Hubbry Logo
Shark toothShark toothMain
Open search
Shark tooth
Community hub
Shark tooth
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Shark tooth
Shark tooth
Shark tooth
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Fossil shark teeth (Cretaceous) from southern Israel
Elementorum myologiae specimen, 1669

Sharks continually shed their teeth; some Carcharhiniformes shed approximately 35,000 teeth in a lifetime, replacing those that fall out.[1] There are four basic types of shark teeth: dense flattened, needle-like, pointed lower with triangular upper, and non-functional. The type of tooth that a shark has depends on its diet and feeding habits.

Sharks are a great model organism to study because they continually produce highly mineralized tissues.[2] Sharks continually shed their teeth and replace them through a tooth replacement system.[3] Through this system, sharks replace their teeth relatively quickly with replacement teeth that are ready to rotate because their teeth often get damaged while catching prey.[3] They will replace teeth that are broken and young sharks can even replace their teeth weekly.[3] Although sharks constantly shed their teeth, factors such as water temperature affect the turnover rate. While warmer water temperatures produced faster rates, cold water temperatures slowed tooth replacement rates in nurse sharks.[4] They are only shed once new teeth are formed underneath and push them out of the connective tissue that was holding them in place.[5] The sex of the shark also plays a role in the development of teeth and the differences in teeth in species due to gender is called sexual heterodonty.[6] Usually, females have larger teeth because on average they are usually larger than males.[6] Also, age can change the shape of teeth in which "juvenile teeth start out more narrow and robust, while adult teeth are broader and thinner".[6]

In some formations, shark's teeth are a common fossil. These fossils can be analyzed for information on shark evolution and biology; they are often the only part of the shark to be fossilized. Fossil teeth comprise much of the fossil record of the Elasmobranchii, extending back to hundreds of millions of years. A shark tooth contains resistant calcium phosphate materials.[7]

The most ancient types of shark-like fish date back to 450 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician period, and are mostly known by their fossilized teeth and dermal denticles.[5] However, the most commonly found fossil shark teeth are from the Cenozoic era (the last 66 million years).

Types and functions

[edit]

Though sharks often are highly specialized, as a category they have ranged widely in their adaptations. Their teeth reflect this, ranging widely in form and function.

There are a number of common types of shark teeth, that vary according to the diet of the shark. Examples include dense flattened teeth for crushing; long needle-like teeth for gripping; pointed lower teeth for gripping combined with serrated, triangular upper teeth for cutting, and teeth that are tiny, greatly reduced, and non-functional.[8]

Eastman1901-web

Dense flattened teeth

[edit]

Dense flattened teeth are used to crush prey like bivalves and crustaceans.[9] These sharks include nurse sharks and angel sharks. They are typically found at the bottom of the ocean floor.

Needle-like teeth

[edit]

This was the first common style of shark tooth, present in the Devonian, four hundred million years ago.[10] Sharks with needle-like teeth commonly feed on small to medium-sized fish, sometimes including small sharks. These teeth are especially effective for such prey because they can easily grip their slippery and narrow bodies. Modern examples include the blue shark and bull sharks. These sharks specifically use their teeth to feed on small prey like squid, flounder, stingrays, and even hammerhead sharks.[11]

Pointed lower teeth and triangular upper teeth

[edit]

This combination of pointed lower teeth, with triangular upper teeth are especially useful for cutting prey that consist of large mammals and fish. The combination of teeth entails serrated edges to cut the larger prey into smaller portions in order to easily swallow the pieces.[12] The most famously known shark with these teeth is the great white shark, which feeds on animals such as sea lions, dolphins, other sharks, and even small whales.[11]

Non-functional teeth

[edit]

The teeth of plankton-feeders, such as the basking shark and whale shark, are greatly reduced and non-functional. These sharks filter feed on prey by opening their mouths to let tiny organisms get sucked into their mouths to feed without using their teeth at all, instead filtering the food when passing water through their gills.[11] Basking sharks feed by swimming towards their prey with their mouth open and straining their food.[12] Through this process the shark is able to successfully eat hundreds of pounds of zooplankton each day.[12] Whale sharks feed by using rakers on their gill bars and strain them from their gill slits after sweeping krill and other prey into their mouths.[12]

Transitional teeth

[edit]

As one species evolves into another, its teeth may become difficult to classify, exhibiting characteristics of both species. (Example: teeth from Otodus auriculatus as it evolved into O. angustidens) are difficult to definitively identify as coming from either species.

Otodus megalodon fossil shark jaw (reconstruction) (late Cenozoic) 2

A commonly referred to transition is the evolution of Isurus hastalis, the extinct giant mako, into the great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias. There exist teeth that are believed to represent the transition between the two species. These teeth, from Carcharodon sp. are characterised by the wider, flatter crowns of the extinct giant mako. However, they also exhibit partial, fading serrations, which are more pronounced near the root, and disappear towards the tip of the tooth – serrations being found in great whites but not extinct giant makos.

Special mention: Megalodon teeth

[edit]
An O. megalodon tooth excavated from Lee Creek Mine, Aurora, North Carolina, United States.

Otodus megalodon teeth are the largest of any shark, extinct or living, and are among the most sought after types of shark teeth in the world. This shark lived during the late Oligocene epoch and Neogene period, about 28 to 1.5 million years ago, and ranged to a maximum length of 60 ft.[13] The smallest teeth are only 1.2 cm (0.5 in) in height, while the largest teeth are in excess of 17.7 cm (7.0 in). The smaller teeth ranging from 3+1⁄2" and 4+1⁄2" are more common finds, while teeth over 5", 6", and 7" are more rare.[13] These teeth are in extremely high demand by collectors and private investors, and they can fetch steep prices according to their size and deterioration.[13] The larger teeth can cost as much as 3,000 dollars.[14]

Deposits

[edit]

Shark teeth cannot be collected from just any type of rock. Any fossils, including fossil shark teeth, are preserved in sedimentary rocks after falling from their mouth.[13] The sediment that the teeth were found in is used to help determine the age of the shark tooth due to the fossilization process.[15] Shark teeth are most commonly found between the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary periods.[16] Only after about 10,000 years will a shark tooth fossilize.[17] The teeth commonly found are not white because they are covered with sediment from fossilization. The sediment prevents oxygen and bacteria from attacking and decaying the tooth.[16][17]

Fossilized shark teeth can often be found in or near river bed banks, sand pits, and beaches. These teeth are typically worn, because they were frequently moved and redeposited in different areas repeatedly before settling down. Other locations, however, yield perfect teeth that were hardly moved during the ages. These teeth are typically fragile, and great care should be taken while excavating them.[16] Phosphate pits, containing mostly fossil bones and teeth, or kaolin pits, are ideal places to look for fossil shark teeth. One of the most notable phosphate mines is in Central Florida, Polk County, and is known as Bone Valley. Most of the teeth found here range from 3 to 10 million years old.[13] Near New Caledonia, up until the practice was banned, fishermen and commercial vessels used to dredge the sea floor for megalodon teeth. In the state of Georgia, shark teeth are found so often that they decided to make shark teeth the official state fossil in 1976.[18]

Counting

[edit]
Megalodon lower jaw with 4 tooth rows and 4 tooth series labeled. "Series 1" contains the functional teeth at the front of the jaw.

In taxonomy, shark teeth are counted as follows: rows of teeth are counted along the line of the jaw, while series of teeth are counted from the front of the jaw inward.[19] A single tooth row includes one or more functional teeth at the front of the jaw, and multiple replacement teeth behind this.[20] For example, the jaws of a bull shark can have 50 rows of teeth in 7 series, with the outermost series functional, but most sharks have five series with the average shark having about 15 rows of teeth in each jaw.[17] The small teeth at the symphysis, where the two halves of the jaw meet, are usually counted separately from the main teeth on either side. Sharks are also known to lose at least one tooth per week. Due to their specific arrangement of rows and series however, lost teeth can be replaced within a day.[17]

Research and identification

[edit]

Identification of most sharks are found through a combination of tooth counts and tooth shapes. Teeth can even lead to the identification of shark species like the requiem shark. The fossilized records of teeth helps illustrate evolutionary history, and isolated teeth are used to study and analyze specific linear measurements of the species.[21] In order to identify teeth and specific information about the teeth, research can be done on a shark tooth. This research may uncover many different aspects about the tooth itself, and the shark species. This proves complicated, however, due to the fact that most fossilized teeth are found mixed and scattered.[15] To collect information on basic-life history and get dispersal estimates of a shark tooth, molecular-based technology is very efficient. To further shark population studies, collection of mtDNA can be extracted from shark jaws and teeth.[22] To study the caries-reducing effect in sharks, studies are done on the fluorine atoms that are bound covalently to calcium atoms in the teeth. Each tooth has a complex fluorapatite structure enameloid.[23] In order to reduce effects of deterioration in the teeth, it is useful to sample only the surface of the enameloid of the tooth for this specific research.[24] Studying and researching shark teeth betters our understandings of shark feeding behaviors, evolutionary changes, and mechanisms.[25] This helps us to identify the teeth, and even the species.

History of discovery

[edit]
Scapanorhynchus texanus, Menuha Formation (Upper Cretaceous), southern Israel.
Shark tooth

The oldest known records of fossilized shark teeth are by Pliny the Elder, who believed that these triangular objects fell from the sky during lunar eclipses.[26]

According to Renaissance accounts, large, triangular fossil teeth often found embedded in rocky formations were believed to be petrified tongues of dragons and snakes and so were referred to as "tongue stones" or "glossopetrae". In Malta, where these teeth are found in large numbers, they are linked to the legend of Saint Paul, who is said to have deprived the island's snakes of their venom after being attacked by a viper on his arrival on the island. These teeth are said to represent the apostle's tongue, and are known in Maltese as "Ilsien San Pawl". In German, they are called "Natternzungen" (the tongue of the Natrix, a water snake).[27] Glossopetrae were commonly thought to be a remedy or cure for various poisons and toxins; they were used in the treatment of snake bites. Due to this ingrained belief, many noblemen and royalty wore these "tongue stones" as pendants or kept them in their pockets as good-luck charms.[28]

This interpretation was corrected in 1558 by the Swiss naturalist Conrad Gessner, who wrote about their similarities with shark teeth,[29] in 1611 by the Italian naturalist Fabio Colonna, who demonstrated the organic origins of these rocks, and, in 1667, by the Danish naturalist Nicolaus Steno, who discussed their composition and famously produced a depiction of a shark's head bearing such teeth.[30] He mentioned his findings in a book, The Head of a Shark Dissected, which also contained an illustration of a C. megalodon tooth, previously considered to be a tongue stone.[31]

Tool use by humans

[edit]
Gilbertese weapons edged with shark teeth

In Oceania and America, shark teeth were commonly used for tools, especially on weapons such as clubs and daggers, but also as blades to carve wood and as tools for food preparation, such as the māripi of the Māori. For example, various weapons edged with shark teeth were used by the Native Hawaiians (see example here[32]), who called them leiomano.[33] Some types were reserved for royalty.[34] The Guaitaca (Weittaka) of coastal Brazil tipped their arrows with shark teeth.[35] The remains of shark tooth-edged weapons, as well as chert replicas of shark teeth, have been found in the Cahokia mounds of the upper Mississippi River valley, more than 1,000 km (620 mi) from the ocean.[36] It is reported that the rongorongo tablets of Easter Island were first shaped and then inscribed using a hafted shark tooth.[37]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Shark tooth

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A shark tooth is a specialized, calcified structure primarily composed of dentin covered by a layer of enameloid, adapted for grasping, cutting, or crushing prey depending on the shark species. These teeth form from dermal tissue on the cartilaginous jaws and are arranged in multiple rows, with typically one to two functional rows at the front while others lie folded inward, allowing for continuous replacement as teeth are lost or worn. Sharks exhibit remarkable dental diversity, with tooth shapes varying widely—such as pointed cusps for piercing fish in mako sharks, serrated triangles for tearing flesh in great whites, or flattened molars for grinding shells in nurse sharks—to suit their specific diets and hunting strategies. Over their lifetimes, sharks can shed and replace up to 30,000 teeth through a conveyor-belt-like regeneration process originating from the jaw's inner tissues, ensuring they maintain effective feeding capabilities despite frequent damage. The root of each tooth anchors it to connective tissues enveloping the jaw, providing structural integrity under high bite forces that can reach up to 4,000 pounds per square inch in large species like the great white shark. Due to their durable composition and the sheer volume shed, shark teeth are among the most abundant vertebrate fossils, offering key insights into ancient marine ecosystems, evolutionary adaptations, and even isotopic dating of geological layers from millions of years ago.

Anatomy and Physiology

Basic Structure

Shark teeth are primarily composed of a hard outer layer of enameloid covering a core of , with an inner pulp cavity that houses and vessels for nourishment and sensation. The enameloid, which forms a cap-like structure on the tooth's crown, is highly mineralized with a crystalline dominated by , providing exceptional hardness and resistance to wear, while the underlying is less mineralized and consists of tubular structures formed by odontoblasts. This layered composition enhances the tooth's durability during feeding, with tests indicating that enameloid is roughly six times harder than . In terms of morphology, shark teeth typically exhibit triangular or pointed shapes, often featuring serrated edges that facilitate slicing through prey, though variations exist across species. Sizes vary widely depending on the shark's body length and species; for instance, teeth in small species like catsharks measure as little as 2-3 mm, while those in larger predators such as the (Carcharodon carcharias) can reach up to 7 cm in length. These dimensions reflect adaptations to diet and hunting strategies, with the crown's profile—whether broad and triangular or narrow and awl-like—optimized for gripping or tearing. Shark teeth attach to the jaws via sockets in the surrounding connective tissue rather than being fused directly to the , allowing for flexibility and continuous replacement from multiple rows. The functional row protrudes from the , while several reserve rows lie behind it, ready to migrate forward as needed—a process that ensures the maintains a sharp throughout its life. This arrangement, with typically 5-15 rows depending on the , supports the high tooth turnover rates observed in elasmobranchs. Distinct adaptations in tooth structure include the presence of serrated versus smooth cutting edges and features like nutrient grooves or foramina along the root. Serrated edges, as seen in sharks, create multiple cutting points for efficient prey dismemberment, whereas smooth edges in species like the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) enable cleaner slicing. Nutrient grooves, often running longitudinally along the root, accommodate blood vessels and nerves, while foramina provide entry points for vascular supply to the pulp cavity, enhancing tooth vitality during attachment. These features underscore the evolutionary refinements in shark dentition for both mechanical performance and biological maintenance.

Replacement Mechanism

Sharks exhibit polyphyodonty, a condition in which they continuously replace their teeth throughout their lives, a trait shared with many non-mammalian vertebrates and particularly pronounced in elasmobranchs. New teeth develop in multiple successive rows posterior to the functional , arranged in a conveyor-belt-like system where developing teeth migrate forward as anterior ones are shed or lost during feeding. This replacement is orchestrated by the dental lamina, a specialized fold of epithelial tissue that serves as a for successive generations of teeth, ensuring a steady supply without interruption to the shark's predatory capabilities. The rate of tooth replacement varies significantly across species and is influenced by and feeding behavior. In active predatory sharks, such as the great white (Carcharodon carcharias), teeth may be replaced every 1-2 weeks, allowing individuals to generate up to 30,000 teeth over a lifetime of approximately 70 years. In contrast, bottom-dwelling species experience slower replacement rates, often tied to less frequent tooth wear from softer or smaller prey, resulting in fewer total teeth produced. These differences highlight adaptations to lifestyle, with higher turnover supporting the demands of aggressive hunting. This mechanism provides a key evolutionary advantage by enabling rapid repair of dental damage incurred during prey capture, preventing and maintaining ecological dominance as apex predators. The process is regulated by a combination of genetic factors, including activity within the dental lamina, and hormonal signals that control tooth and timing. Studies on species like the (Scyliorhinus canicula) demonstrate that disruptions in these pathways, such as altered expression of genes like Fgf3, can influence replacement dynamics. Abnormalities in tooth replacement are rare but can occur due to or trauma to the dental lamina. For instance, physical damage during feeding may lead to retained teeth that fail to shed properly or malformed structures, such as torsions or fused double teeth, as observed in bull sharks ( leucas) and extinct relatives like the . These anomalies typically affect only localized regions and do not compromise the overall regenerative capacity, underscoring the robustness of the system.

Types and Adaptations

Crushing and Grinding Teeth

Crushing and grinding teeth in are specialized adaptations for durophagous diets, featuring dense, pavement-like structures with low or absent cusps arranged in multiple functional rows to facilitate the processing of hard-shelled prey. These teeth often exhibit a flattened, molariform morphology that contrasts with the pointed anterior in the same , allowing for efficient force distribution across broad surfaces. In species like those in the family Heterodontidae, the posterior teeth are rhomboidal or rounded, forming a convex grinding surface capable of withstanding high mechanical stress. Prominent examples include the (Heterodontus portusjacksoni), which possesses small, rounded posterior teeth ideal for pulverizing mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms, and other bullhead sharks in the genus Heterodontus, such as the (H. francisci), that employ similar crushing to break open exoskeletons of hard-bodied . These teeth enable the sharks to exploit benthic habitats rich in shelled organisms, with juveniles transitioning from sharper, grasping teeth to more robust crushing forms as they mature and shift to durophagous feeding. Functionally, these teeth distribute biting forces evenly to tough exoskeletons without excessive wear, a role enhanced by reinforced structures that prevent deformation under load. This reflects evolutionary convergence, as durophagy has arisen independently at least four times among cartilaginous fishes, including in heterodontid sharks and certain batoids, driven by the selective pressure of hard-prey availability in coastal environments. Variations in these teeth often include an increase in size and number progressing posteriorly along the , creating a gradient that supports progressive crushing from initial grasping to final grinding. In Heterodontus species, the largest molariform teeth are positioned where jaw adductor muscles generate maximal force, optimizing the breakdown of prey like and sea urchins.

