California shark teeth

Yesterday while doing fieldwork at one of my research localities, I spotted a beautiful shark tooth poking out of the cliff. Only a very tiny part of the serrated tooth blade could be seen, and initially I was unsure of how large it was. After a few minutes of chiseling, it was clear that this was a rather large specimen of the great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, and upon removal, ended up being about 3 cm long - the second largest specimen I had collected from this locality. This was a good day, as I generally have only found about 3-4 of these teeth per year; they are not too hard to spot - in fact, they are fairly obvious due to the easy-to see enamel and serrations (unless a root lobe is all that is exposed). Altogether, I have collected perhaps 50 Carcharodon teeth from the Purisima Formation in total - they are relatively rare in comparison to marine mammal bones. And this is not for lack of trying: I've found that it generally takes about 3-4 trips to a given locality before I spot another specimen; whether this is due to examining exposures not covered by the previous trip, or erosion between trips, I'm not sure.

The Carcharodon carcharias tooth as found in the outcrop.

The prepared specimen.

I've found that shark teeth are nearly impossible to find during the summer months, and easy to find in the winter, when the cliffs are cleaned off by surf action. I rarely find teeth in the summer simply because I tend to pick the localities clean in the winter, and I have to wait until the erosion of the following winter to find anything. Shark teeth are so rare in west coast strata that it is not very fruitful to look for them on nearby beaches; indeed, I found one Carcharodon tooth in this manner, in 2006 - and I have not found another this way.

Certainly, the Purisima Formation is not the only shark-tooth yielding unit on the west coast. Two rock units that boast a healthy dose of shark teeth are the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed in the Round Mountain Silt near Bakersfield, one of the highest concentrations of fossil shark teeth in the world - and the Santa Margarita Sandstone near Santa Cruz. At both of these localities, one can find dozens of teeth with little work (Sharktooth Hill) or quite a bit of digging (Santa Margarita Sandstone). In high school, I played hooky one day and drove down to Santa Cruz, and spent 8 hours in a pit with a shovel and my screen, and collected 70 teeth - but only after ending up with enough screened sediment to fill a Volkswagen beetle.

Fossil mako teeth (Cosmopolitodus hastalis and Cosmopolitodus planus) from the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed, UCMP Collections (image borrowed from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/).

In 2005, I was fortunate to contrast my west coast experience with that of Calvert Cliffs. I had three hours to check out the famous Brownie's Beach, where just looking through shelly debris on the beach, I found 80 shark teeth (mostly the reef shark Carcharinus), just on the surface of the beach, in an area smaller than one side of a tennis court. I've seen mason jars filled with shark teeth folks have scooped up from Florida beaches, and seen multitudes of shark teeth from the famous Lee Creek mine in North Carolina. Sure, there is plenty of lore and mysticism surrounding east coast shark teeth (and their collectors in particular!), but I have gotten the distinct impression that most shark-bearing strata on the west coast are depauperate compared to that on the east coast. Contrast nearly 100 teeth per 3 hours of work to 30 hours of work for one tooth, for example. Additionally, although I have not personally collected data on this, the obscene number of shark teeth from certain east coast units (i.e. 24,000 shark teeth from Calvert Cliffs from just 3 years of donations to the Calvert Marine Museum; Visaggi and Godfrey 2010) suggests that the ratio of sharks:marine mammals in the east coast is astronomically higher than in the Purisima Formation (which in my thesis, I determined it to be around 1:40) and other west coast units. How could this be?

A heap of shark teeth from Florida (image borrowed from www.sharkysshop.com).

A number of biological and taphonomic hypotheses can be made:
1) The fossil shark assemblages perhaps differ in their taxonomic composition, and perhaps there is some related preservation bias.
2) The western Atlantic had higher productivity and stronger upwelling in the Neogene, supporting a larger absolute population of sharks.
3) Sharks and marine mammals have a different preservation potential, which a large-scale taphonomic process could act upon.

Immediately dismissing out of hand absurd suggestions like fossil marine vertebrates were preserved differently along either coast or had different skeletal mineralogy between ocean basins, one can start to think about the above suggestions. For example, contrasting the Carcharodon carcharias-dominated shark assemblage of the Purisima Formation with that of the Calvert Formation which is dominated by carchariniforms like Carcharinus, Hemipristis, and Galeocerdo, this suggestion seems to have some merit. However, there is little difference in preservation potential between these different types of sharks, aside from differences in size. In general, marine vertebrate assemblages in bonebeds and the like are very poorly sorted, and all shark teeth are relatively small in comparison, to say, a whale jaw.


