Gabe Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I've remarked that globally, when a meg tooth is reported, most of the time the measurements prevailing are the slant height or vertical height of the tooth, but more rarely the width of the tooth, although megalodons teeth are impressive in their compact shape, width, more than ther sheer length (some others carnivours species, though smaller, had longer teeth by comparisons, T. rex, some pliosaurs, sperm whales...). Of course, meg teeth are popular because of their great size and the attempts to imagine the immense animal which once carried such natural weapons in its mouth. But it appears that the widtn of the teeth are more revelant to figure out the size of the jaws and the body in lamniforms, more than the height or length of the tooth, the method made by Cliff Jeremiah. It seems too that sometimes teeth particularly wide lack publicity because their length is not that exceptionnal. For example, I've read in one thread that a member owned a tooth 5,5 inches wide, which using Jeremiah's formula would obtain a shark almost 63 feet long (1 inche of width x 4,5 = approx. total length in feet), in fact a shark as large as what the famous Hubbell's tooth, sometimes reported as the largest fairly confirmed, would yeild. So, are some members aware of the maximum width they've heard or seen in meg teeth specimens, instead of length ? I personnally suspect some specimens to have been up to 6 inches wide in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexx Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Never heard of a 6 inch wide Meg tooth, the widest I have had in my posession was at 5.35" but the largest I have heard of and that was confirmed was 5 5/8. Maybe some pathological fused teeth or something like that could yield this width. Edited February 17, 2013 by Mexx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 Hey, thanks for the quick response ! Well, I had hinted about a very wide chilean tooth here : http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php/topic/32488-huge-meg-tooth-specimen/ Despite the skepticism, the owner reported me it was not a pathological, and that excluding the spacement of the broken, the tooth in its original piece may have been minimum 5 inches. I know Hubbell's tooth is 13,7 cm wide. I don't know how wide are the others several giants exceeding 7 inches, like the one found by Vito Bertucci and put in his giant jaws reconstruction. Of course, the uncertainity is that very large teeth does not show necessarily the record-sized width... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexx Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The seven inchers that I have seen so far (excluding the Hubbell tooth) seemed rather short in width. I have never seen a dinner plate shaped 7" tooth. The one found in Peru (with the devilish root corners) is also pathological. As for Gary Dye's "split tooth" the proportions do not really fit for me. As others have pointed out, the cutting edges do not seem to fit to each other. Also if you were to remove the gap, which is less than an inch the tooth would still be wider than long, something I have never seen on a 6+ inch tooth. On the other hand, the root corners look really special and seem to fit to each other. I am wondering why there is no picture of the non display side...In any event, I would not take this tooth as an example of a very wide tooth, to put into the Jeremiah formula. Something just doesn't seem right with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 The seven inchers that I have seen so far (excluding the Hubbell tooth) seemed rather short in width. I have never seen a dinner plate shaped 7" tooth. The one found in Peru (with the devilish root corners) is also pathological. As for Gary Dye's "split tooth" the proportions do not really fit for me. As others have pointed out, the cutting edges do not seem to fit to each other. Also if you were to remove the gap, which is less than an inch the tooth would still be wider than long, something I have never seen on a 6+ inch tooth. On the other hand, the root corners look really special and seem to fit to each other. I am wondering why there is no picture of the non display side...In any event, I would not take this tooth as an example of a very wide tooth, to put into the Jeremiah formula. Something just doesn't seem right with it. The seven inchers that I have seen so far (excluding the Hubbell tooth) seemed rather short in width. I have never seen a dinner plate shaped 7" tooth. The one found in Peru (with the devilish root corners) is also pathological. As for Gary Dye's "split tooth" the proportions do not really fit for me. As others have pointed out, the cutting edges do not seem to fit to each other. Also if you were to remove the gap, which is less than an inch the tooth would still be wider than long, something I have never seen on a 6+ inch tooth. On the other hand, the root corners look really special and seem to fit to each other. I am wondering why there is no picture of the non display side...In any event, I would not take this tooth as an example of a very wide tooth, to put into the Jeremiah formula. Something just doesn't seem right with it. Thank you. Well, with this chilean specimen remaining not clear, I will make my statement of the widest tooth at 14,2 cm, though I would interested if other members have heard something else. The tooth found by Pete Larson is a pathologic ? I agree that the root has an uncommon shape but the overall tooth itself doesn't seem to be that abnormal in its proportions. Do you know some calculation allowing to get an idea of how wide and high were the actual jaws, as we have at least one set of teeth (Hubbell's) ? Beside this, I'd like to know as well if there are reports of lateral or posterior teeth especially large for there position ? The Shimada formula, though globally a bit conservative compared to others, is specific as it allows to estimate the body size of the shark with tooth of a set. With it, Pimiento found that one posterior tooth found in the Gatun nursery (2010) belonged to an adult approx. 17 m TL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Formulas like this make interesting thought experiments, but they are ultimately untestable when applied to Megalodon, because there are no preserved remains against which to 'truth' it. Another problem is that of small sample size when applying the calculations to the very largest teeth. Fun conjecture of what might have been, but conjecture nonetheless. "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 February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 And so far, what would be your educated guess about ? I know that Gordon Hubbell personnally thinks megalodon reached at least 60 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'm leery of the quest for superlatives whenever there is no way to test the hypotheses. It's unavoidably interesting to ponder, but I am loathe to present the speculative as fact. "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 February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 I don't want to enter in too much details at this stage, but I have the feeling that this question will be tested and perhaps confirmed sooner than many can think... But to date, what is reliably the largest tooth reported ? The one in the largest jaw reconstruction by Bertucci (approx.194 mm) ? I've read the threads talking about it but the definitive answer was rather unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted March 1, 2013 Author Share Posted March 1, 2013 Does someone knows the measurements, so width, of this massive specimen seen in the mountains megalodons website ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeloiVarden Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Looks like a dead website. Last updated 2010 with many links including the contact page not working... It is impossible from the picture above to deduce any measurments, though I think it is safe to say we are talking about a 6"+ tooth since most folks are going to choose there biggest and best for the header picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted March 6, 2013 Author Share Posted March 6, 2013 Yes, but I'm primarily first interested in its width and given the size compared to the end, I wouldn't be surprised it would approach 14 cm. Here's another very wide tooth : Is it me or it is really approaching 15 cm wide ? http://adventureaquarium.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/megalodon-fact-of-the-day-megalodon-teeth-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeloiVarden Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) That meg doesn't look real. The enamel looks very epoxyish...and root way to glossy. Could be restored, but my vote is that it is an enlarged reproduction. Edited March 8, 2013 by DeloiVarden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I would have to agree that the black "tooth" is a reproduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted March 31, 2013 Author Share Posted March 31, 2013 This specimen is reported 5 1/2 wide : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVU4fOZDYzU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilselachian Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 That meg doesn't look real. The enamel looks very epoxyish...and root way to glossy. Could be restored, but my vote is that it is an enlarged reproduction. An ugly reproduction at that!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted March 31, 2013 Author Share Posted March 31, 2013 Does someone knows the measurements, so width, of this massive specimen seen in the mountains megalodons website ? Does anyone knows the dimensions of that tooth (source : mountain megalodon) and its position ? It sounds absolutely huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) Hi ! Anyone knows something about the tooth from "mountain megalodons" I report ? Also, I've found that massive specimen auctioned in 2007 and found five years earlier in South America. http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/monster-size-megalodon-tooth-nearly-7-inches-rare-n Has anyone heard about it ? It is reported having some repair but looks authentic, I'm pretty sure it's a real one but is it a pathological or simply a thick healthy specimen ? If so, these fishes had definitely epic gnashers, the robustness and thickness are impressive. It seems the Pacific coasts of South-America provides big specimens... Edited April 17, 2013 by Gabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I corresponded a little with the guy at Mountain Megalodons a few years back when I bought the largest tooth on the bottom of the group 3 page... He also put me in touch with another friend of his who was also a 'serious' fossil collector and we traded a little... I certainly wouldnt doubt his word...Its a pity I didnt retain the contact details... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted April 27, 2013 Author Share Posted April 27, 2013 (edited) Yes, I'd like to know the measurements of that tooth, it is one of the most massive I've seen in photos on the internet, but never heard a report of its actual size, despite it's probably one of the largest found. Also, is that tooth measured in inches or centimeters ? As I'm US native, I cannot determine if that ruler is inches or not, but I suspect it as I've found the pic on a board where it was said to be the largest specimen found in the Calvert Cliff or Lee Creek, I'm not certain. Given the aspect I would tend to think it's a large adult UA and not a juvenile one... If true, it must be one of the most massive (in width and weigth, not length) specimen reported. 5,75 inches or so ? Edited April 27, 2013 by Gabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 That ruler is divided into 16ths, so the measure is in inches (if metric, the divisions would be in 10ths). "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 April 27, 2013 Author Share Posted April 27, 2013 Thank you ! So that's one massive tooth, I guess one or several members of the forum know that specimen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted September 3, 2013 Author Share Posted September 3, 2013 For discussing with Megatooth Colletor member and asking confirmation to Mark Renz, it appears Gordon Hubbell's large tooth is 5.9 inches wide and about 6 inches wide if it is measured a bit lower in the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactyll Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I would imagine its possible to get pathological deformities somewhat less obvious with Meg teeth sometimes just being overly wide or ' thick ' teeth perhaps.... Cheers Steve... And Welcome if your a New Member... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts