Guest bmorefossil Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 found both of these guys on the same day, one im pretty sure is a squalodon but the other, even with a broken tip, seems different. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kauffy Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 kinda hard to tell because its so beat up, looks similar to the one below, but i can see what you mean by it looks different, i suspect it was a larger tooth, and its been worn down making the root look more rectangular...perhaps someone else will be able to say differently? "Turn the fear of the unknown into the excitment of possibility!"We dont stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 The top one looks like a beat-up version of the other. "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...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 The top one looks like a beat-up version of the other. ok thanks for your input, just making sure i had them in the right place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pristiformes Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 found both of these guys on the same day, one im pretty sure is a squalodon but the other, even with a broken tip, seems different. Any ideas? I agree with the other comments, that the intact one looks like a Squalodon tooth. I've only collected a few teeth from this species so I'm no expert. The damaged one looks to me like it could be another Squalodon tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 I agree with the other comments, that the intact one looks like a Squalodon tooth. I've only collected a few teeth from this species so I'm no expert. The damaged one looks to me like it could be another Squalodon tooth. ok thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 There's nothing diagnostic on either tooth that would allow you to identify it as Squalodon. There are many other toothed whales that have teeth of that shape - including kentriodontids, which are very common in the Chesapeake Group. It could belong to one of several genera of odontocetes - so in this case, you can only identify it to Odontoceti indeterminate or something similar. It would be a different story if you had a Squalodon molar, which is probably identifiable. Bobby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metopocetus Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 well then i guess i have something even better, a kentriodontids wow, i bet that is a first from the bay thanks boesse i should go take this down to the museum I hear an echo echo echo...We have kentriodont teeth and skulls/partial skulls...but I have not looked at them to any extent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 I hear an echo echo echo...We have kentriodont teeth and skulls/partial skulls...but I have not looked at them to any extent lol i was just joking, its just i have 7 other squalodons from the same location, and none of these kentriodont teeth, when i put 1+6 i think it equals squalodon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Ignoring the sarcasm... like I said, there's nothing on that tooth that anyone could use to identify it even to the family level. And there are no 'porpoises' from the Chesapeake Group - 'porpoises' are a specific group of odontocetes that have a very poor record in the atlantic, and are known only from a few fossils from Belgium and North Carolina, and are strictly Pliocene in age. Bobby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 i'm becoming somewhat interested in cetaceans, which is probably a bad thing, since i'm not exactly ideally located for such an interest. but anyway, the more i look up regarding them, the more i'm learning that there were a whole bunch of different genera. showing my ignorance, i guess i'd always assumed there were a couple of different species of "dolphins" or "porpoises", and maybe a dozen or so "whales". I didn't even know they were all "cetaceans". but now that i'm reading up a bit on them, i'm learning that there were a bunch. i found some notes on a website indicating there had been two different squalodon species, and a dozen or so different kentriodon species in the area of the calvert cliffs. sounds like those wanting to identify isolated tooth finds from there have their work cut out for them. i'd just like to find one cetacean tooth of any kind! have fun out there hunting. tracer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 i'm becoming somewhat interested in cetaceans, which is probably a bad thing, since i'm not exactly ideally located for such an interest. but anyway, the more i look up regarding them, the more i'm learning that there were a whole bunch of different genera. showing my ignorance, i guess i'd always assumed there were a couple of different species of "dolphins" or "porpoises", and maybe a dozen or so "whales". I didn't even know they were all "cetaceans". but now that i'm reading up a bit on them, i'm learning that there were a bunch. i found some notes on a website indicating there had been two different squalodon species, and a dozen or so different kentriodon species in the area of the calvert cliffs. sounds like those wanting to identify isolated tooth finds from there have their work cut out for them. i'd just like to find one cetacean tooth of any kind! have fun out there hunting. tracer what do you think tracer, if I have found 7 other squalodon teeth and no other whale teeth except for a fed porpoise teeth wouldn't you think they were squalodon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 what do you think tracer, if I have found 7 other squalodon teeth and no other whale teeth except for a fed porpoise teeth wouldn't you think they were squalodon I think your reasoning is probably correct, you