| Shark Teeth |
|
Carcharias hopei (Agassiz, 1843b)
(Sand tiger shark) Sand tiger teeth are very hard to identify, the key to identifying this species from the other sand tigers in the sedements is their smooth enamel. (no striations). |
![]() |
The left most tooth is a profile view. All teeth are anteriors except the rightmost one, which is a lateral. The top tooth is a lingual view, all others are labial views. Age: Location: Size: |
|
Cretolamna sp. (appendiculata?)
(Mackerel-type shark) |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
|
Otodus obliquus (Agassiz, 1843b)
(Giant Mackerel-type shark) These self evident teeth are the second most sought after teeth in the Aquia formation (the first is the rare Palaeocarcharodon orientalis). O. obliquus teeth can reach slant heights of up to 4", however anything over 2.5" is rare for this location. However, small teeth (~1") are fairly common. To some, Otodus is thought to have evolved into the ancestor of Carcharocles spp., including the final species, C. megalodon. |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
|
Paleocarcharodon orientalis (Casier, 1960a)
(Pygmy White Shark) These enigmatic teeth are the most sought after teeth in the Aquia formation, and probably some of the more sought after teeth in general. This is because these sharks only existed for a brief geologic time. They seem to have appeared in the Paleocene, then quickly vanished in the Paleocene. This means they also have a very limited geologic range. In North America they are mainly found in a unit of the Aquia formation. They are also found in parts of Morrocco and Russia. These teeth look similar to a great white shark, but probably have nothing to do with them. Paleocarcharodon was probably a dead end lineage. They have irregular coarsly serrated blades, and often have coarsly serrated cusps. The average size of these teeth in the Aquia formation is around an inch (2.54 cm). |
![]() |
This specimen has worn serrations, and probably had cusps that are worn off. Age: Location: Size: |
|
Paleohypotodus rutoti (Winkler, 1874b)
(Sand tiger/Mackerel-type shark) |
![]() |
The first is a posterior, the second is a lateral Age: Location: Size: |
|
Striatolamia striata (Winkler, 1874b)
(Sand tiger Shark) The key to identifying Striatolamia sp. from Carcharias hopei is that Striatolamia sp. have striations on their enamel, where Carcharias hopei do not. |
![]() |
These are abundant, especially small ones of < 1" Age: Location: Size: |
![]() |
This is the largest sand tiger I found. It is actually, the largest Striatolamia I have ever seen! It was the 1st nice tooth found with the glass-bottom bucket. Click here to see a pic of when it was found. Age: Location: Size: Date: |
| Other Shark parts |
|
(Shark Verteberal Centrum) |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
|
Myliobatiformes order (Rays) Rays are related to Sharks and Skates, as they are all in the Chondrichthyes Class. Fish in this class have a skeleton made of cartilage instead of true bone. What this means for the fossil collector is bones from these animals seldom fossilize. Occasionally a vertebra may be found, however mostly the hard shark teeth and ray crushing plates are found. |
|
Myliobatidae family (Eagle Rays) |
|
Myliobatis sp Ray crushing plates Rays have modified teeth that form flat crushing plates. These crushing plates are adapted for eating mollusks and crustaceans on the sea floor. They suck their prey up like a vacuum and simply crush them between their upper and lower crushing plates. |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
| Reptiles |
|
Crocodilia order (Crocodiles) |
|
Thecachampsa sp.
(crocodile teeth) Crocodile teeth come in all shapes and sizes, and are usually black |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
|
Thecachampsa sp.
(crocodile scute fragment) Crocodile scutes are a common find in the paleocene deposits along the river. Scutes serve as a kind of body armor. They are bone plates just under the skin throughout most of a crocdiles head, neck, back, and upper half of the tail. Scutes also serve to warm the crocodiles blood (as crocs are cold blooded animals). Blood collects in the little dimples on the scutes, when the crocodile basks in the sun, the blood in the dimples warm up and circulate through the crocodiles body. Crococile scutes can be differentiated from turtle scutes, as the dimples in crocodile scutes are much deeper than in turtle scutes. |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: Date: |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: Date: |
|
Thecachampsa sp.
(crocodile femur fragment) Bone fragments from crocodiles are very common, however identifiable fragments are less common. |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
|
Testudine order (Turtles) Turtle material is common in this formation. |
|
Turtle plastron fragment |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
|
Trionychidae family (Softshell Turtles) |
|
Trionyx sp.
Freshwater turtle Scutes from the carapace of Trionyx are readily identifiable by their deep intricate patterns (which can be seen in both images). They are different from crocodile scutes in that the dimples in a crocodile scute are much deeper. |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
![]() |
Age: Location: Size: |
| Gastropods |
|
Turritella sp.
(Gastropod) |
![]() |
Along some parts of the cliffs, the matrix is harder than the gastropod shells. So the shells erode, and internal molds are left behind. At times, entire cliffsides are composed of these molds Formation: Age: Location: Size: |
![]() |
Formation: Age: Location: Size: |
![]() |
Formation: Age: Location: Size: |
![]() |
Formation: Age: Location: Size: |