Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Otodus megalodon (megalodon)

Chondrichthyes - Lamniformes - Otodontidae

Taxonomy
Carcharias megalodon was named by Agassiz (1843). It is a 3D body fossil.

It was recombined as Carcharodon megalodon by Agassiz (1843), Cope (1868), Woodward (1889), Eastman (1904), Jordan and Gilbert (1919), Leriche (1942), Applegate and Espinosa-Arrubarrena (1996), Gottfried et al. (1996), Purdy et al. (2001), Vicens and Rodríguez-Perea (2003), Nieves-Rivera et al. (2003) and Aguilera and de Aguilera (2004); it was recombined as Procarcharodon megalodon by Casier (1960); it was recombined as Megaselachus megalodon by Gilkman (1964) and Antunes et al. (2015); it was recombined as Carcharocles megalodon by Antunes and Balbino (2003), Ehret et al. (2009), Pimiento et al. (2010), Ehret et al. (2012), Boessenecker (2016), Hastings and Dooley (2017) and Kent (2018); it was recombined as Otodus megalodon by Boessenecker et al. (2019).

Sister species lacking formal opinion data

View classification of included taxa

Synonyms
Synonymy list
YearName and author
1837Carcharias megalodon Charlesworth p. 225 figs. Fig. 24
1843Carcharias megalodon Agassiz p. 247 figs. Fig. 24
1843Carcharodon megalodon Agassiz p. 247 figs. Plate XXIX
1858Carcharodon ferox Emmons p. 227 figs. Fig. 50
1858Carcharodon triangularis Emmons p. 232 figs. Fig. 59
1868Carcharodon megalodon Cope p. 142
1889Carcharodon megalodon Woodward p. 415
1904Carcharodon megalodon Eastman p. 82
1907Carcharodon branneri Jordan p. 116 fig. 15
1919Carcharodon megalodon Jordan and Gilbert p. 22
1942Carcharodon megalodon Leriche p. 74
1960Procarcharodon megalodon Casier
1964Megaselachus megalodon Gilkman
1996Carcharodon megalodon Applegate and Espinosa-Arrubarrena p. 31
1996Carcharodon megalodon Gottfried et al. p. 57
2001Carcharodon megalodon Purdy et al. p. 131
2003Carcharocles megalodon Antunes and Balbino p. 144
2003Carcharodon megalodon Nieves-Rivera et al. p. 224
2003Carcharodon megalodon Vicens and Rodríguez-Perea p. 123
2004Carcharodon megalodon Aguilera and de Aguilera p. 368
2009Carcharocles megalodon Ehret et al. p. 3
2010Carcharocles megalodon Pimiento et al. p. 3
2012Carcharocles megalodon Ehret et al.
2015Megaselachus megalodon Antunes et al. p. 182
2016Carcharocles megalodon Boessenecker p. 3
2017Carcharocles megalodon Hastings and Dooley p. 83
2018Carcharocles megalodon Kent p. 88
2019Otodus megalodon Boessenecker et al. p. 8

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

RankNameAuthor
kingdomAnimalia()
Triploblastica
Nephrozoa
Deuterostomia
phylumChordataHaeckel 1847
subphylumVertebrata
superclassGnathostomata
classChondrichthyes
subclassElasmobranchiiBonaparte 1838
RankNameAuthor
infraclassEuselachii()
NeoselachiiCompagno 1977
Selachii
superorderGaleomorphi
orderLamniformesBerg 1958
familyOtodontidae
genusOtodus
speciesmegalodon()

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
R. W. Boessenecker et al. 2019Crowns broad, triangular, and erect, being broader and more vertical in anterior teeth and with increasing posterior inclination distally; labial crown face relatively flat or mildly convex, often showing short vertical infoldings of the enameloid at base of crown, lingual crown face moderately convex; crown enameloid relatively thick; chevron-shaped band of thinner enameloid on lingual crown face between base of crown and root (lingual neck), thicker in medial section becoming thinner laterally and showing fine vertical striations; cutting edge with fine, even, rounded serrations along entire margin, averaging 12–17 serrations per centimeter (cm); lateral cusplets lacking in adult teeth; root is labiolingually thick with two laterally divergent but apicobasally shallow lobes, usually similar in size and not extending much laterally beyond the lower margin of the crown; labial root face is relatively flat while the lingual root face is laterally convex and thicker in the center with a pronounced nutritive foramen medially.