Piercing and Cutting Teeth

Piercing and cutting teeth in are characterized by sharp, blade-like structures optimized for grasping and slicing through , typically featuring needle-like or triangular shapes with fine serrations along the edges. These teeth often exhibit between the upper and lower jaws, where upper teeth are broader and more hooked to facilitate initial penetration and cutting, while lower teeth are narrower and pointed to interlock and secure the prey. The serrations, formed by layered enameloid and dentine, act as micro-serrations that enhance slicing efficiency by reducing tissue binding during lateral movements. A prominent example is the (Carcharodon carcharias), whose upper teeth are large, triangular, and heavily serrated for cutting through blubbery marine mammals like seals, while the lower teeth are narrower and more pointed, aiding in gripping and stabilizing the prey during feeding. In contrast, the (Galeocerdo cuvier) possesses versatile, obliquely triangular teeth with prominent, cockscomb-like serrations—both primary (supported by orthodentine) and secondary (enameloid-only)—allowing it to slice through a diverse diet including , turtles, and even hard-shelled prey. These serrations in tiger shark teeth increase the pitch of the cutting edge, enabling effective tearing of varied textures from soft flesh to tougher hides. Functionally, these teeth hook into prey to prevent escape, with the hooked upper structures and interlocking lowers creating a vise-like grip that secures mobile targets during strikes. The serrations significantly boost tearing efficiency, particularly during rapid head-shaking motions that mimic sawing, allowing to large chunks of in a single bite; for instance, dynamic tests show teeth achieving high cutting performance against stiff tissues like carapaces through this mechanism. Adaptations in piercing and cutting teeth include jaw that optimizes grip, with broader uppers bearing the brunt of slicing forces and narrower lowers providing counter-support. Wear patterns emerge from high-force bites, as serrated edges dull rapidly after repeated interactions with prey tissues—upper teeth in great whites, for example, show accelerated from lateral shaking and replace every 106–226 days depending on age—prompting frequent renewal to maintain predatory efficiency.

Specialized Forms

In certain shark species adapted to filter feeding, such as whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) and basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus), teeth are largely vestigial and non-functional for prey capture, consisting of small, conical or homodont structures arranged in numerous rows that play minimal roles in feeding. These tiny teeth, often less than 6 mm long and resembling those on a or file, may assist in minor functions like guiding toward the or preventing entanglement, though the primary filtration occurs via gill rakers. In peripheral areas of the mouth, such as corners or rear positions, some species exhibit even smaller, reduced teeth that serve auxiliary purposes, like stabilizing smaller particles during suction feeding, without contributing to primary mastication. Transitional teeth emerge during ontogenetic development, reflecting changes in jaw growth and dietary needs as sharks mature from juveniles to adults. In species like the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas), juvenile teeth are simpler and more uniform in shape, often with reduced cusps suited for smaller prey, gradually evolving into more complex, serrated forms in adults to handle larger, tougher food items. This shift involves subtle morphological changes, such as increasing tooth size and cusp complexity, driven by developmental plasticity in the dental lamina, where replacement teeth form in intermediate configurations before fully differentiating. Anomalies in the replacement process can occasionally produce these transitional forms outside normal ontogeny, highlighting the flexibility of shark dentition. Unique adaptations appear in specialized predators, exemplified by the (Isistius brasiliensis), whose lower teeth are fused into a band-like structure resembling a scoop or saw blade, enabling it to excise circular plugs of flesh from larger hosts through a combination of attachment and rotational twisting. This parasitic strategy relies on the lower jaw's horizontal teeth for precise gouging, contrasting with the upper jaw's gripping teeth. Similarly, angelsharks (Squatina spp.) possess plate-like lower teeth with large rectangular basal plates supporting triangular cusps, facilitating ambush feeding on benthic prey like flatfishes and crustaceans by creating a seal over buried victims. These specialized forms underscore evolutionary adaptations to niche diets, demonstrating developmental plasticity that allows to shift from generalist predation to specialized strategies like or , as seen in the transition from ancestral piercing to derived scooping or suction mechanisms. Such variations reflect broader dietary divergences within , where tooth morphology evolves to optimize resource exploitation in specific ecological contexts without altering the core replacement system.

Fossil and Extinct Variants

Fossil shark teeth provide critical insights into extinct species, revealing diverse morphologies adapted to ancient marine ecosystems. Among the most iconic are those of Otodus megalodon, an that dominated oceans during the to epochs, approximately 23 to 3.6 million years ago. These teeth feature massive, triangular crowns with fine serrations along the cutting edges, reaching up to 18 cm in height and indicating a specialization for slicing through large prey such as marine mammals. The robust, serrated design underscores O. megalodon's role as a top predator, capable of exerting immense bite forces on sizable vertebrates. Other notable extinct variants include the needle-like teeth of , a fast-swimming lamniform from the period, around 90 to 80 million years ago. These slender, razor-sharp teeth, up to 8 cm long, were designed for stabbing and slicing fish and smaller marine reptiles, reflecting a predatory strategy suited to open-ocean hunting. In contrast, Helicoprion exhibited a unique spiral whorl of up to 117 serrated teeth embedded in the lower , forming a logarithmic structure about 23 cm in diameter; early misconceptions portrayed it as a separate jaw appendage, but CT analyses confirm it as an integrated dental feature for processing soft-bodied prey like cephalopods during the Early Permian, roughly 270 million years ago. The prevalence of fossil shark teeth stems from their high mineralization and the polyphyodont condition of sharks, which involves continuous shedding and replacement throughout life, leading to abundant discarded teeth in sedimentary deposits. This preservation allows paleontologists to infer ancient diets from tooth morphology—serrated edges for tearing flesh, for instance—and estimate body sizes by scaling teeth against modern relatives; for O. megalodon, such methods yield lengths of 15 to 20 meters. Recent discoveries in the , including larger teeth from revised stratigraphic contexts, have prompted upward adjustments to these estimates, suggesting maximum lengths approaching 24 meters and refining understandings of this giant's ecological dominance.