The second suggestion has some merit: the old skeletal supply v. concentration idea discussed by Susan Kidwell back in her 1985 paper (although she was talking about mollusks). She argued that skeletal concentrations are usually caused by changes in sedimentation rate - a slowdown in the rate of sedimentation eliminates the diluting effect on bioclasts, allowing them to form a shell or bonebed (or even just a zone where they are slightly more abundant). Kidwell also argued that computer modelling she used demonstrated that her concentration model still worked even when the skeletal supply rate changed. Is it reasonable to assume that the populations of organisms have not changed through time? Of course not. Can we, from a uniformitarian standpoint, work with this in mind? Using Kidwell's model, perhaps - perhaps not. This being said, I'm not sure that more teeth = more sharks. This is a relatively simplistic view of the fossil record, and in the past, interpreting the paleoecology of fossil organisms has been fraught with problems (usually of the taphonomic kind). Sharks aren't the only organisms who would enjoy higher productivity - you'd expect marine mammals to be going bat-shit crazy with all the extra fish, krill, etc. to feed on as well (and eventually dying, shedding their hard parts onto the seafloor as well along with shark teeth).

The sedimentologic fossil concentration model proposed by Kidwell (1985).

What about the third suggestion? Sharks and marine mammals clearly have different skeletal anatomy, and although some elasmobranchs have been found with preserved skeletal elements (including skates from the Purisima Formation - stay tuned!), all that typically preserve are teeth, and occasionally, dermal denticles. Marine mammals have teeth, skulls, earbones, and postcrania that get preserved frequently. Teeth are harder than bones, and probably have a higher preservation potential with respect to purely physical taphonomic processes (i.e. abrasion from winnowing, erosion, and transport). In fact, my data from my master's thesis indicate that shark teeth are less commonly abraded or fragmented relative to marine mammal bones, and therefore it is probably kosher to say they have a higher preservation potential.

Okay, so what? There is clearly some differential preservation potential. But the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are big places: any specific sedimentological process (i.e. bonebed formation) is going to vary along hundreds of miles of the continental shelf, and through geologic time, and it may be difficult to pinpoint one single phenomenon responsible. In fact, to really examine this, we have to zoom way far out, to the basin level. What is the single most obvious difference between Neogene strata of the east coast and the west coast? Again we turn back to the work of Susan Kidwell (1993). In general, because the east coast is a passive continental margin, most of the strata (i.e. Calvert Fm., Pungo Ls., Yorktown Fm., Bone Valley Fm.) are deposited in low subsidence settings ('low' sensu Kidwell, 1993). Most of the strata on the west coast, including the Purisima Fm., are deposited in smaller basins undergoing "wrench" tectonics (i.e. pull-apart basins) or even rifting (Imperial Group, southern California), which Kidwell (1993) classified as medium-high subsidence basins; most basins in California probably qualify under this category (and could be determined via deposition 'rates' and basin thickness/depth).

The concept of supply versus concentration in Kidwell's model can be extrapolated to an entire basin: basin subsidence controls the sedimentation rate, and instead of looking at the microanatomy of a single shellbed, the types of fossil concentrations and their thicknesses and lateral extent can be compared between formations and basins. Just like a longer pause in sedimentation may form thicker shell bed, a formation deposited under lower rates of sedimentation will result in more numerous, thicker, and more architecturally complex shell concentrations. The Calvert Formation in particular was Kidwell's example of a low-subsidence setting. In general, Neogene marine strata of the west coast in general have less numerous and thinner shell concentrations, a general proxy for the sedimentation rate.

A taphonomic process of this magnitude can then be imparted upon a given example of differential preservation: at the end of this, the generally lower sedimentation rate of the western Atlantic resulted in higher amounts of taphonomic damage, more widespread and longer-duration hiatuses/bonebeds, and could have effectively acted as a taphonomic "wedge". By wedge, I am referring to the eventual difference in the preserved abundances of shark teeth and marine mammal bones. Marine mammal bones, with their relatively lower preservation potential, perhaps lost out due to their greater susceptibility to damage by abrasion and fragmentation.

References Cited

Kidwell, S. M. 1985. Paleobiological and sedimentological implications of fossil
concentrations. Nature 318:457-460.

Kidwell, S. M. 1993. Influence of subsidence on the anatomy of marine siliciclastic
sequences and on the distribution of shell and bone beds. Journal of the Geological
Society, London 150:165-167.

