving into brackish and then freshwater. It might have evolved to a smaller form in response to its environment but it still might be capable of living in saltwater. The fossil record of Glyphis goes back to the Pliocene at least. There must be a bed offshore where wave action is eroding it and washing fossils onto the beach. Definitely fossils. From what is a very rare shark. However, it is a big shark, even now. I have seen a Glyphis glyphis jaw that was huge. Unlike Carcharhinus species (like a bull shark) in which the neighboring teeth overlap, Glyphis teeth sit next to each other in the jaw and don't overlap thus with big teeth, it has a big jaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts