There is quite a diverse fauna of small (less than 1/2 inch) shark teeth to be collected at the Lee Creek mine, if one is persistent and uses careful technique. These teeth range from moderately uncommon to singular in rarity. Many of my closest collecting associates screen for these teeth with regularity, and several have been rewarded with outstanding finds.

The list of Lee Creek rarities includes: Squatina subserrata, Physogaleus latus, Rhizoprionodon fischeuri, Megachasma pelagios, Triaenodon obesus, Rhincodon typus, Echinorhinus blakei, Scyliorhinus joleaudi, Carcharhinus macloti, Raja clavata, Dasyatis sp., and Urolophus sp. In addition, there are symphyseal, parasymphyseal, medial and posterior teeth from the juveniles of various species, as well as the ubiquitous small Carcharhinid teeth.

Typically, I take home at least one bucket of processed fines from the spoil piles after a trip to Lee Creek. A better method, perhaps, is to either screen in the mine itself (unprocessed sediments), or to bring home sediment from the mine for examination. The fines are washed in a sifter, spread out against a white background, and sorted under magnification. It is not uncommon to recover over 100 small teeth from a single bucket. The finds are then compared to a standard reference. I use Cappetta's Handbook of Paleoichthyology, which is used by professionals throughout the world.

Most of the teeth of interest come from either the Early to Middle Pliocene Yorktown formation or the Early to Middle Miocene Pungo River formation. The younger Pleistocene marine formations (James City & Chowan River) do not contain many teeth in this category. The Yorktown formation is characterized by the presence of the distinctive pelecypod Placopecten clintonius, black phosphate pebbles, and fragmented cetacea bones and vertebrae. The Pungo River formation is present either as an olive-brown sand or a pulverized yellow to white coquinal limestone and barnacle hash.

Squatina subserrata (formerly S. occidentalis, angelshark) teeth attain a maximum size of 3/8 inch. The dentition is homodont. The teeth have a short, recurved crown and a flaring root with a prolongation of the enamel onto the labial face of the root. The stratigraphic range of these teeth at Lee Creek is Mio-Pliocene. Teeth such as these are an infrequent find, and generally can be located either by screening or crawling around the ground.

Physogaleus latus (sharpnose shark) is an early Miocene form at Lee Creek recently brought to light by Dr. Bretton Kent while examining a tooth found by Glenn Zamenski. They superficially resemble the lower Eocene Physogaleus secundus found in the Potapaco member of the Nanjemoy formation. The largest specimen that I have seen is about 1/8 inch.

Rhizoprionodon fischeuri (sharpnose shark) is a tooth that is moderately uncommon, and attains sizes of up to 3/8 inch. They can be found in the Yorktown sediments with careful searching. They resemble both Carcharhinids and Sphyrna laevissimus (hammerhead), except that the tooth is elongated laterally, and has a single, rounded cusplet on the posterior margin.

Megachasma pelagios, the megamouth shark, has teeth that are singular in rarity, with fewer than 12 having been found to date. Ron Ison, Eric Thompsen, and Gary Grimsley have all found Megachasma teeth in the Yorktown sediments. Maximum size for these teeth is approximately 3/4 inch. They resemble enlarged angel shark teeth, but are more robust, and the root is slightly different. Megamouth teeth have also been found at Sharktooth Hill in California.

Triaenodon obesus, white-tip reef shark, likewise, is singular in its rarity. I have only seen pictures of specimens in books. They resemble the teeth of the odontaspidids to some degree, but have bigger lateral denticles. The root lobes are also shaped differently, and are more divergent. Hopefully, I will find one in my screen someday. Triaenodon can probably be found in the Pungo River sediments.

Rhincodon typus (whaleshark) teeth are minute, 1/8 inch maximum, and are Mio-Pliocene in range. Mike Folmer and I found ours by screening. The root has a pronounced lingual protruberance and the crown is foreshortened.

Echinorhinus blakei (bramble shark) teeth are very rare, and very unusual in appearance, in that they have a central recurved crown with large divergent, secondary cusplets. The root is similar to that of the hexanchids. Maximum size for these teeth is about 1/2 inch. They are rarely found in the Pungo River sediments (Miocene). Gary Grimsley and Eric Thompsen have each found several. Jane Hubbard and Tom Parks also have one.

Scyliorhinus joleaudi (cat shark) was recently identified for me by Dr. Bretton Kent as occurring in the Lee Creek Pungo River sediments. The teeth are approximately 1/16 inch, and are found by screening. They do not appear to be excessively rare, however, as Glenn Zamenski has also found two.

Carcharhinus macloti (hardnose shark) teeth are moderately uncommon at Lee Creek, and are found in the Yorktown Pliocene. Maximum size appears to be about 3/8 inch. C. macloti can be separated from other carcharhinids by the presence of larger cusplets on the anterior and posterior margins.

Several species of rays having small teeth can be found at Lee Creek. Raja clavata , Dasyatis sp and Urolophus sp. are known. These teeth range up to 1/8 inch in size. Each has a distinctive structure (see illustration). Dasyatis is at least as common at Lee Creek as Raja clavata, with which it is often confused.

As screening of Lee Creek sediments continues, species that are new to the locality will undoubtedly be discovered. Hopefully, our group will be able to contribute.

References

Readers Digest, Sharks: Silent Hunters of the Deep, (1990), Reader's Digest, NY, p.177.

Kent, Dr. Bretton W., Fossil Sharks of the Chesapeake Bay Region, (1994), Egan Rees & Bayer, Inc., Columbia, MD, pp. 76, 80, 81, 82, 87, 88.

Chandler, R., Neogene Fossils of North Carolina, (1994), North Carolina Fossil Club, pp. 10-16.

Cappetta, H., Chondrichtyes II, Handbook of Paleoichthyology, (1987), Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 145, 164, 266.

---