have them all with you so you can conpare, go with your gut and I bet your would be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 what do you think tracer, if I have found 7 other squalodon teeth and no other whale teeth except for a fed porpoise teeth wouldn't you think they were squalodon Post a pic of all your Squalies on this thread; I know they've already been posted here & there, but a group photo would be cool. I bet Tracer would like to see them as much as I, and Boesse can weigh in with his expertise. (BTW, it's semantics, but the things most folks around here call "porpoise" are likely "dolphin"). "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 December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 what do you think tracer, if I have found 7 other squalodon teeth and no other whale teeth except for a fed porpoise teeth wouldn't you think they were squalodon ok, first let me qualify my answer. i'm basing my response not on any knowledge of the subject matter, but on pure logic (assuming i possess any). if a variety of different species of fossil teeth potentially exist in a given area, and... if those teeth are difficult to differentiate as to genus and/or species, for whatever reason, then... #1 - i personally would not assume that what i had was what i thought i had, unless each one of what i found had somehow been positively identified (assuming that's possible). #2 - "probability" based on previous experience, in my mind, is never a good way to decide, because of what i know about coin flipping. if you flip a coin numerous times, and it comes up heads every time, your brain screams that the chances at some point become huge against it coming up heads again. but that's not true - assuming there's no bias in your manner of flipping, the chances remain even for each flip. (i'm not saying that's a great analogy, but hopefully you get my point.) #3. i'm kinda the wrong guy to ask. there are a number of "whatzits" in my collection. I cogitate and agonize to a point in trying to ID things, but if I apply my brainpower and information sources to it for a bit and decide that it isn't decidable given currently available (to me) resources, i table the issue in my mind and render a decision that the item's a "whatzit" for the indefinite future. i might even make tj put it in his room so it becomes his problem. <g> #4 keep in mind that if i lived up there - i'd probably acquire some stuff from somewhere else and sprinkle it around where ya'll would find it, just to see if somebody would do a dissertation on it. (would that be wrong?) best regards, tracer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracer Jr. Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 #4 keep in mind that if i lived up there - i'd probably acquire some stuff from somewhere else and sprinkle it around where ya'll would find it, just to see if somebody would do a dissertation on it. (would that be wrong?)best regards, tracer that probably explains the "whale vert" that you magically found laying on the surface of a pleistocene deposit full of cow and horse bones. i think im beginning to understand the amount of jealousy in association with the finding of my mastodon tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 that probably explains the "whale vert" that you magically found laying on the surface of a pleistocene deposit full of cow and horse bones. i think im beginning to understand the amount of jealousy in association with the finding of my mastodon tooth. right idea, but wrong application. it more likely explains the mastodon tooth you "found". don't know if you noticed but there was a little sticky place on the bottom where the price tag was removed... love ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 right idea, but wrong application. it more likely explains the mastodon tooth you "found". don't know if you noticed but there was a little sticky place on the bottom where the price tag was removed...love ya are you kidding me did you really do that!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 ill get a picture of the stuff later, well the thing about dolphins boesse already told me they didnt exist and then porpoise didnt exist so i have nothing else to call them, i guess they are marine mammal teeth, must be that all the books i read are wrong and boesse is the smartest expert when it comes to this stuff, he should make some books and make some really nice money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 hey i think the internet and the computer is working good now so ill try on pictures right now, i have a few to post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 ...the thing about dolphins boesse already told me they didnt exist and then porpoise didnt exist so i have nothing else to call them... I think he said that, technically there are no porpoises; what we've been calling porpoises are more correctly called dolphins. 1 "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 December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 are you kidding me did you really do that!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 I think he said that, technically there are no porpoises; what we've been calling porpoises are more correctly called dolphins. no after he told me im another post that porpoises could only be found in CA., he added that dolphins can not be found in Maryland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Tracer you guys better cut it out before something bad happens this is a warning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Tracer you guys better cut it out before something bad happens this is a warning uh....... it was a joke, sorry if you took it the wrong way, merry christmas 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