Sharktoothguy11222 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Hi all, I was just wondering what any of these shark teeth were. I have a collection of shark teeth, and most of them have been identified except for these few. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!! Tha tighin fodham, fodham, fodham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Where are they from? They look like Otodus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharktoothguy11222 Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 Where are they from? They look like Otodus They're all from morocco. Tha tighin fodham, fodham, fodham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Then they are likely Otodus obliquus the bottom right one in the frame looks like it may be different does it have double lateral cusplets on the mesial side? Or on the distal? It looks like there might be on the mesial if so it is possibly Cretolamna biauriculata maroccana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharktoothguy11222 Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 Thanks, you helped me a lot with identifying these teeth. Tha tighin fodham, fodham, fodham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Ok i think I'm wrong about the Cretolamna biauriculata maroccana it may be Serratolamna ascheroni or not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Hi all, I was just wondering what any of these shark teeth were. I have a collection of shark teeth, and most of them have been identified except for these few. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!! I sure wish I could help you with your ID question, but I cannot fully open your very large images. A portion of the image does open, but not the full image. Nor can I simply scroll left or right, up or down, to see the image -- the image is just too large for my 17-inch monitor. When I make a SHQ or HQ image with my six megapixel camera, the resulting image is as large as 39 inches wide by 29 inches high. I have to reduce the image size with my editing software to even work with it conveniently. You can produce excellent photos with the Standard Quality (SQ) setting on your camera. (See some of Worthy's or Mike Owens' recent posts.) If you are going to post images that are not edited, that is, images directly from your camera, SQ is the camera setting you should be using. I'd like to see your pix. I hope you can post some useful images that are accessible to everyone on the forum. ------Harry Pristis 1 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Ok i think I'm wrong about the Cretolamna biauriculata maroccana it may be Serratolamna ascheroni or not.... I think you got it right on the second try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I hope so... Maybe if i name enough different ones I can be right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worthy 55 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Go ahead Anson!! :ahah3: :ahah3: :shark: It's my bone!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I sure wish I could help you with your ID question, but I cannot fully open your very large images. A portion of the image does open, but not the full image. Nor can I simply scroll left or right, up or down, to see the image -- the image is just too large for my 17-inch monitor. When I make a SHQ or HQ image with my six megapixel camera, the resulting image is as large as 39 inches wide by 29 inches high. I have to reduce the image size with my editing software to even work with it conveniently. You can produce excellent photos with the Standard Quality (SQ) setting on your camera. (See some of Worthy's or Mike Owens' recent posts.) If you are going to post images that are not edited, that is, images directly from your camera, SQ is the camera setting you should be using. I'd like to see your pix. I hope you can post some useful images that are accessible to everyone on the forum. ------Harry Pristis Furthering what Harry said. If you open the photo in Microshop Paint, You can then click Image; on the drop down click resize/skew; then resize to somewhere around 500 pixels. On the camera setting I'm using, it is 40%, but just experiment around. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I would set it more like 800 or 1000 pixels but no more than 1024 most people have the resolutions on their monitors set up at 1024 x 768, so anything over that you would need to scroll to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharktoothguy11222 Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 I would set it more like 800 or 1000 pixels but no more than 1024 most people have the resolutions on their monitors set up at 1024 x 768, so anything over that you would need to scroll to see. I'll try because I really don't know my way around the camera. Later on today i'll get another picture of them and try to size it down or take it in sq. Thanks everyone! Tha tighin fodham, fodham, fodham! 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