Distribution and Preservation

Modern Deposits

Shark teeth from living species are continuously shed and accumulate in contemporary marine habitats, particularly in coastal sediments, river mouths, and shallow ocean floors associated with feeding and residency areas. These deposits form where shark populations are dense, such as near predation zones or nursery grounds, allowing shed teeth to settle into soft sediments before significant dispersal or degradation occurs. For instance, modern teeth from blacktip sharks ( limbatus) are relatively abundant in Florida's coastal waters, including beaches like those at Fernandina and , due to the species' prevalence in nearshore environments. Similarly, ( leucas) teeth appear in river mouths and estuarine sediments along the Gulf Coast, reflecting their habitat preferences for brackish systems. Accumulation of these teeth is driven by sharks' high shedding rates, with species like blacktip sharks replacing teeth frequently—up to several rows per week—resulting in thousands discarded over a lifetime and forming localized "tooth beds" in high-activity areas. Ocean currents play a key role in concentrating teeth by transporting them from open water to shorelines or trapping them in sediment traps like bays and estuaries, while predation hotspots amplify deposits through increased feeding and tooth loss. In shark nurseries, such as Terra Ceia Bay in , —a documented pupping ground for blacktip sharks—juvenile shedding contributes to rare, concentrated modern deposits of smaller teeth in shallow, protected sediments. Collectors and researchers access these modern deposits primarily through along tide lines and shell hashes at , where wave action exposes teeth mixed with debris, or by in shallow coastal and riverine sites to sift sediments directly. Post-storm periods, such as after hurricanes, enhance finds by eroding beaches and redistributing nearshore accumulations, often peaking in the weeks following major events when currents unearth fresh material. Ecologically, shed shark teeth integrate into marine sediments, adding to the biogenic fraction alongside shells and organic matter, where they slowly break down or mineralize, supporting sediment stability and nutrient cycling in coastal ecosystems. Though not dominant contributors, these teeth in nurseries and feeding grounds provide microhabitats for small invertebrates and trace shark presence for biodiversity assessments.

Fossil Formations

Shark teeth fossils are primarily preserved in marine sedimentary deposits spanning the Eocene to Pleistocene epochs, where rapid burial in anoxic environments prevents decay and facilitates mineralization. These formations often consist of phosphate-rich sediments derived from oceanic waters, which concentrate biogenic phosphates from organic remains. Key examples include the Miocene-aged Calvert Cliffs in , , where three formations—the Calvert, Choptank, and St. Marys—expose layers dating from approximately 20 to 6 million years old, yielding diverse shark teeth from species like Carcharodon hastalis. Similarly, the Sharktooth Hill bonebed in represents a middle deposit around 15 million years old, containing millions of specimens across over 140 vertebrate species, accumulated in a shallow marine lagoon setting. The fossilization process begins with teeth detaching from and sinking to the seafloor, where they are buried in fine-grained, phosphate-enriched muds. Over time, phosphate-rich solutions percolate through the sediments during early , leading to formation that encases and replaces organic components with minerals like francolite. This phosphatization preserves fine details such as serrations and enameloid structure, particularly in hardground environments, while preventing fragmentation from bioturbation. In sites like the Eocene Umm Rijam Chert Formation in , concretions up to 6 cm in diameter form around teeth, incorporating them into lag deposits reworked by currents. Globally, shark tooth fossils are abundant in remnants of the ancient Tethys Sea, such as the northern Tethyan assemblages in the region, where deposits in and the Mediterranean preserve diverse elasmobranch faunas reflecting climatic transitions. These patterns highlight a concentration in tropical to subtropical paleoenvironments, with teeth from lamniform sharks dominating due to their robust structure. Deposits in Peru's Pisco Basin, part of Miocene-Pliocene strata, have yielded well-preserved species teeth, including a nearly complete of the related lamniform shark Cosmopolitodus hastalis (an of the ) discovered in 2025 and dating to approximately 9 million years old. A notable 2023 discovery of an megalodon tooth was made from deep-sea sediments in the central off . Preservation challenges arise from post-depositional processes, including that exposes fossils along cliffs and beaches but often fragments delicate teeth through wave action and . At Calvert Cliffs, for instance, non-uniform stratigraphic distribution leads to uneven beach assemblages, with over 96% of teeth originating from the Calvert Formation despite its thinner exposure, complicating accurate sampling. Dating relies on , correlating layers across Eocene to Pleistocene sequences via and , though reworking by can mix ages and require isotopic validation for precision.