Visaggi, C.C. and S.J. Godfrey. 2010. Variation in Composition and Abundance of Miocene Shark Teeth from Calvert Cliffs, Maryland. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30:1:26-35.

Shark-bitten dolphin skull

In 2008 I spent the day before Christmas Eve shivered on a cold, wind-blasted California beach prospecting for vertebrate fossils in the Purisima Formation. I was home on winter break, and although it is far more cold where I go to graduate school in Montana (as I write this I'm looking out at the results of our first winter snow), nothing is worse than being wet and miserably cold out on the foggy, windy coast of the golden state (except perhaps being wet and miserable on the Oregon coast, which I've done).

The thrill (or promise) of discovery is more than enough to keep me fueled in the field during the winter. Indeed, when the birds start singing and the snow melts in the spring, most paleontologists start to get field fever - the field season for most vertebrate paleontologists is during the summer months. Anyone who's ever tried to do coastal fieldwork during the summer, on the other hand, is in for a rude awakening. No erosion takes place during the summer, and many of the outcrops are totally buried. The exposures that are above the beach sand level (which is higher during the summer) are typically covered with dust, sand, and grime, which obscures fossils. The storms in the winter months clean this nasty coating off, and transport beach sand into offshore bars, often exposing strata below the beach (I see new fossil localities every winter this way). Winter is my field season.

Historically, I've had really good luck the day before Christmas Eve. It's my last day before Christmas to make it out in the field. The prior year, I found a humongous Carcharocles megalodon tooth (the only specimen known from the Purisima Formation), and discovered a partially articulated fur seal skeleton.

The Christmas Eve dolphin.

At 4pm, the tide was beginning to come back in, and with little over an hour of daylight, it was looking like I was going to come home empty-handed. I went to one last cove before I turned around to head back to the beach. I walked for a few minutes and spotted something in a boulder I had not seen on my way out: a pair of flat bones joined along an articulation that looked suspiciously (even from 20 feet away) like the palate of a dolphin skull. Upon closer examination, yes indeed! It was a dolphin skull in a mollusk shell bed; the width and flatness of the palate suggested it was not Parapontoporia, the most common odontocete in the Purisima Formation. I set about chopping into the boulder; fortunately, most of it was relatively soft. However, an extremely hard calcium-carbonate cemented concretion the size of a basketball had formed over the dorsal surface of the braincase and rostrum, and this slowed digging down. By dusk, the concretion didn't budge. After another half hour, it finally popped out of the boulder, and I lugged the 45 pound block back to my car. Exhausted, I drove home, drank a couple of hard-earned beers with dinner, and passed out.

View of the facial region of the skull.

When it came time to go back to Montana, I decided I would rather take the fossil as a carry-on than risk checking it and picking up a broken fossil that I had paid 25 bucks for thanks to baggage fees. After arriving in Bozeman (with a very sore back and neck from lugging 65 pounds

of luggage through the Denver airport), I almost immediately began preparation (starting, of course, with acetic acid baths for several weeks to soften the concretionary matrix). It took about two months to prepare, and as you can see from the above photos, it is damn beautiful. I initally identified it as something like Haborophocoena - it bears numerous similarities. However, after showing them photos of the specimen at SVP 2009 in Bristol, UK, Olivier Lambert and Giovanni Bianucci both think this represents a basal delphinid rather than a basal phocoenid. I'm inclined to agree with them, although part of my original ID was based on the presence of premaxillary eminences, which this specimen has (a phocoenid character). However, the ascending process of the right premaxilla is in contact with the nasals while the left is not (a delphinid character). Whatever it is, it will require preparation of the ventral aspect, and more careful analysis of the morphology than what I've been able to do thus far. Whatever it is, it appears to represent a new genus and species, and will make a beautiful holotype specimen in the future. During preparation, one curious thing I noticed was a notch in one of the premaxillary eminences (the large pads/bumps in front of the bony nares). I initially dismissed it as a pathology.

The left premaxillary eminence showing linear gouges (red lines) and missing bone.

Upon closer examination (which admittedly did not occur until yesterday, almost two years after collection) it became apparent that the abnormal area had two distinct, paralell linear gouges, and a short, less distinct third one in the middle (this one is still partly filled with matrix). Around these gouges is an area of exposed cancellous bone, where the bone has been removed.

Additional gouges present near the base of the rostrum.

