The Giant Prehistoric Crushing Shark - Ptychodus 

But did he have to say Baby Shark ? 🎵🎵🎵 Now it's in my head 🤣

It’s been the same exact shit for twenty years

@@aanntthhoonnyy its been the BEST same exact shit for twenty years

Lets GOOOO!

Hope you enjoy!

I would love to find some Ptychodus teeth myself someday! That's so cool!

@@BenGThomas try a Texas fossil trip, you'll love it. Just not right now when the temps are over 100 degrees F.

oh dang and Mr. Thomas might not realize how far Dallas and Sherman are from the Texas Gulf Coast. Hundreds of miles! Five hour drive from where I am on the Gulf Coast! Yah, wow that is really cool I had now idea there were creeks like that, that far north of the coastal waters and I am Texan!

@@nozrep During the Cretacous an inland sea went from the Gulf of Mexico up to Kansas and Nebraska. So, shark's teeth and mosasaur verts and teeth. The neat thing about POC is that it also cuts through a Pleistocine layer and you can find mammoth enamel and bison teeth and stuff. Also, relics from the pioneers.

I'd want to find Ptychotus teeth so I can make a necklace out of it and then confuse the heck out of people when I tell them it's a shark tooth necklace

I very much agree and said much rhe same.

Tbf the boys had like graduation to do, so I'm happy for both 😊

Possibly even existed longer than the rings of Saturn aswell

The true sharks (Selachimorpha) fossils have been found no earlier than the Jurassic with possible early Permian fossils also being sharks. Trees have been found from around the Middle Devonian. If you look at the cartilaginous fish as a whole then it would’ve been true, but that would mean including fish that aren’t sharks in the definition of a shark.

@@vinny184 yes, I edited my comment for clarity, because the earliest fossil evidence for sharks or their ancestors are a few scales dating to 450 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician Period. Emma Bernard, a curator of fossil fish at the Museum, says, 'Shark-like scales from the Late Ordovician have been found, but no teeth. If these were from sharks it would suggest that the earliest forms could have been toothless. Scientists are still debating if these were true sharks or shark-like animals.'

@@Unpainted_Huffhines I haven’t looked into for some time if anything has changed but I doubt it as around 2010 or so a well supported molecular phylogenetic study was done which has been replicated a few times after. Shark-like is often used for proper science communication because everyone knows what sharks are. While lots don’t know about the difference between cartilaginous fish and bony fish.

I was wondering about that

What you got against the height?

@julianshepherd2038 Height has its place, true. However, Depth could be considered negative or inverse Height. So I suppose after a fashion I complimented the Height while only using positive terms. 😉🤣🖖

The Pacu, a relative of the piranha, has a similar teeth. They generally target fruits but will go after anything that can fit in their mouth. It’s why in some areas around the world they’re invasive pest that eat the local fish stocks.

Never thought i'd see you in this channel.

I wonder when they'd reach sexual maturity then.

Shark 🦈❤

Apparently, Helicoprion is not a shark, it is a holocephalan, whereas sharks (superorder Selachimorpha) belong to the class Elasmobranchii, interestingly, the classes Holocephali and Elasmobranchii are not closely related, the latter is more closely related to bony vertebrates, while the former is the most basal of all the extant jawed vertebrates.

@@indyreno2933 well they’re both cartilaginous fish so there is some relation there. I was just saying that the fact that this shark reminded me of one of the outdated theories for the Helicoprion’s whirl was they thought it could’ve been used to crush shelled organisms, though apparently now the current theory is actually the opposite since the fossils of helicoprion apparently lack the wear that would be present on a creature that preys on hard shelled prey

@d4rk5t4r2, bony vertebrates are descended from cartilaginous fish, just like tetrapods are descended from bony fish, which is why sharks and batoids are both more closely related to bony vertebrates than to chimaeras and lobe-finned fish are more closely related to tetrapods than to ray-finned fish, this is also a reason why Actinopterygii and Sarcopterygii are both ranked as full classes, the same is also said for Holocephali and Elasmobranchii.

@@indyreno2933 interesting. I thought Chondrichthyes was the class for the cartilaginous fish, which encompasses Holocephali and Elasmobranchs

@d4rk5t4r2, Agnathichthyes, Chondrichthyes, and Osteichthyes are all invalid taxa because they are all paraphyletic, Agnathichthyes is paraphyletic because lampreys are more closely related to jawed vertebrates than to hagfish, Chondrichthyes is paraphyletic because sharks and batoids (collectively known as elasmobranchs) are more closely related to bony vertebrates than to chimaeras and their extinct relatives (collectively known as holocephalans), Osteichthyes is paraphyletic because and lobe-finned fish are more closely related to tetrapods than they are to ray-finned fish, this officially makes six extant classes of fish: Myxini (Hagfish and Fossil Relatives), Petromyzontida (Lampreys and Fossil Relatives), Holocephali (Chimaeras and Fossil Relatives), Elasmobranchii (Sharks and Batoids), Actinopterygii (Ray-Finned Fish), and Sarcopterygii (Lobe-Finned Fish).

It's called After All, by Geographer 😁 glad you enjoyed the video thank you!

@@BenGThomas Thx a lot! The choice of music on this channel is excellent!

Mammoths moved their jaw to grind their food, are sharks able to do that?

They look similar to nurse shark teeth. And they hunt mollusks and crustaceans.