Whiskey Bridge Teeth

[Dantheman135]

I recently had a successful trip to the Stone City Bluff near Bryan, Texas (Middle Eocene, Marine). I finally found my first vertebrate material: several shark teeth, fish teeth, ray plates, and otoliths! All these fossils were found in a 24" x 8" x 3" layer near the top of the bed. I've been trying to identify them this evening and have a few questions/would like confirmations on the fossils I've identified so far. 

 

 

Here are the 4 shark teeth I found. All are very worn and were found in a storm deposit. The rightmost tooth I'm fairly confident is Galeocerdo eaglesomi, while the first three are possibly highly-worn Striatolamia macrota. It is hard to tell due to the teeth's condition.

 

 

In the field, I orginally though these two were broken shark teeth, but once I compared to some references I believe they are Scomberomorus sp. I've found similar teeth from the same formation refered to as Barracuda teeth, but I think that is a whole different family of fish.

 

 

These two are ray plates, Myliobatis sp., but I am unsure if it is possible to tell them apart from Rhinoptera in this condition.

 

Finally, I have another fish tooth, either Amia sp. (bowfin) or Lepisosteus sp. (gar). I am leaning towards Lepisosteus due to the shape and width. Species from either genus are brackish/freshwater fish so I imagine the tooth would have to wash into the site? Very cool!

 

I am still working through the fish otoliths, and I will add them to this post once I have reached my inital ID's. Thank you everyone for your help! 

[jikohr]

Ids look good to me.

Nice haul!

[Othniel C. Marsh]

From the first image to the last, from left to right:

 

- An otodontid. Either Otodus obliquus or a species of Cretalamna.
- Jaekelotodus robustus
- An odontaspidid. Too worn to identify down to a genus or species level with much confidence, but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say Carcharias.

- Definitely Galeocerdo, though I'd lean more towards G. aduncus than G. eaglesomei, but again it's too worn to tell.

- Certainly scombrinid. Given the fact that the dentition of Scomberomorus is very similar to that of several other scombrinid genera to the point of being indistinguishable, I'd be inclined to identify these as Scombrinid indet.

- I don't know how to identify batoid tooth plates, unfortunately
- Certainly a "fish", but beyond that I have no clue

Edited 17 hours ago by Othniel C. Marsh

[jikohr]

25 minutes ago, Othniel C. Marsh said:

 

 

- An otodontid. Either Otodus obliquus or a species of Cretalamna.

Whiskey bridge is dated at 42 million years old which is too late for those two. I've heard rumors of Carcharocles auriculatus but they are insanely rare if true, also no signs on the tooth of a bourlette. Striatolamia macrota is in my experience the most common big tooth you find there and can have large cusps on it's lateral teeth.

[Thomas.Dodson]

Pictures of the roots straight on and carinae will be necessary to identify the supposed scombrids. The symmetry of the root base, overall thickness, and extent of the carinae are all necessary to separate Sphyraena, Palaeocybium, and Scomberomorus.

[Othniel C. Marsh]

3 hours ago, jikohr said:

Whiskey bridge is dated at 42 million years old which is too late for those two. I've heard rumors of Carcharocles auriculatus but they are insanely rare if true, also no signs on the tooth of a bourlette. Striatolamia macrota is in my experience the most common big tooth you find there and can have large cusps on it's lateral teeth.

 

Agreed. My thinking was the tooth was too worn to make out the bourlette in the photo, but it does look like a particularly broad-cusped lateral S. macrota tooth.

[Dantheman135]

1 hour ago, Thomas.Dodson said:

Pictures of the roots straight on and carinae will be necessary to identify the supposed scombrids. The symmetry of the root base, overall thickness, and extent of the carinae are all necessary to separate Sphyraena, Palaeocybium, and Scomberomorus.

When I get the chance this evening, I will upload better photos of the scombrid teeth. It may be impossible to get a better ID, as the teeth are very worn. My camera isn’t the best so I’ll see what I can do.

 

Thank you @Othniel C. Marsh and @jikohr for help! I’m excited to get back out there and find some better teeth.