Study and Analysis

Identification Techniques

Identification of shark teeth relies primarily on morphological characteristics, which allow for classification at the or level through detailed examination of external features. Key traits include the shape and angle of the main cusp, the presence and count of serrations along the cutting edges, and the configuration of the root, such as its bifurcation, width, and nutrient groove patterns. For instance, serration count can distinguish within the Carcharhinidae family, where fine, uniform serrations indicate genera like , while coarser serrations are typical of . Specialized identification manuals provide standardized keys for these features, aiding both amateur and professional paleontologists in regional contexts. Guides such as the "Florida Fossil Shark Teeth Identification Guide" by Robert Lawrence Fuqua emphasize measuring cusp angles—typically acute in piercing teeth (under 30 degrees) versus obtuse in crushing forms (over 60 degrees)—and root lobe angles, where lower lateral teeth often exhibit smaller angles than upper counterparts. These resources incorporate photographic comparisons and diagrams to highlight variations due to tooth position in the jaw or . Species differentiation often hinges on proportional measurements, such as the triangle formed by the cusp and lobes. ( carcharias) teeth feature broad, triangular crowns with coarse serrations and a robust, V-shaped , contrasting with mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) teeth, which have slender, pointed cusps lacking serrations and narrower s. Identification to species level remains challenging for fragmented s due to variability in wear and ontogenetic changes; expert analysis reduces errors by incorporating contextual data like stratigraphic position. Advanced techniques enhance morphological analysis by revealing internal structures non-invasively. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanning visualizes layers, vascularization, and enameloid thickness, which can confirm histological types and detect post-mortem alterations invisible externally; for example, studies on lamniform sharks have used micro-CT to map bundling in enameloid, aiding differentiation of durophagous from piercing forms. Emerging DNA residue analysis, developed since the early 2020s, extracts genetic material from tooth pulp or dentine in recent fossils (up to 10,000 years old), enabling species verification through PCR amplification of , though success rates drop below 20% for older specimens due to degradation. Supplementary tools include stereomicroscopes for examining microwear patterns, which reveal dietary habits through scratch orientations and pit densities—abrasive diets produce finer, more numerous scratches in species like the (Heterodontus portusjacksoni). Databases such as the Paleobiology Database facilitate comparisons by aggregating morphometric data from thousands of specimens, allowing users to query root shapes or cusp metrics against global fossil records for probabilistic matching. Recent advancements as of 2024 include techniques, such as convolutional neural networks, for automated identification of shark teeth, achieving high accuracy in classifying isolated specimens and assisting traditional methods.

Counting and Quantification Methods

Shark jaws typically feature multiple rows of teeth, with most exhibiting 5 to 15 rows in total, of which 1 to 3 are functional and exposed at any given time. Each functional row contains 20 to 30 teeth per quadrant, resulting in approximately 80 to 180 teeth present in the jaws simultaneously, though this varies by and size. Over a shark's lifetime, the total number of teeth is estimated by multiplying the average number of teeth per replacement cycle by the replacement rate and lifespan; for many , this yields 20,000 to 40,000 teeth, as rows are replaced every 9 to 36 days across a 20- to 30-year lifespan. Replacement rates are highest in anterior positions and decrease posteriorly, influencing overall quantification accuracy. In fossil deposits, teeth are quantified through bulk sampling of sediments, where volumes of or matrix are processed to isolate and count specimens. Common methods include acid dissolution (e.g., 5-10% acetic acid for carbonates) followed by sieving; for larger teeth, coarser meshes (e.g., 1-2 mm) are used, while finer sieving over 38-63 μm concentrates ichthyoliths including small remains or denticles before manual sorting and enumeration. Statistical models account for taphonomic biases and population density, with accumulation rates calculated as ichthyoliths per cm² per kyr using dry and rates; in rich Eocene coastal beds, densities can reach 5,000 teeth per cubic meter of . These approaches enable estimates of ancient community abundance and diversity from disarticulated assemblages. Age determination of individual shark teeth relies on examining incremental growth rings in the dentin layer via transmitted light microscopy after thin-sectioning or polishing. These rings, formed during tooth development, allow estimation of the time elapsed since tooth formation, typically spanning weeks to months in continuously replacing dentitions. Wear indices, quantified through dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA), assess surface complexity (e.g., anisotropy and roughness parameters) to infer dietary habits; for instance, higher scratch densities indicate abrasive prey like crustaceans, while pits suggest softer foods. This method distinguishes diets across elasmobranch species, with extinct forms showing similar patterns when post-mortem wear is minimized. Modern non-invasive techniques employ and micro-CT scanning to generate 3D models of jaws or isolated teeth from photographs or X-rays, facilitating automated counts of rows and positions without physical alteration. Software like 3D Slicer's Dental Dynamics module quantifies tooth arrangements and volumes precisely, aiding or specimen analysis. In ecological applications, shed tooth accumulations in sediments serve as proxies for population estimates, with models integrating shedding rates (e.g., 1-2 teeth per per month) and site-specific deposition to reconstruct community structure, as demonstrated in participatory projects analyzing to recent deposits.

