Chainsaw-Toothed Shark Fossil Uncovered

JonB

Don't Take Crap from Life
Sep 16, 2012
1,157
0
0
Chainsaw-Toothed Shark Fossil Uncovered



CT scans allowed researchers to reconstruct a puzzling fossil - with surprising results.

An unusually complete fossil of the ancient fish Helicoprion has allowed researchers to create a model which reveals new information about the puzzling jaw arrangement of the creature. Helicoprion had whorls of teeth, much like a spiral saw blade, that rolled up into the creature's jaw, slashing and tearing its food. "As the mouth closes, the teeth spin backwards... so they slash through the meat that they are biting into," Dr. Leif Tapanila, who worked on the study, told the BBC. "The teeth themselves are very narrow: nice long, pointy, triangular teeth with serrations like a steak knife. As the jaw is closing and the teeth are spinning past whatever it's eating, it's making a very nice clean cut." The working theory is that unlike sharks, Helicoprion never shed its teeth. The fossil the researchers used is unusual because it contains imprints of cartilage, which usually does not preserve well.

The researchers used a CT scan on the fossil to see that they had more than just the lower jaw, but a semi-complete jaw structure. Previously, researchers had thought that the spiral of teeth might be a defense mechanism located on the exterior of the jaw. "When we got the images back, we could easily see that we had the upper and lower jaw of the animals, as well as the spiral of teeth," said Dr. Tapanila. Using the images, the team built a computer model of the jaw and is working on a physical model. Given the way the jaw moved, with a rolling motion, Dr. Tapanila thinks that the fish likely ate soft things, like the ancestors of modern squid. "If this animal were eating other animals that were very hard or [had] hard armor plating or dense shells, you would expect more damage to their teeth."

Given the fish's characteristics, it's likely not a true shark at all, but more closely related to modern chimaeras and ratfish. It was probably 4 to 7 meters (13-22 feet) long.

Source: BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/21589719]
Image: Ray Troll [http://www.trollart.com/]


Permalink
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
Hundrets of pictures based on diverging assumptions gone to waste...
http://www.karencarr.com/auto_image/auto_image_mid/Heliocoprian.jpg
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/hgifs/Helicoprion.GIF
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs37/f/2008/242/e/7/e70e1d72a47fa20753a86fdf4ab4b268.jpg
http://de.academic.ru/pictures/meyers/large/090139c.jpg
Although I personally liked the first one, makes it kinda look like a cartoon character that has just seen a sexy shark lady walking past.

Captcha: science class
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
Seriously, nothing nature does really shocks me anymore. I consider that to be the most awesome of realisations.

"Fish with a buzz saw for teeth that looks like something from a 90's platformer found"

Dude have you read about ant societies and species?! suicide bombers, slave taking ants. Or the 37 foot long death eels that used to swim in the ocean?! Ain't minding freaking giraffes. naturalist' please.
 

Smashingpass

New member
Jan 10, 2013
29
0
0
Just when you thought Sharks couldn't get much cuddlier, huh? Still, regardless of how terrified I'd be if I saw one alive, it's a pretty impressive critter.
 

Jack Rascal

New member
May 16, 2011
247
0
0
This might be a very stupid question, but how did they conclude that those teeth belong to a shark, if all they have ever found was said teeth? And such strange teeth at that.

This just baffles me.
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
Jack Rascal said:
This might be a very stupid question, but how did they conclude that those teeth belong to a shark, if all they have ever found was said teeth? And such strange teeth at that.

This just baffles me.
They have more they just emphasized the upper and lower jaw because those were never found intact previously. Though it is just a few skull fragments. Though based on the teeth you can distinguish allot of animals. Just requires an expert eye.

They could also be wrong and this is just a seashell that evolved serrated edges to ward of predators, but science will tell with time.

Also DAMN NATURE YOU SCARY!
 

