TOOTH VS TOOTH

Tiger sharkversusSnaggletooth shark

Two original visual plates. Ten comparison fields. One careful verdict.

Tiger shark profile →
FRONT / LABIAL VIEWEDGE / PROFILECOARSE EDGEPOSITION CHANGES SHAPE● ANTERIOR● LATERALTUFFSHARK ORIGINAL TOOTH PLATEDIAGRAMMATIC · NOT TO SCALE
Original TuffShark vector illustration. Trait emphasis is diagrammatic; it is not a specimen photograph or a substitute for an associated jaw.
VS
Snaggletooth shark profile →
FRONT / LABIAL VIEWEDGE / PROFILECOARSE EDGEPOSITION CHANGES SHAPE● ANTERIOR● LATERALTUFFSHARK ORIGINAL TOOTH PLATEDIAGRAMMATIC · NOT TO SCALE
Original TuffShark vector illustration. Trait emphasis is diagrammatic; it is not a specimen photograph or a substitute for an associated jaw.
IDENTIFICATION VERDICT

The strongest separator is overall crown shape. Confirm it against the root and jaw-position notes before naming an isolated tooth.

FIELD MARKTiger sharkSnaggletooth shark
Signature

A strongly curved, can-opener profile with a deep outer notch and compound serrations.

Upper teeth are broad, dramatically hooked and coarsely serrated; lowers are narrower with hooked tips.

Crown

Deeply notched blade

Hooked blade / Broad triangle

Edge

Coarse serrations / Uneven / mixed serrations

Coarse serrations

Cusplets

No side cusplets

No side cusplets

Root

Wide / nearly flat root / Two distinct root lobes

Two distinct root lobes / Wide / nearly flat root

Tooth height

10–40 mm reference range

12–48 mm reference range

Jaw variation

Upper and lower teeth share the same deeply notched can-opener design.

Broad hooked serrated uppers differ sharply from narrow lower fangs.

Habitat

Tropical and warm-temperate coasts, reefs, shelves and open water.

Ancient warm coastal and shelf seas.

Diet

Fishes, turtles, rays, seabirds, marine mammals and carrion.

Fishes, rays, sharks and marine mammals inferred from tooth form and associations.

Shark size

Usually 3–4.5 m (10–15 ft); the largest verified animals are larger.

Commonly reconstructed around 3–5 m (10–16 ft), with uncertainty.

Bite force

No reliable species-specific value is established; bite force changes with body size and bite point.

Not directly measurable; no defensible species-specific value is used here.

Fossils

Galeocerdo teeth are common in Neogene marine deposits.

Common in Oligocene–Pleistocene marine deposits, especially as isolated teeth.

TIGER SHARK TRAP

Heavy wear can erase the small secondary serrations, but the hooked, notched silhouette usually remains diagnostic.

SNAGGLETOOTH SHARK TRAP

Without knowing upper versus lower position, this species can score alongside tiger or requiem sharks.

SOURCE / Tiger sharkFlorida Museum
SOURCE / Snaggletooth sharkFlorida Museum Digital Collections

Illustrations are original TuffShark diagrams, not photographs taken from either reference.

+

KEEP COMPARING

Other difficult tooth pairs.

Great white sharkversusTiger sharkOpen →MegalodonversusGreat white sharkOpen →Bull sharkversusDusky sharkOpen →Bull sharkversusOceanic whitetipOpen →