Please help ID these Megatoothed shark teeth

[Gareth_]

Hey all

I came across these 3 shark teeth today and I believe they're all in the Odontidae family. Even though they all have cusplets, the size of these teeth rule out juvenile O. megalodon teeth so they must belong to a shark earlier than O. megalodon and the question I have is, what species? 

I can have a couple of guesses after looking at a lot of different photos of O. angustidens, O. chubutensis, O. auriculatus (I'm doubting it's O. sokolovi) teeth though google, through dealers etc but I'm also a little confused because some I'd think are one species and they're labeled as another.

I do think I've come across something a little special in all 3 of these teeth though, even though their condition is a little rough.

Any help pinning down a species would be awesome! Also, are they rare (as far as fossil shark teeth go)? They aren't something I've ever come across for sale anywhere in my country, let alone seen in the flesh but I did recognise their family.

Sorry about the quantity of pictures, I'd rather be too thorough to get all the detail possible

The last pics is a shark tooth family photo, (I should have added my Palaeocarcharodon teeth) just for the fun of it! 

 

  

  

 

[sixgill pete]

Do you have any information as to where these teeth were found? Geologic age? This is vital to getting an accurate I.D. with this lineage. Just looking at the first two pictures, my impression is, left to right. C. auriculatus (or O. depending on what / who you follow) C. angustidens and then either C. chubutensis or megalodon. Some early / juvenile megs were cusped so dont rule out that species. But without knowing where they were found and a geologic age, you may never to an accurate I.D. 

Mega tooth shark teeth are actually rather common at some locations. Made special mainly due to their size.

[Troodon]

To follow up on sixgill pete post here is a nice illustration of these teeth through time that was done by @Boesse Gives you some insight what to look for but the key factor is geologic age. 

 

 

[Gareth_]

@sixgill pete Unfortunately I don't, I did ring the place to try and get more info today but I was talking to people in the business that don't deal with the fossil side so I was advised to send an email so the right person reads it. If I get any good info from that I will update this thread.

Typically with shops like this, they're light on details or just totally incorrect. All 3 teeth were labeled "Megladon" haha. Yes, spelled incorrectly too. So it's either leave some really cool shark tooth fossils on the shelf or grab them and be light on details. You know what option I chose! 

Thank you and @Troodon for your input, that is a really handy illustration! 

[Boesse]

Those look like they're all Carcharocles angustidens, but they can be confused with C. auriculatus quite easily. Again, these are chronospecies, so the geologic age is really needed.

 

In a recent paper we highlighted that C. "sokolowi" has never been diagnosed or defined well and is best considered a junior synonym of C. auriculatus:

 

https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2021/3372-oligocene-shark-nursery

[siteseer]

To me the smaller lateral cusplets relative to the size of the crown indicate C. angustidens.  I've seen teeth like those three from the late Oligocene Chandler Bridge Formation.  The third tooth is so broad at the base that I think that could be from a younger layer - may be early Miocene in age - but I saw a tooth like that from the Chandler Bridge as well.  It was just a rare form from there.  Sometimes, collectors have found Carcharocles teeth with no cusplets in the Chandler Bridge.  I'm not saying that's where they're from but I would guess that they're late Oligocene teeth as a general possible age.

[Gareth_]

@Boesse @siteseer Thank you! This forum is full of such amazing knowledge AND people willing to share it