THobern Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 This is a tricky one to place past the genus. Right now I've got this tooth displayed as a Carcharocles sp., but was wondering if anyone else could make a more educated guess. It could be an angustidens tooth, as it has a raised root and a possible side cusp. It's from a Virginian river that hasn't turn up any auriculatus teeth, to the best of my knowledge. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edd Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 i think it's a meg tooth...but WOW!! its the most deformed (retarded) tooth i have ever seen! " We're all puppets, I'm just a puppet who can see the strings. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracer Jr. Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 well i definitely don't know, but just wanted to say that you've got one pretty awesome tooth there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 well, of course it's a meg; what else is that large? you know, i've told you time and time again not to leave those on the dashboard of your car during the summer with the windows rolled up! just kidding - um, i vote that you call it whatever you want, and i'll just refer to it amongst my friends as "funkitated". p.s. - "meg" is easier to spell and say than "angustidens" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenixflood Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 HOLY COW!!!!! Well, the ID is of course MINE hahahaMMMHAHAHAHA. Ah, ok, but :money: :startle: I think it's a really big, really messed up P. benedeni!!! :bow: I can't see any serrations so I would rule out meg or GW. It's that THICK root that gets me thinking it's P. benedeni. The soul of a Fossil Hunter is one that is seeking, always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Man! That has to be a Meg! It is impressive all around, even the coloration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edd Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) i was thinking benedeni too but i saw serrations on the tip Edited October 8, 2009 by edd " We're all puppets, I'm just a puppet who can see the strings. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sharks Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 That cusp coming out of the blade also looks to be serrated. I guess you've done all the research and if the site produces both megs and angies, you'd be hard pressed to argue against either species with a tooth that messed up. Butt-ugly, yet beautiful at the same time 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...
Phoenixflood Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 That cusp coming out of the blade also looks to be serrated. I guess you've done all the research and if the site produces both megs and angies, you'd be hard pressed to argue against either species with a tooth that messed up. Butt-ugly, yet beautiful at the same time Ah man, I see them now Oh well, probably is a meg, but a nice path!!! Sorry if I got your hopes up The soul of a Fossil Hunter is one that is seeking, always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 HOLY COW!!!!! Well, the ID is of course MINE hahahaMMMHAHAHAHA. Ah, ok, but :money: :startle: I think it's a really big, really messed up P. benedeni!!! :bow: I can't see any serrations so I would rule out meg or GW. It's that THICK root that gets me thinking it's P. benedeni. Exactly what I was thinking, phoenixflood. No serrations, gigantic root = less pathologic as a Parotodus then it would be as a Carcharocles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted October 8, 2009 Author Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) It's definitely not a P. benidini tooth. I wish that I had a 3 1/2" benidini tooth, but the serrations on the second blade suggest otherwise. Furthermore, there are 5 individual rows of serrations, about 1cm long each, which meet at the tip. There are also 5 shallow, parallel grooves, on the blade, suggesting that it had been bitten by a serrated tooth. It's the second blade that throws me; is it a side-cusp or a second blade? I admit that the smooth blade makes it look like a false mako, though. Edited October 8, 2009 by THobern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalodon1 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 That's a wicked tooth!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 This is a tricky one to place past the genus. Right now I've got this tooth displayed as a Carcharocles sp., but was wondering if anyone else could make a more educated guess. It could be an angustidens tooth, as it has a raised root and a possible side cusp. It's from a Virginian river that hasn't turn up any auriculatus teeth, to the best of my knowledge. Any ideas? Wondering if its parents ever heard of orthodontia? Funkitated and funkilicious at the same time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edd Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) I dont think the tooth has a natural cusp it's just badly deformed, it looks like the whole tooth is twisted. Edited October 8, 2009 by edd " We're all puppets, I'm just a puppet who can see the strings. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Too, too gnarly! That crosswise serrated ridge running crosswise on the blade face looks...painful. "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...
sharkdentist Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Too, too gnarly! That crosswise serrated ridge running crosswise on the blade face looks...painful. That tooth is a Meg hands down, but you can not rule out possible that it might have been a Angustiden early stages of the Meg before they lost the cusp's. nice tooth want to trade? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worthy 55 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Very very cool tooth great find. It's my bone!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordpiney Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 that thing is awesome! great find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesta384 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 could that be part of the cartilage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serack Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 That has to be the coolest pathological I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 This is a tricky one to place past the genus. Right now I've got this tooth displayed as a Carcharocles sp., but was wondering if anyone else could make a more educated guess. It could be an angustidens tooth, as it has a raised root and a possible side cusp. It's from a Virginian river that hasn't turn up any auriculatus teeth, to the best of my knowledge. Any ideas? That is a cool tooth. One that weird reminds me of a tooth that Vito Bertucci once showed me at Tucson (years ago, of course - purchased it from Mark P. who got it from Dominique M., I think). As you can see it's mostly identifiable as a megalodon but for some reason the crown didn't develop into a blade-shape. It developed multiple short prongs of crown instead. After Vito's passing, his girlfriend started selling his collection on Ebay. When this tooth was up for auction, I saved the photos, but didn't win it. It was damaged in the middle and at one edge at least when he bought it and he said he was going to have it restored. I advised against it but I see that he did because it now has no apparent damage. Carcharocles megalodon Early Pliocene Pisco Formation Sacaco, Peru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted October 11, 2009 Author Share Posted October 11, 2009 I had a tooth with the same pathology from the red site in NC. However, it was very water worn, and not in a comparable condition. I'll see if I can dig out some photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilselachian Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 That is a cool tooth. One that weird reminds me of a tooth that Vito Bertucci once showed me at Tucson (years ago, of course - purchased it from Mark P. who got it from Dominique M., I think). As you can see it's mostly identifiable as a megalodon but for some reason the crown didn't develop into a blade-shape. It developed multiple short prongs of crown instead. After Vito's passing, his girlfriend started selling his collection on Ebay. When this tooth was up for auction, I saved the photos, but didn't win it. It was damaged in the middle and at one edge at least when he bought it and he said he was going to have it restored. I advised against it but I see that he did because it now has no apparent damage. Carcharocles megalodon Early Pliocene Pisco Formation Sacaco, Peru When Vito's shark tooth collection was being sold, I knew a collector who keep pics and prices of all the teeth sold on ebay. A copy provided to me shows this particular tooth sold for $2125! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serack Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 When Vito's shark tooth collection was being sold, I knew a collector who keep pics and prices of all the teeth sold on ebay. A copy provided to me shows this particular tooth sold for $2125! woah, kinda gives a bit of value perspective on the tooth for this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 This cost me 170 and is unrepaired. It was, however, covered in the gunk that only VA rivers seems to be able to produce. I had to carefully prep the bourlette and second blade out from the encrusted muck, then several hours of tedious cleaning with baking soda and a brush. 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