Pathological shark teeth

The shark tooth fossil record shows that, due to the sheer quantity of teeth produced over the eons,  many a specimen reflects a 'pathological'  condition. == File Splitting vs. Injury == Over the years, certain natural 'abnormalities' have been deemed pathologies. The best   example might be Gudger (1933) who attributed certain tooth variations in rays to    pathologies, when they were merely the natural manifestation of file splitting.

Unlike 'file splitting', tooth germs may be injured thus creating abnormal teeth. These pathologies are likely to continue over time, showing their presence  in the tooth-band. The accompanying image of a Southern Stingray reflects germ   damage which could be associated with a fish hook injury. Despite the obvious  deformities of these teeth, it could be difficult to distinguish these teeth if   represented by a isolated fossil tooth.

Other Abnormalities
There are undoubtedly various other conditions, which can result in pathological  teeth, however no attempt will be made expand upon this point. It should be noted  that a tooth band may reflect an abnormality not observable in a fossil tooth. The Bourdon collection has a Galeorhinus with  two reversed files (adjoining) and Gordon Hubbell advised that he's seen this    phenomenon a couple times. In one case, it was the fourth or fifth file of a Tiger  Shark that had reversed teeth.

== Abnormalities vs. Variation == It is well known that teeth from a particular file position can vary to some degree    based on sex, age, region and between individuals. The symphyseal region seems    particularly prone to producing multiple 'morphologies'.

In the case of teeth that resemble the symphyseal designs, seeing the actual    dentition might be required to determine if certain specimens are    the result of a pathology or merely an unusual variation of a file position.

== Gallery == &lt;gallery&gt;

Kevin Kidd

&lt;gallery&gt;