Historical and Human Context

Discovery Timeline

Fossil shark teeth have been recognized and collected since ancient times, with early Mediterranean cultures interpreting them as objects of mystical or natural origin. In and , triangular fossils known as glossopetrae or "tongue stones" were frequently encountered in and other regions, often believed to be petrified tongues of snakes or remnants from mythical creatures, as described by Roman naturalist in the 1st century AD. These early references highlight the intrigue surrounding shark teeth, which were embedded in rocks and linked to rather than understood as biological remains. By the , archaeological evidence from sites like in shows fossil shark teeth incorporated into artifacts, suggesting their use in healing or ornamental contexts. During the 17th century, European became repositories for such fossils, showcasing shark teeth alongside other natural wonders as symbols of divine creation and earthly diversity. Natural philosopher Nicolaus Steno, in his 1667 treatise Elementorum Myologiae Specimen, famously dissected a modern shark and compared its teeth to glossopetrae, providing the first scientific recognition that these fossils were indeed ancient shark dentition rather than mythical artifacts. Collections in institutions like the in included shark teeth labeled as "snake tongues," reflecting ongoing blending of curiosity and emerging . The marked a pivotal era in systematic study, with Swiss naturalist leading efforts to classify based primarily on morphology. In his multi-volume work Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles (1833–1844), Agassiz described and named numerous shark genera, establishing teeth as key diagnostic tools due to the rarity of preserved skeletons in cartilaginous fishes. This classification system revolutionized elasmobranch paleontology, emphasizing dental variation to infer evolutionary relationships. Agassiz also provided the first scientific description of the extinct giant shark Carcharodon megalodon (now Otodus megalodon) in 1835, based on massive teeth from European and American deposits, which he likened to modern mackerel shark dentition. In the , recreational "tooth hunts" surged along the East Coast following the , driven by increased public interest in fossils amid growing and exposures in states like , , and . Collectors scoured beaches and riverbeds for and shark teeth, including those of , turning sites like the Cooper River into popular destinations for amateur paleontologists. Meanwhile, debates over enigmatic fossils like the spiral-toothed persisted through the mid-20th century, with 1970s interpretations proposing it as a jaw-integrated whorl, though full resolution came in 2013 when CT scans of an specimen revealed its position in the lower jaw for slicing soft-bodied prey. Advancements in the 2010s enabled extraction of ancient DNA from shark teeth, confirming dietary habits and genetic diversity in both modern and historical populations; for instance, researchers at California Lutheran University developed protocols in 2013 to amplify DNA from tooth fragments, aiding forensic identification in attack cases and population studies. In 2024, paleontologists described a new species of cow shark (Xampylodon seymourensis) from Late Cretaceous deposits on Seymour Island, Antarctica, based on a single distinctive tooth from the Lopez de Bertodano Formation, expanding knowledge of high-latitude elasmobranch diversity during the dinosaur era. In 2025, several new ancient shark species were described from fossil teeth, including Macadens olsoni and Clavusodens mcginnisi from Carboniferous deposits at Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, and Pararhincodon torquis from Cretaceous rocks in southern England, providing further insights into early shark evolution and diversity.

Human Utilization

Humans have utilized shark teeth for practical and symbolic purposes since prehistoric times, leveraging their natural sharpness and durability. Archaeological evidence from , , reveals 7,000-year-old knives and blades crafted from teeth, associated with the Toalean culture and likely used for cutting or as weapons, as indicated by wear patterns on the serrated edges. In the Pacific Islands, including and , ancient communities fashioned shark teeth into arrowheads, knives, and clubs for hunting and warfare, with experimental studies confirming their efficiency and longevity in use without frequent resharpening. Across various Indigenous cultures, shark teeth have held cultural significance as jewelry and talismans symbolizing strength, protection, and connection to the sea. In traditions, including those of and other Polynesian groups, shark tooth necklaces served as protective amulets for warriors, believed to ward off evil and enhance courage during battles or voyages. These items, often strung with shells or fibers, reflect a deep spiritual bond with marine ecosystems and have persisted in ceremonial practices. While less documented, similar uses appear in some Australian Indigenous contexts for adornment and ritual, though primary evidence remains tied to broader Oceanic heritage. Today, teeth continue to feature in cultural artifacts, such as talismans in African coastal communities where they symbolize resilience, though trade in these is increasingly regulated to prevent . In modern contexts, fossilized teeth, particularly from extinct species like the , are highly sought after by collectors and displayed in museums and private collections, with premium specimens exceeding 5 inches in length often valued at over $1,000 due to their rarity and preservation quality. Contemporary uses include crafting hooks for , as seen in Micronesian designs embedding teeth into wooden lures for enhanced grip on prey, and artistic creations like shadow boxes or sculptures that highlight their serrated forms. Trade in teeth from , such as great whites, falls under Appendix II regulations, requiring permits to ensure sustainability and prevent illegal harvesting that contributes to population declines. The economic market for shark products, including teeth, reaches approximately $1 billion annually in global trade, driven by demand for fossils, jewelry, and fisheries byproducts, though teeth specifically form a niche segment valued in the millions through ethical channels. Ethical sourcing emphasizes beach-collected or naturally shed teeth to avoid , which threatens protected ; for instance, harvesting from live sharks is illegal in many regions, promoting instead the collection of washed-up fossils that support conservation without ecological harm.

References

  1. https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/sharks/anatomy/teeth-jaws/
  2. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/sharks-rays/sharks
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7163786/
  4. https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00494.x
  5. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/discover-fish/sharks/fossil/shark-teeth/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6609643/
  7. https://www.academia.edu/3499426/Structure_composition_and_mechanical_properties_of_shark_teeth
  8. https://a-z-animals.com/articles/how-to-identify-different-types-of-shark-teeth/
  9. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/White-Shark
  10. https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Shark_Evolution
  11. https://www.csulb.edu/shark-lab/shark-jaws-program
  12. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/species/carcharodon-hastalis/
  13. https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/54/54_p0353_p0358.pdf
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4593678/
  15. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/sharks/blog/a-sharks-infinite-regeneration-of-teeth/
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10104537/
  17. https://news.clas.ufl.edu/uf-evolutionary-biologist-explores-mystery-of-shark-skin-teeth/
  18. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/bc_pubs/116/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9804735/
  20. https://news.ncsu.edu/2022/05/what-caused-this-megatooth-sharks-massive-toothache/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9107304/
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/heterodontus-portusjacksoni
  23. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/203/18/2781/8569/Durophagy-in-Sharks-Feeding-Mechanics-of-the
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8647768_Structure_and_function_of_the_horn_shark_Heterodontus_francisci_cranium_through_ontogeny_Development_of_a_hard_prey_specialist
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/port-jackson-shark
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022098123000710
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/848378/
  28. http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/teeth.htm
  29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2016.05.007
  30. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-can-shark-teeth-tell-us.html
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5108942/
  32. http://swc.colostate.edu/sharkparttwo.pdf
  33. https://www.submon.org/en/have-you-ever-seen-shark-teeth-so-close/
  34. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfb.15170
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9296035/
  36. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12796
  37. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/small-cookiecutter-sharks-feed-on-flesh-of-great-whites/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/angel-shark
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160624002148
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6377595/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7617484/
  42. http://www.elasmo.com/genera/cretaceous/cretoxyrhina.html
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3639784/
  44. https://www.paleosoc.org/assets/docs/Fossil_Shark_Teeth.pdf
  45. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2021/3284-estimating-lamniform-body-size
  46. https://visit.museum.wa.gov.au/learn/news-stories/megalodon-larger-previously-thought-new-research-estimates-24-metres
  47. https://sharktoothidentifier.com/identify-shark-teeth-florida-beaches
  48. https://baysoundings.com/tampa-bay-nursery-for-perfect-predators/
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35591772/
  50. https://www.floridastateparks.org/learn/shark-tooth-hunting
  51. https://www.voyagecollective.co/blog/shark-tooth-hunting-after-the-hurricane
  52. https://saveourseas.com/worldofsharks/shark-teeth
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9240680/
  54. http://www.mgs.md.gov/geology/fossils/fossil_collecting.html
  55. https://www.buenavistamuseum.org/paleo-digs
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248353040_Petrography_chemistry_and_genesis_of_phosphorite_concretions_in_the_Eocene_Umm_Rijam_Chert_limestone_Formation_Ma%27an_area_south_Jordan
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334459273_Middle_Miocene_shark_teeth_from_the_southern_margin_of_the_Pannonian_Basin_System_Serbia_Central_Paratethys
  58. https://www.reuters.com/science/great-white-sharks-9-million-year-old-ancestor-found-peru-2025-01-20/
  59. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2023.2291771
  60. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724630903409063
  61. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/discover-fish/sharks/fossil/shark-tooth-id-guide/
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shannon-Cass-Calay/post/Dear-colleagues-is-there-anyone-have-literature-about-diagnostic-characters-of-shark-teeth-fossil/attachment/59d630f279197b807798ebe2/AS%253A363505954902016%25401463677981235/download/sharktoothKey.pdf
  63. https://www.octaviabooks.com/book/9798602488791
  64. http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/guide_f.htm
  65. https://www.allcoast.com/threads/how-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-mako-and-great-white.19599/
  66. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/8/8/310
  67. https://www.sharks.org/blog/2021/04/22/extraction-of-dna-from-shark-teeth-and-denticles
  68. https://sjpp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13358-024-00322-9
  69. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04189
  70. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/pdfs/677.pdf
  71. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2012/565326
  72. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bes2.2213
  73. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81258-9
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018220305952
  75. https://www.microphotonics.com/micro-ct-imaging-of-shark-teeth-using-the-bruker-skyscan-1173/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11263487/
  77. https://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/amulets/index.php/tooth-amulet5/index.html
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377689596_Shark_teeth_from_Bronze_Age_Gavdos_Healing_heirlooms_and_the_liokourna_sun_or_snake_horns_medical_folk_tradition
  79. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/hess/earth-sciences-history/article/43/2/207/649952/BORROWED-ILLUSTRATIONS-OF-GLOSSOPETRAE-WITH-SHARK
  80. https://collections.reading.ac.uk/special-collections/2021/01/07/stones-sharks-and-stenos-de-solido/
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366864666_Toadstones_and_snake_eyes_from_the_Cabinet_of_Curiosities_of_the_Strahov_Monastery_in_Prague_and_from_the_former_Imperial_Collection_in_Vienna
  82. https://feministresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2.6.-cabinets.pdf
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5970259/
  84. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12542-017-0387-z
  85. https://shopmineralogy.com/pages/otodus-megalodon
  86. https://www.britannica.com/animal/megalodon
  87. https://oceanicshark.com.au/blogs/news/the-fascinating-history-of-shark-teeth-collecting
  88. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/four-places-to-find-fossilized-shark-teeth-in-the-united-states-180985086/
  89. https://phys.org/news/2013-02-helicoprion-scientists-mysteries-ancient-shark.html
  90. https://archive.vcstar.com/news/clu-researchers-aim-to-be-first-to-extract-dna-from-sharks-teeth-ep-292398017-351627481.html
  91. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:417470/UQ417470_OA.pdf
  92. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2024.2316047
  93. https://shark-references.com/post/857
  94. https://www.nps.gov/maca/learn/news/mammoth-cave-national-park-discovers-another-new-species-of-ancient-shark.htm
  95. https://www.nps.gov/maca/learn/news/fossil-research-identifies-new-shark-species-at-mammoth-cave-national-park.htm
  96. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2025/april/new-fossil-shark-named-from-ancient-skeleton-discovered-in-southern-england.html
  97. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/sharktooth-artefacts-from-middle-holocene-sulawesi/3E5CC1DD59D9770DAE9BEFFF88C11AC3
  98. https://www.newsweek.com/archaeologists-discover-7000-year-old-knives-made-tiger-shark-teeth-1839196
  99. https://www.academia.edu/44840471/Shark_teeth_used_as_tools_An_experimental_archaeology_study
  100. https://www.firemountaingems.com/learn/categories/essential-resources/design-principles/QM3D-article.html
  101. https://oceanicshark.com.au/blogs/news/ancient-origins-how-shark-tooth-jewellery-became-an-icon
  102. https://cites.org/eng/prog/shark
  103. https://www.fossilera.com/fossils-for-sale/fossil-megalodon-teeth
  104. https://www.gotkoa.com/product-page/warrior-large-fish-hook-with-shark-s-teeth
  105. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WnNEzqPHsk
  106. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5ecdbcdf-ad43-47ce-8647-67c6122d3da9/content
  107. https://www.darkwatermegs.com/megalodon-teeth-information/stop-buying-modern-great-white-teeth-it-promotes-poaching/stop-buying-modern-great-white-teeth.html
  108. https://whalerslocker.com/blogs/news/buying-shark-teeth-what-you-should-know
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.