I also found four more gouges present: two long ones, and two short ones; all but one are parallel. In fact, aside from the one gouge seen above trending towards the upper left corner of the photo, all the gouges are parallel. This is a textbook set of shark-inflicted bite marks. There are a lot of papers on this in the literature, documenting shark bites on dolphins, baleen whales, pinnipeds, sea turtles, other shark teeth, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, dinosaur bones, sea stars, and probably other marine critters as well.

In fact, the first record of these types of trace fossils were actually first documented in the modern environment: on predated and scavenged sea-otter carcasses from Monterey Bay, and reported by Ames and Morejohn (1980). The reported linear gouges, subparallel wavy small gouges, and a specimen including a shark tooth embedded in a sea otter skull. The morphology of the traces along with the tooth identified the culprit as the Great White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias. Two years later, these exact types of traces were identified by Tom Demere and Richard Cerutti (1982) on a baleen whale dentary (of my favorite whale, Herpetocetus!), and identified as "Carcharodon sulcidens" (a taxon now just considered to be fossil Carcharodon carcharias).

It's not clear what type of shark fed on my poor little dolphin, or if it was a case of predation or scavening; from what I've read, the majority of carcasses that exhibit bites have bite marks on the posterior portion of the body, which is just about as far as you can get from the face. This makes total sense, given how a shark would have to bite into a fleeing dolphin during pursuit. Furthermore, it's interesting to note that this bite would have had to go clean through the dolphin's melon (if it had not already decomposed). Anyway, I interpret these traces as drag marks from the apices of the shark's teeth; I suppose later on I can figure out the relative motion of the shark's mouth during the bite (most likely lateral shake feeding). It'll make for a nice short paper some day...

Ames, J. A., and Morejohn, G.V., 1980, Evidence of white shark, Carcharodon carcharius, attacks on sea otters, Enhydra lutris: California Fish and Game, v. 66, p. 196-209.

Deméré, T.A., and Cerutti, R.A., 1982, A Pliocene shark attack on a cetotheriid whale: Journal of Paleontology, v. 56, p. 1480-1482

Prep update: Purisima Formation mysticete skull 1

In 2005 I received a permit to collect vertebrate fossils from a locality in the Purisima Formation. This project lasted two summers, and resulted in the collection of dozens of shark teeth and vertebrae, calcified cartilage skate jaws, pinniped bones and teeth, several bird bones, odontocete and mysticete bones, including a handful of tympanics, a complete lower jaw of Herpetocetus, a porpoise cranium, and the big kahuna: a 300+ lb plaster jacket with some sort of mysticete skull inside. I wasn't really sure what it was in the field, although I suspected it was a balaenopterid (i.e. rorqual whale, like a Minke, Humpback, Fin, or Blue whale) on gut feeling alone.

The cranium prior to excavation, June 2005.

I first spotted the skull over thanksgiving break in November, 2004, with a flashlight just after sunset. I thought it was a skull at the time, but hadn't seriously thought about getting a permit yet. After I started the permit application process, I actually forgot entirely about the skull, and hadn't thought seriously about excavating it. When I finally stumbled across it again, I thought "why the hell not?" and up until the last few weeks, I've regretted the decision. Bottom line - I spent five months preparing the soft matrix from the ventral side, and in Spring 2006 I moved it to Museum of the Rockies, where I've been (intermittently, given my school schedule) preparing it with pneumatic airchisels since.

Day 1 of the excavation - we started at 5 in the afternoon, and stopped at about 10pm, digging by lantern, headlamp, and heavy metal.

Four years of preparing it with pneumatic tools - this skull was encased in a ridiculously hard concretion which only gets harder toward the center; concretions from elsewhere in the Purisima Formation are "nice" in that they 1) are of constant hardness throughout, and 2) the rock splits off the bone in these other cases. For this specimen, rock never splits off the bone, and in most cases I've had to prep all but 1-2mm of rock away and then grind it down with the airchisel, so some surfaces have definitely gotten a little scored. No matter, because all the sutures are visible, and it looks pretty nice anyway (unless you look at it with a hand lens). So shoot me; if I'd done it 'better', I'd have another year or two of prepwork to do. As it is, I'm leaving some matrix in the left temporal fossa, and elsewhere.

Vicki Jacklich and Liz Johnson (North Carolina State University) assist with the excavation, on Day 2.

A closeup of the skull, which is upside down. The rostrum is missing, and the vomer is the elongate bone pointing to the left. The frontal is the roughly triangular bone in the middle, the arcuate bone is the lateral crest of the supraoccipital shield, which slightly overhangs the temporal fossae (filled with matrix); the base of the squamosal is preserved at left.

