d_talley2,

To be honest, when I first saw these I thought they were just some sort of rocks that happened to be in the general "triangular" shape of a tooth.  Relying strictly on the picture, study the larger tooth (tooth#1).  The quarter you placed in the pic for scale tells me that tooth#1 has a length along the longest (left) edge of ~ 6.5 quarters => 6.5 x 24.26mm = 157.69 mm which equals ~ 6.2 inches.  A shark tooth of that length could only be a Megalodon.  Assuming it is a Meg, a tooth of that size should also be about 1" thick or greater near the root/bourlette area.  Can't tell thickness from your pic, but it doesn't appear to be thicker in the area that I'm referring to.  Rather, the object looks to have alomost a uniform thickness, which if the case, would certainly not be indicative of a shark tooth.  If you have a shark tooth like a mako or Meg for example, hold them so that you can see their profile.  You'll see the obvious change in the thickness from the root down to the tip of the crown.  The other oddity about your "tooth#1" is that the left edge comes to an odd like point almost.  It is not uncommon for a tooth to look lop-sided with one side longer than the other, this is a positional characteristic, but this pointy end which would otherwise be the end of the root lobe just doesn't look right.  Also check to see if the edges of what would have been the crown bevel or taper down to make an edge.  If the edges are thick and rounded, again, these aren't characteristics of a normal shark tooth, and especially not one that was over 6".  Wearing my "CSI" hat, these are just some clues for helping to determine if this object was or is a shark tooth.  Also consider where the tooth was found, are teeth like it normally found there, etc.  You'll have to study the evidence firsthand.  Of course, I could be completely wrong, and maybe this is one of those "digested" teeth I've heard about - teeth that get swallowed instead of falling out and the acids in the sharks stomach destroy all of the enamel etc. off the tooth.  I've seen some teeth labeled as such, but they don't resemble your specimen(s).

The specimen on the right, tooth#2, again, although it has a "tooth" shape, it appears to have a third "edge" or ridge running just off center of what would have been the crown.  Hard to tell from the shadow(s) in the pic.  This specimen looks even less like a shark tooth than specimen#1.

Package up these specimens and send them to CSI Grissom for further study.

Daryl.

Thanks for the close inspection and analysis.  I agree that there are several things not right with the larger one, but I also have a hard time thinking that a rock would weather/wear into this biological shape.  I will have to reasearch the digested teeth track.  The large tooth is flat on one side and more rounded on the other.  The edges which would be sharp on normal shark teeth are more rounded. No indication of a sharp edge.  I am thinking that the left edge would be covered by the missing dentin, another lobe would be on the right but is now missing.  Could it be a imprint of an object that is now soft rock.  I have looked at hundered of shark teeth and my photos do not show the same traits.  How about a toe bone/claw of something else.  This area has a lot of fossils.  The below image is of things that were fond not too far from the things in my photo.  Tooth #2 is almost made of the same stone as the picture below.

http://www.dwight-talley.com/astronomy/current_images/meteor1.jpg

Thanks for your help.

Dwight, I believe the the object in your latest link/image could be a fossil Ammonite.  Recommend you Google Ammonites for more info.  Maybe Jax knows more about these in TX.

Daryl.