Black River Fossil Forums

	Register Login
	Save this page to del.icio.us Bookmark this page search

January 7, 2009

Fossil Hunting

Fossil Forum

Fossil Articles

Paleo Cartoons

Contact Us

Fossil Hunting Excursions

Image Gallery

Fossil Links

FAQ

Trip Reports

Forums

A quick note about the forums

In order to post on these forums, you must be a registered member of this site. Membership is free and open to all. Use the register link to apply.

Here are two links to posts dealing with how to post pictures on Black River Fossils forums.

1. How to Post Pictures on Black River Fossils Forums by ditchweezil

2. How to Post Pictures on Black River Fossils Forums by Daryl

Forums

Forum Home

Fossils

Shark Teeth

Auriculatus vs....

Auriculatus vs. Angustidens

12/3/2002 5:49:46 PM

legacyForum

725 posts

Auriculatus vs. Angustidens

DW- as the SC resident shark tooth expert, I have a classification question for you. I chose to post it to the forum because I felt that your reply could shed some educational light for many of your followers. The more I study your site, the more impressed I am regarding your knowledge, and the contribution that your site extends to those of us interested in SC fossils. I have had some difficulty in classifying ric's vs angi's. Some of the rics have clearly separated cusplets, but many of the teeth seem so similar that I do not know what judgemental criteria to use to distinguish them. I read a paper (can't remember the author)that stated that megs never have even a hint of fused cusps. That statement marks a clear demarcation between chubs and megs, but the upper demarcation between chubs and angies is also confusing. The common method that I have used tends to be where they are found, but so often they are in spoil piles, or overburden and the deposition layer is unknown. If you or any other readers care to comment on this subject, I would appreciate the knowledge. Thanks Lee

12/5/2002 4:18:00 AM

ditchweezil

347 posts

Re: Auriculatus vs. Angustidens

Well, I appreciate the flattery, but I would hardly call myself an expert, much less for the entire state! Take this page for a spin and see if it answers your question.
angy vs ric article dw

1/2/2003 9:28:25 PM

legacyForum

725 posts

Re: Auriculatus vs. Angustidens

Kim's "angy vs. ric" article was excellent! The only comment I would add is that in general the serrations on ric's are larger and coarser than those on angustidens. But for sure you can drive yourself crazy trying to identify certain teeth without knowing from which formation they came! Even knowing that, where do you draw the line between late auriculatus and early angustidens? :) Regards, Eddie

1/15/2003 4:32:15 PM

ditchweezil

347 posts

Re: Auriculatus vs. Angustidens

Thanks for the compliments! You mentioned the teeth that fall between, and I did a little reading on the subject. There is another species in there called c. sololovi that is found in the late Eocene/ early Oligocene. Those exposures are certainly found in SC, but I can't say that the pictures in the book differentiate the species that much from rics and angys. I was reading Joe Cocke's excellent resource Fossil Shark Teeth of the World, if you care to take a look for yourself. Mr. Cocke says that this species exhibits fine serrations on the crown and course, uneven serrations on the cusps. Lateral teeth are narrow and curve toward the back of the mouth. The book also says that there is a large hump on the center of the root.

Page 1 of 1