Shellseeker Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Fossil finds tend to drive my curiosity and search for answers. I have occasionally found a FAT tiger and last Wednesday another came my way. I have a few in better shape but I would have to search for those. They are all about the same size with FAT (almost Meg like) root. Here is one. Is this a G. Cuvier symphyseal? In this TFF thread, posters (including me) provided photos that did not seem to have the Meg-like fat roots. http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/22315-galeocerdo-id/ Here is another example on ebay of the FAT root variety. http://www.ebay.ie/itm/SYMPHYSEAL-GALEOCERDO-CURVIER-TIGER-SHARK-TOOTH-AMELIA-ISLAND-FLORIDA-FOSSIL-/350787442896?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51ac8f98d0 Do TFF members have teeth identified as G. Cuvier symphyseal and do they look like the FAT root variety? The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 you have sympheseals form the one and only Georges Cuvier??!! Sorry, I couldn't resist with that title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcbshark Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Interesting tooth Jack, I'm not sure if it's a symphaseal of some sort or a pathological. It looks more like a meg to me Every once in a great while it's not just a big rock down there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 The asymmetric 'notch' keeps me from calling "Baby Meg". "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...
mkrofdrms Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Interesting tooth, like Auspex mentioned I can't call it Baby Meg but certainly the shape looks like one; now perhaps it's Friday nightand I'm hallucinating, but has it ever been recorded hybrids, mules like specimens between sharks?, cuz this looks between tiger and Meg. Interested to hear what the more experienced members may comment. MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Yes, that is a Galeocerdo symphyseal. You can see serrations on the serrations (compound serrations). G. cuvier is one of the species that has those. The teeth overall can be less symmetrical than yours. It's a good match to a modern one I've seen. Fossil finds tend to drive my curiosity and search for answers. I have occasionally found a FAT tiger and last Wednesday another came my way. I have a few in better shape but I would have to search for those. They are all about the same size with FAT (almost Meg like) root. Here is one. FAT_TIGER.jpg Is this a G. Cuvier symphyseal? In this TFF thread, posters (including me) provided photos that did not seem to have the Meg-like fat roots. http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/22315-galeocerdo-id/ Here is another example on ebay of the FAT root variety. http://www.ebay.ie/itm/SYMPHYSEAL-GALEOCERDO-CURVIER-TIGER-SHARK-TOOTH-AMELIA-ISLAND-FLORIDA-FOSSIL-/350787442896?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51ac8f98d0 Do TFF members have teeth identified as G. Cuvier symphyseal and do they look like the FAT root variety? Edited January 17, 2015 by siteseer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TikiShark Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Interesting tooth, like Auspex mentioned I can't call it Baby Meg but certainly the shape looks like one; now perhaps it's Friday nightand I'm hallucinating, but has it ever been recorded hybrids, mules like specimens between sharks?, cuz this looks between tiger and Meg. Interested to hear what the more experienced members may comment. MK The first hybrid shark was reported a few years ago (2012?) And was a cross between the Australian blacktip and the regular blacktip. This is not something considered to be commonly occurring is elasmobranchs. There are some reproductive aspects that come into play but i will have to detail those a bit later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 When species can interbreed, it's an indication that the two are very closely related, one likely in the process of diverging from the other or perhaps both having diverged "recently" from another. With blacktip sharks the divergence could have started sometime after the end of the Pleistocene or perhaps earlier. Carcharhinid sharks in general started to diversify in the Oligocene and continued to across the Miocene and Pliocene. Galeocerdo and Carcharocles are only distantly related in that their common ancestor might date back to the Late Jurassic or earlier. The first hybrid shark was reported a few years ago (2012?) And was a cross between the Australian blacktip and the regular blacktip. This is not something considered to be commonly occurring is elasmobranchs. There are some reproductive aspects that come into play but i will have to detail those a bit later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellseeker Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 you have sympheseals form the one and only Georges Cuvier??!! Sorry, I couldn't resist with that title. jpc, I did not know there was a Georges Cuvier -- sounds like an interesting guy. I am reading the wikis on him. I suppose that this Galeocerdo was named after Georges. Yes, that is a Galeocerdo symphyseal. You can see serrations on the serrations (compound serrations). G. cuvier is one of the species that has those. The teeth overall can be less symmetrical than yours. It's a good match to a modern one I've seen. Thanks siteseer, I was pretty sure it was Galeocerdo, not so sure it was symphyseal. These are rare but right now I can not recall any from the Peace River that are not symmetrical. I will have to check future finds more closely for a non-symmetrical symphyseal. The White Queen ".... in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, I am sure G. cuvier is named for Cuvier, but I am at a loss as to why the name is cuvier instead of cuvieri, which is the usual latin ending for something named after soemone. Note that the species name is non-capitlaized, while the last name is capitlaized. Technically it should all be italicized, but I won't hold that against you. : ) Yup, my job here is public edumacation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 ...I am at a loss as to why the name is cuvier instead of cuvieri, which is the usual latin ending for something named after soemone.... Is there still a gender-specific suffix in species honorifics, or is that fading? 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...
TikiShark Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) For elasmobranchs there is no distiction between the sexes. I only work with extant species though, so not sure about extint species. Is there still a gender-specific suffix in species honorifics, or is that fading? Edited January 18, 2015 by TikiShark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 For elasmobranchs there is no distiction between the sexes. I only work with extant species though, so not sure about extint species. I mean the protocols for Latinized species names. I seem to recall that the suffix was supposed to be different when honoring a man's or a woman's name. "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...
jpc Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 don't know, auspex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Yes, the suffix for a species named after a woman is "ae." For instance the species Ptychotrygon ellae is named after Ella Steiner. Rather than spell it with more than one "a," Gerard Case chose to create a contraction of sorts when he described it in 1987. I don't know the story on G. cuvier - why no suffix. It is strangely acceptable now even though it has been spelled out as cuvieri in the past (McCormick and Allen, 1978) indicating that it honored a man named Cuvier, almost certainly Georges Cuvier. I also recall a note in Johnson (1978) that stated that the switch from cuvieri to cuvier was very recent as of 1978. I assume that cuvieri was in use but cuvier was likely the original spelling so the ICZN based a ruling on that. G. cuvier was described in 1822 by Francois Peron and Charles-Alexandre Lesueur, French naturalists who were contemporaries of Cuvier. It would take more digging to find out if they knew each other or worked together. Johnson, R.H. 1978. Sharks of Polynesia. Les Editions du pacifique. Papeete. Tahiti. McCormick, H.W. and T. Allen with Capt. W.E Young. 1978. Shadows in the Sea: the Sharks, Skates and Rays. Scarborough Books edition (New York) of the book originally published in 1963 by Chilton Book Company. I mean the protocols for Latinized species names. I seem to recall that the suffix was supposed to be different when honoring a man's or a woman's name. Edited January 19, 2015 by siteseer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts