Megaselachus13 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I took this tooth when I was much younger. It belongs to missing site of Puerto de Vitoria, which was buried due to some roadworks some years ago. It was found at middle-upper Campanian deposits (U. Cretaceous) and is the only one of this kind that I've found ever, more frequent were Cretolamna appendiculata and Squalicorax kaupi. It was classified years ago by the local museum curator as Carcharias sp., but I'm not sure about that ID. Perhaps it's a Carcharias sp. but I hope that here you can give me a tighter classification (if it's possible). Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreekCrawler Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Wow that's a beauty! Love the double side cusps. What's the size on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megaselachus13 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 About 1'4 cm. max slant, but it's an approximation because I haven't the specimen here. Greetings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Boy Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The inner cusplets seem to robust for Carcharias in my mind. They also point outward and kind of remind me of Serratolamna aschersoni (sp.?) of the Eocene. Was S. aschersoni around in the Cretaceous, or a very similar species (although I don't think it's S. serrata)? Could it be Odontaspis aculeatus maybe, or even some sort of Cretodus? The root is kind of straight, not as curved as most sand tiger teeth, it seems more mackerel shark like to me. LOL, it's like a Cretalamna root with Serratolamna cusplets and blade! I haven't a clue. It seems like there might be striations on the labial face perhaps? At any rate, it's a pretty nice tooth, very cool indeed. Kevin Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Assuming that this is from Spain, I checked and the best I could come up with are a Cretalamna ssp or an anterior Serratolamna serrata. Both fit into he late Cretaceous timeframe, although I can't find S.serrata older than Maastrichtian, and both are known from Spain. S.aschersoni is an late Paleocene/Eocene species. The one thing confusing me is that the tooth looks symmetrical, whereas S.serrata isn't. There's no limit to what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be doing something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megaselachus13 Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Thanks a lot for your answers. The fact is that a Maastrichtian other fauna is present in the province and Serratolamna serrata are found (haven't images here), but they seems me different to this one. For S. aschersoni, the difference of size and the curvature of the principal cusp makes them more different (perhaps a possitional issue?) and the difference of age as you say. For Cretolamna, the root points are more quadrangular and the ears usually are bigger proportionally to the main cusplet, and never had found one with more of an ear on each side. The Cretolamnas from there hasn't a groove in the middle of lingual side. Excuse the quality of the photographs because they were taken years ago with one of the oldest digital cameras (Sony's Mavica). I seem to remember that it hasn't got crenulations or striations at base as Scaphanorhynchus texanus or raphiodon. I have this images too, they are unclassified broken ones from the same site, perhaps some of them could be from the same species. Last picture show my best C. appendiculata from the same site. Sorry my bad translated English because it can lead to mistakes about the tone of the message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 i like your english, and you're correctly using a lot of difficult words that many native english speakers have never heard before. <singing> crenulate! crenulate! dance to the muuuuusssssssicccccc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megaselachus13 Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Thanks Tracer, It's a mixture between my primary school English and Google's translator. The problem usually is that I'm sure about what I want to say, but I'm not sure that the text says what I want to explain. Greetings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Boy Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 The one thing confusing me is that the tooth looks symmetrical, whereas S.serrata isn't. Yep, that's also what I was thinking. If all of the teeth in the first and second pictures are from the same species, then I'm thinking Odontaspis aculeatus. The tooth on the right of those pics looks identical to the one showing on Elasmo.com IMHO. Kevin Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 The one thing confusing me is that the tooth looks symmetrical, whereas S.serrata isn't. deformed???? never mind, I really dont see anything that makes it looked deformed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megaselachus13 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Hello Kevin, The truth is that some Odontaspis aculeatus that are shown on this website are nearly identical: http://www.geocities.com/fossofnj/shark/o_aculeatus.htm But I say nearly cause I see a little difference between them and the one that I presented at first. The website ones have the lateral cusps isolated and the mine has them fused, anyway seems that O. aculeatus is very closely related. I wouldn't want to seem pedantic, but what does IMHO mean?. I'd like to see the tooth that you are speaking about. Thanks a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Boy Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Hello Kevin,The truth is that some Odontaspis aculeatus that are shown on this website are nearly identical: http://www.geocities.com/fossofnj/shark/o_aculeatus.htm But I say nearly cause I see a little difference between them and the one that I presented at first. The website ones have the lateral cusps isolated and the mine has them fused, anyway seems that O. aculeatus is very closely related. I wouldn't want to seem pedantic, but what does IMHO mean?. I'd like to see the tooth that you are speaking about. Thanks a lot. Here's the tooth: Odontaspis aculeatus anterior from Elasmo.com Yeah, I agree with you. I'm not 100% sure, just guessing. Your teeth almost seem more mackeral shark like than sand tiger like to me. I was looking through all of the fossil sale sites too to see if I could find your tooth. I found a lot of similar teeth, but nothing that's a perfect match, especially to your first picture. Maybe it's an undocumented new species? You could call it Serratolamna megaselachus13 IMHO = "In my humble opinion" Kevin Wilson 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