I love surprises; this is a broken, partial basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) gill raker found associated with the skull. I've found two more during preparation.

Here Vicki and I are putting the finishing touches on a preliminary jacket to protect some exposed bone.

Liz Johnson (NCSU) assisting with plaster jacketing.

The end of day 3: the skull is now trenched and tunneled under (see rock hammer) and ready for the rest of the plaster jacket to be applied.

Another view of the skull bearing pedestal after trenching and tunneling.

The completed top jacket prior to flipping on Day 4; I didn't have much time to take photos after this.

After the top jacket dried (which took over a day, due to the extremely humid air and my lack of jacketing experience), my temporary field assistant (and friend since 1st grade) Matt Berrini and I used what resources we had, and played 'egyptian' for a while: the ancient egyptians used earth for monument construction. For building pyramids, they built an earthen ramp; for raising obelisks, they had a chamber filled with sand; after the obelisk was raised by ropes, the obelisk was propped up by the sand in the chamber, which was slowly removed, allowing the obelisk to become upright with comparatively little further struggle. So - we built a fairly large 'ramp' of beach sand up to the jacket (as the skull was about 1 meter above the beach) so that the jacket did not break apart and collapse during flipping. In retrospect, the incredible density of the concretion probably indicated we could have probably let it fall anyway (although parts of the bones protruded from the concretion's boundaries, and may have broken).

Anyway, that's all for now, but soon I'll have another post about the prep process, and let you in on the last 5 years of my life.

Summer Adventures Part 7: Sea otter cranium with embedded shark tooth

On the friday of my last week of summer, I picked my girlfriend up from the SFO airport and we booked it to Golden Gate Park, where the prestigious California Academy of Sciences resides. Over the last five years their collections have been at their temporary facility near the Metreon. I visited several years ago (2007?) to look at northern fur seal skeletons. For my SVP presentation, I needed to compare my partial fossil Globicephala cranium with modern Globicephala, just to make sure my ID was correct. After I finished making my comparisons (and confirming my ID), I started photographing other marine mammal parts, and came across a box marked "Enhydra lutris nereis, with shark tooth!" E. L. nereis is the southern sea otter, which used to live from British Columbia south to Mexico; they were declared extinct, and have since repopulated, but only along Central California, and very slowly.
I pulled this skull out, and sure as s*** there was a tiny piece of a Carcharodon carcharias tooth embedded in the skull near the temporal/occipital contact or lambdoidal crest.
This skull was actually described and figured by Ames and Morejohn (1980), who described multiple cases of sea otter carcasses bearing tell tale bite marks in soft tissue, as well as two different bite morphologies: linear gouges, and parallel scrapes, originating from the serrations being dragged across the bone surface. They also figured about a dozen tooth fragments that had broken off and were embedded in soft tissue, and in some cases, skeletal tissue like this specimen.

Here's a closeup picture, and you can clearly see the serrations that diagnose Carcharodon carcharias.

Ames, J. A. and G. V. Morejohn. 1980, Evidence of white shark, Carcharodon carcharius, attacks on sea otters, Enhydra lutris: California Fish and Game, v. 66, p. 196-209.

Finally - answer to the quiz

Well, its been almost a month, and I apologize (I've been busy working on a manuscript).

Anyway, J. Velez-Juarbe got it right - the mystery fossil is a centrum fragment of a very large elasmobranch. In this case, it belongs to the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus, which is a fairly common member of the fish assemblage in the Purisima Formation.













A gill raker of Cetorhinus maximus from the same locality.

The fossil itself is from a 5.8 Ma portion of the Purisima Formation, the type locality for the cetaceans Herpetocetus bramblei and Parapontoporia wilsoni. When I collected it I noticed it was composed of fairly dense bone, so before seeing some of the more subtle features, I thought it was a large bone from a teleost such as an operculum or cleithrum.





















The specimen in question.

However, you'll notice a few distinct features: one one side are some circular concentric ridges, which are the "growth lines" on the surface of elasmobranch and teleost vertebrae. Flip it over, and there are radial ridges. And on top of that, it has a very subtle curvature to it suggestive of a partial cone. I have some similar specimens of much smaller sharks (probably Carcharodon).






















Modern specimen of a Cetorhinus maximus vertebra.

As you can see from the above photograph, the vertebrae of sharks have radially oriented laminae that buttress the two conical parts of the centrum (I'm not totally honed up on elasmobranch vertebral anatomy).