Jack Rascal

New member
May 16, 2011
247
0
0
1337mokro said:
Jack Rascal said:
This might be a very stupid question, but how did they conclude that those teeth belong to a shark, if all they have ever found was said teeth? And such strange teeth at that.

This just baffles me.
They have more they just emphasized the upper and lower jaw because those were never found intact previously. Though it is just a few skull fragments. Though based on the teeth you can distinguish allot of animals. Just requires an expert eye.

They could also be wrong and this is just a seashell that evolved serrated edges to ward of predators, but science will tell with time.

Also DAMN NATURE YOU SCARY!
Hmmm... I remain sceptical :D

Not saying that it wouldn't be magnificent if that animal had existed but a seashell with serrated edges would be pretty cool looking too!

Maybe they found a fossil of a shark eating a seashell? Choked to death while trying to eat the seriously equipped prey...
 

ssgt splatter

New member
Oct 8, 2008
3,276
0
0
who got their 'gears of war' in my 'finding nemo?'
but honestly, nothing beats nature. i'll bet at some point, someone, somewhere will find the bones of whatever the vikings thought were dragons and say, "look dragons were real."
 

Mouse One

New member
Jan 22, 2011
328
0
0
Hey, anyone else remember the beached whale from Zeno Clash?


Pretty sure they must have seen this interpretation of the Helicoprion
 

Lonewolfm16

New member
Feb 27, 2012
518
0
0
ssgt splatter said:
who got their 'gears of war' in my 'finding nemo?'
but honestly, nothing beats nature. i'll bet at some point, someone, somewhere will find the bones of whatever the vikings thought were dragons and say, "look dragons were real."
So the stories of Viking warriors slaying dragons would then be true? You sir have given me hope in my heart.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
Jack Rascal said:
This might be a very stupid question, but how did they conclude that those teeth belong to a shark, if all they have ever found was said teeth? And such strange teeth at that.

This just baffles me.
From what I understand, it's not at all unusual for paleontologists to identify creatures by the teeth, though it's more common with mammals (I have a friend who often complains that mammalian paleontology is "all skulls and teeth"). If shark teeth have unique characteristics then it may be entirely possible to identify a creature as a shark from just teeth. I don't know if that's what happened here (there may have been other bones involved) but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
It wasn't a shark, though.

From the article:

The study also highlighted the family connections of the ancient fish, categorising it with chimaeras and ratfish rather than sharks.

"One of the main ways that fish are identified is based on how the upper jaw connects to the rest of the skull," said Dr Tapanila.

"Because we have the upper jaw we can look at the bumps and grooves on it and see how it would have connected.

"It was fixed in two positions and was fused essentially to the brain tip... a feature that's distinctive for chimaeras and ratfish."
Jack Rascal said:
This might be a very stupid question, but how did they conclude that those teeth belong to a shark, if all they have ever found was said teeth? And such strange teeth at that.

This just baffles me.
They had the whole upper and lower jaw.

Besides, it's not unusual that a whole species is only known by the teeth (especially with sharks, as the teeth are often the only things that are fossilized), and you can tell a lot about the animal with just the teeth, and based on what you know about their relatives.

ssgt splatter said:
who got their 'gears of war' in my 'finding nemo?'
but honestly, nothing beats nature. i'll bet at some point, someone, somewhere will find the bones of whatever the vikings thought were dragons and say, "look dragons were real."
Well, dinosaurs existed, and while they predated vikings, people have been finding their remains for a long time. It's no wonder they'd think they were dragons. Or giants. I know for sure mammoth/elephant skull were thought to belong to cyclopses.

Of course, you wouldn't find dinosaur-remains like that in Scandinavia, but vikings travelled.
 

BernardoOne

New member
Jun 7, 2012
284
0
0
Mouse One said:
Hey, anyone else remember the beached whale from Zeno Clash?


Pretty sure they must have seen this interpretation of the Helicoprion
first thing it came to mind to me :D