[jikohr]

34 minutes ago, Dantheman135 said:

When I get the chance this evening, I will upload better photos of the scombrid teeth. It may be impossible to get a better ID, as the teeth are very worn. My camera isn’t the best so I’ll see what I can do.

 

Thank you @Othniel C. Marsh and @jikohr for help! I’m excited to get back out there and find some better teeth.

Anytime.

 

By the way, have you poked around the siderite? There's a layer of that stuff in the middle of the wall. Whenever I would go I would look for high concentrations of shells right on top of that layer and would usually find lots of teeth in them.

[Dantheman135]

3 hours ago, jikohr said:

Anytime.

 

By the way, have you poked around the siderite? There's a layer of that stuff in the middle of the wall. Whenever I would go I would look for high concentrations of shells right on top of that layer and would usually find lots of teeth in them.

Is that the layer with the trace fossil burrows near the top of the main glauconite bed? That’s where I’ve been finding all of my vertebrate material, although it’s been very worn. I’ll have to take a look next time I’m out there. 

[jikohr]

6 minutes ago, Dantheman135 said:

Is that the layer with the trace fossil burrows near the top of the main glauconite bed? That’s where I’ve been finding all of my vertebrate material, although it’s been very worn. I’ll have to take a look next time I’m out there. 

Bingo

[shark57]

I also think that first tooth looks like a Cretalamna. I have thousands of Striatolamia teeth and none look quite like that. The wear could be throwing off, but is there any chance of some reworking? What is underneath the Whiskey Bridge?

[Dantheman135]

33 minutes ago, shark57 said:

I also think that first tooth looks like a Cretalamna. I have thousands of Striatolamia teeth and none look quite like that. The wear could be throwing off, but is there any chance of some reworking? What is underneath the Whiskey Bridge?

This was in the upper layer of the main glauconite bed. Above is more of the stone city member, below is the sparta sands formation (no apparent fossils).

 

I don’t think it was reworked unless that occurred when the bed was fossilized, as it was stuck in a dense shell hash and shows similar weathering patterns as the shells and other teeth in the layer (sea-tumbled).

[Dantheman135]

9 hours ago, Thomas.Dodson said:

Pictures of the roots straight on and carinae will be necessary to identify the supposed scombrids. The symmetry of the root base, overall thickness, and extent of the carinae are all necessary to separate Sphyraena, Palaeocybium, and Scomberomorus.

These are the best photos I could take. I’m limited to a smartphone camera at the moment, but I hope these are of use. The teeth are both very worn, so I don’t think the carinae will be helpful. 
 

 

 

[Dantheman135]

Also found this today in some matrix I brought home. I think it is a piece of a crustacean claw. Once again, my photo abilities are limited, but I’ve done my best to crop and contrast the images.

 

 

[JohnJ]

20 minutes ago, Dantheman135 said:

Also found this today in some matrix I brought home. I think it is a piece of a crustacean claw. Once again, my photo abilities are limited, but I’ve done my best to crop and contrast the images.

 

Compare this to an eroded gastropod columella.

 

[jikohr]

2 hours ago, shark57 said:

I also think that first tooth looks like a Cretalamna. I have thousands of Striatolamia teeth and none look quite like that. The wear could be throwing off, but is there any chance of some reworking? What is underneath the Whiskey Bridge?

Nothing even close to being that old for a hundred miles, closer to two hundred for a site where you have a chance of finding shark teeth that old. The area is all Eocene. Even most of the gravel is worn Eocene petrified wood. While you are right that it is worn, I've found worn S. macrota teeth there that look like that. If you look at the figure I posted you can see triangular laterals with large cusps. 

 

Source is Elasmo.com

 

The site itself has been researched very thoroughly. The stratigraphy in the area is very complete and there simply isn't anything Cretaceous anywhere close.

Edited 2 hours ago by jikohr

[Thomas.Dodson]

1 hour ago, Dantheman135 said:

These are the best photos I could take. I’m limited to a smartphone camera at the moment, but I hope these are of use. The teeth are both very worn, so I don’t think the carinae will be helpful.

The lack of carinae makes it difficult but I'm inclined to call tooth #2 a laniary tooth from Sphyraena. #1 is probably Palaeocybium.