Why is it Cetorhinus, however? Certainly there are other large sharks today and the Miocene as well. Naturally a good question. Other modern sharks today that approach these sizes are Rhincodon typus (whale shark), and Megachasma pelagios (Megamouth Shark). These sharks are, however, much rarer in the fossil record. For example, Megachasma is only known from a few localities in the United States (Pyramid Hill, Early Miocene, CA; Skooner Gulch, Early Miocene, CA; Lee Creek, Early Pliocene, NC - see www.ELASMO.com-->Genera--> Neogene-->Megachasma for more information). Rhincodon is possibly even rarer. Cetorhinus, Rhincodon, and Megachasma are all gigantic filter feeding sharks, a remarkable case of convergence within elasmbobranchs. Whale sharks are obviously the largest (up to 15 m if I remember correctly), and Megamouth sharks are the freaks who weren't discovered until the late 1970's, and give idiots like Steve Alten the argument that C. megalodon might still be hiding in the depths (and thus miraculously adapted to abyssal and bathyal water depths and temperatures and was no longer adapted to feed on marine mammals). For more of this bullshit on C. megalodon still existing (and C. megalodon having its guts liquified by echolocating Brygmophyseter shigensis [its an acoustic battering ram!!]), I highly suggest consulting Jurassic Fight Club.

In addition to Rhincodon and Megachasma, there is also the baddest shark ever, Carcharocles megalodon. C. megalodon certainly had vertebrae this large, and is known from the latest Miocene and early Pliocene localities all over. However, there are no credible occurrences of Carcharocles from the Pliocene of the eastern Pacific, and the youngest occurrence of Carcharocles in the Purisima Formation is in the basal unconformity (and is likely reworked from the 7-9 Ma Santa Cruz Mudstone). There are also only two teeth of C. megalodon ever collected from the Purisima Formation; the smaller of the two resides in a private collection, and I collected the larger one the day before Christmas Eve 2007 (and is happily sitting on my desk as I type this). In any event, it appears that C. megalodon was already extinct in the eastern Pacific by the time this vertebra was deposited. This is strange, as C. megalodon occurs abundantly in the Yorktown Formation on the east coast, which is Early Pliocene in age. Carcharocles may have held out in the Atlantic longer than it did in the Pacific.

On top of this, the vertebrae of C. megalodon are much antero-posteriorly thinner than those of Cetorhinus, which has vertebrae that are nearly as long as they are wide (1:1 contrasting with an approximately 1:4 length to width ratio in Carcharocles, Carcharodon, Isurus, and other Otodontidae/Lamnidae). This is directly reflected in the 'height' or 'depth' of the cone, which in Carcharodon and Carcharocles (Gottfried et al. 1996) is rather flat, and steeper shall we say in Cetorhinus (Gottfried, 1995).

References:
Gottfried, M. D. 1995. Miocene basking sharks(Lamniformes:Cetorhinidae) from the Chesapeake Group of Maryland and Virginia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 15:443-447.

Gottfried, Michael D., Compagno, Leonard J. V., and Bowman, S. Curtis. 1996. Size and skeletal anatomy of the Giant Megatooth shark Carcharodon megalodon. pp. 55-66. IN: Klimley, A. Peter, and Ainley, David G. (editors). Great White Sharks the Biology of Carcharodon carcharias Academic Press. San Diego, CA. 517 pp.

Extinct Mako tooth

Just a quick post, with a very pretty picture. Here is a fossil tooth of the "extinct" Bigtooth Mako shark, aka Isurus hastalis. This shark is the ancestor of the Great White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias. (Since Isurus hastalis and Carcharodon carcharias are simply Miocene and extant end members of an anagenetic lineage, Isurus hastalis didn't exactly go extinct, since it is more or less just a morphotype as opposed to a distinct species).

Later on I'll make up a post completely on the Isurus-Carcharodon transition in the Purisima Formation; there is now a fairly good sample size of teeth from the Isurus-Carcharodon lineage from the Purisima, that demonstrate the appearance of serrations and the increase in serration size through time. Oddly enough, you can see a bit of a little depression that the tooth sits in in the rock surface; that is the remains of a hole I dug for a partial fish skull exactly one year prior (spring break 07; this was 08).

This is one of the youngest occurrences of Isurus hastalis. Needless to say, I was pretty damn happy when I found this. Its a damn pretty tooth, and I'll be donating it to the SCMNH this winter break (If I haven't already - I can't recall).