Real or fake

[Nathan W]

My mother gave me this sharks tooth. She doesn’t know a lot about it. If I had to guess looks large maybe a great white? I’m not sure if it’s legit or not. It seems a little heavy. Any opinions are welcome.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[robertk]

That looks like a shark tooth to me. I doubt it's a great white, maybe a young megalodon.

 

[Nathan W]

That looks like a shark tooth to me. I doubt it's a great white, maybe a young megalodon.

Even better

 

[robertk]

Could also be a Mako -- the two little side spikes kinda seem like that -- but Mako are usually curved rather than straight.

 

[Red-Coat]

Looks completely authentic to me… and fossilised.

From a diagnostic point of view, it’s fairly broad, symmetrical, has serrations, has cusplets (the small projections either side of the base of the crown), and has a bourlette (the triangular/crescent feature between the crown and the root).

On that basis I would say it’s Carcharocles genus but wouldn’t be certain if it’s C. megalodon, or its immediate ancestor C. chubutensis. Megalodon teeth don’t usually have cusplets but they may be present in juveniles. Adult chubutensis do have cusplets, making it almost impossible to distinguish them from juvenile megalodon teeth.

 

[Nathan W]

Looks completely authentic to me… and fossilised.

From a diagnostic point of view, it’s fairly broad, symmetrical, has serrations, has cusplets (the small projections either side of the base of the crown), and has a bourlette (the triangular/crescent feature between the crown and the root).

On that basis I would say it’s Carcharocles genus but wouldn’t be certain if it’s C. megalodon, or its immediate ancestor C. chubutensis. Megalodon teeth don’t usually have cusplets but they may be present in juveniles. Adult chubutensis do have cusplets, making it almost impossible to distinguish them from juvenile megalodon teeth.

Thanks for the insight. It’s fascinating to say the least

 

[AeroMike]

Nice tooth. It is an Angustidens tooth. Megs never had cusps and Ariculatus shark (daddy to the Angys) had more pointed cusps.
Angustidens sharks where the granddaddy to Megalodon. In between the two, we had Chubutensis which is where the cusps are almost gone, you still see bumps if you will. From the looks of it, the damage, is most likely from feeding and biting into bone or another tooth and the tips and parts of the teeth get broken.

This tooth is about 33 MYO, so a lot older then a meg (18 MYO).

FYI...a 4" tooth from either an Ariculatus or an Angustidens shark is considered huge.

 

[Red-Coat]

Just for information, the ancestry and lineage of ‘megatooth’ sharks is complex, and has seen a number of taxonomic revisions over the years. Even today, there isn’t full clarity or universal agreement. Megatooth sharks were originally assigned to the genus Carcharias by Louis Agassiz in the 1830s (and he later revised the genus name to Carcharadon). In 1964, Leonid Glikman reassigned them to the genus Otodus. Then, in 1987, Henri Capetta proposed that all related megatooth sharks should be assigned to the genus Carcharocles (although Otodus is still regarded as a synonym by some for the earlier species), with a lineage that progresses:

Otodus/Carcharocles auriculatus >

Otodus/Carcharocles sokolovi (as a possible transitional species) >

Carcharocles angustidens >

Carcharocles chubutensis >

Carcharocles megalodon

That's the generally accepted progression but, since 2001, there has been a suggestion by Gottfried & Fordyce that all related megatooths should be moved back to the Carcharodon genus as originally proposed by Agassiz, although it doesn’t have international acceptance.

Although it’s clear that there have been evolutionary ‘bursts’ in things like tooth morphology at particular times, assignation at a species level remains difficult. Despite the bursts, evolution is nevertheless a progressive transition of species without absolute cut-off dates and little is known about possible transitional forms. It’s compounded by the fact that the vast majority of fossil shark teeth are found as isolated specimens without associated skeletal remains; its not usually possible to say whether the teeth are from adults or juveniles (which can have different morphologies); and precise dating is largely dependent on sedimentology (if determined), association with index fossils from other animals/plants (if present), or radiometric techniques (if applied).

While I wouldn’t dispute that this could be an angustidens tooth, I would dispute that “Megs never had cusps”. That’s only true for adult teeth (as far as is known). Chubutensis also have cusps as both juveniles and adults. The most distinctive feature of teeth reliably assigned to angustidens is that, in addition to the crown of the tooth having a serrated edge, the cusps are fully serrated with sharp and pronounced definition.

 

[AeroMike]

...I would dispute that “Megs never had cusps”.

I have been diving for close to 20 years and have literally thousands of teeth and yet I have never found, or even seen a Meg tooth with cusps. Please post a photo if you have one.

As stated in your post the linage that last had "cusps" or any traces of them is the chubutensis which I agree.
Not trying to be smart or an azz here, I truly want to see a meg tooth with cusps.

Don't get me stated on Isurus Hastalis...That is my fav. tooth but I know it has changed and most likely will change again. thanks

 

[Red-Coat]

I have been diving for close to 20 years and have literally thousands of teeth and yet I have never found, or even seen a Meg tooth with cusps. Please post a photo if you have one.

As stated in your post the linage that last had "cusps" or any traces of them is the chubutensis which I agree.
Not trying to be smart or an azz here, I truly want to see a meg tooth with cusps.

From the Florida Museum website:

"Adult C. chubutensis had cusplets while adult megalodon did not, but this feature is not a reliable identifier of which species a tooth belonged to, Perez said. Juvenile megalodon could have cusplets, making it impossible to discern whether a tooth with cusplets came from C. chubutensis or a young megalodon.
Some teeth analyzed for the study had tiny bumps or pronounced serrations where cusplets would be. A set of teeth from a single shark had cusplets on some, no cusplets on others and replacement teeth with reduced cusplets.
This is why paleontologists cannot pinpoint exactly when megalodon originated or when C. chubutensis went extinct…"

How megalodon's teeth evolved into the 'ultimate cutting tools'

Megalodon, the largest shark that ever lived, is known only from its gigantic bladelike teeth, which can be more than 7 inches long. But these teeth, described by some scientists as the "ultimate cutting tools," took millions of years to evolve into their final, iconic form. Megalodon’s earliest

www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu