Architeuthoceras said:
If I say that is a dog tooth this time, it will really be a marine reptile :P
Hmm...ah well, one lives and learns I suppose. I feel a bit embarrassed about that one now! Actually that dog or wolf tooth was partially mineralised so it could well have been of Quaternary date, which sort-of makes it interesting.
I think this time the money is definitely on for a marine reptile, a large close up of the tooth is attached. There were no serrations on the edges and it was about an inch and a half long. Certainly fragmentary elasmosaurid plesiosaur fragments have been found in the area, a partial skeleton was collected in 1877 of
Mauisaurus gardneri , though I'm not sure if that is still a valid name or not.
I think ichthyosaur teeth are generally stubbier and more conical but I'll have to find some more pictures to compare.
Any opinions would be welcome.
Kevin,
the section on the Hoplitaceae was purely compiled from internet sources and a chart in Clarksons' book. If I've made any errors, please just shout and I'll alter the text accordingly.
Cheers, Phil