Glueckmanotodus heinzelini

Glueckmanotodus heinzelini

(Casier, 1967)

Fossil group Sharks & Rays
Order Lamniformes
Family Odontaspididae
Genus Glueckmanotodus
Taxonomic status Accepted
Geological age Thanetian, Ypresian
Recorded rarity by age
Thanetian: Not yet established
Ypresian: Not yet established
View age-specific evidence and explanation
AgeRecorded OccurrencesLocalitiesRarity
Thanetian11Not yet established
Ypresian11Not yet established

These counts describe published LBPS Occurrence records with directly assigned, unambiguous geological-unit mappings—not specimen abundance. Records at restricted Localities and ambiguous or unsupported ages are excluded. Species-level age labels are not used as proof of an age-specific Occurrence.

Specimen-based rarity requires comparable, correctly identified physical fossils, geological provenance and publication permissions. It does not estimate your chance of finding a fossil or collecting access.

Quick Identification

Look for: a complete tooth whose position can be assessed. In anterior teeth, the cutting edges reach the base of the main cusp and the labial crown base is distinctly depressed; lateral teeth have relatively small, less-detached cusplets.

How to tell it apart: in comparable anterior teeth of Hypotodus verticalis, the cutting edges stop before the crown base and the labial crown base is convex rather than depressed.

Useful check: on upper lateral teeth, inspect crown thickness and the basal root margin as additional supporting characters.

Be careful: tooth position matters. A detached central cusp, broken cusplets or an incomplete root should not be forced to species level.

Summary

Glueckmanotodus heinzelini was an extinct shark whose pointed teeth carried smaller sharp points beside the main crown. Such teeth suggest a mouth capable of gripping food, although they cannot tell us what the shark ate. No complete body is known from the material reviewed here, so its adult size and overall appearance remain uncertain.

Like living sharks, Glueckmanotodus would have replaced teeth throughout its life. A tooth lost by a living animal could settle into sediment without the shark’s skeleton accompanying it. Over millions of years, these small, durable remains became a record of an otherwise elusive animal.

In Britain, teeth are recorded from the late Palaeocene Beltinge Fish Bed at Herne Bay in Kent. LBPS also records the species from the younger, early Eocene Lessness Shell Bed at Abbey Wood in south-east London. These are different fossil deposits of different ages, each preserving evidence of ancient life in a distinctive geological setting.

When the species was first described from Belgian fossils in 1967, scientists had only ten isolated teeth to work with. Later researchers recognised that some Herne Bay teeth once assigned to a different shark belonged to Glueckmanotodus. A few small finds, carefully compared, had restored an animal to the fossil record across more than one place and time.

Diagnostic Features

  • Dentition: heterodont; anterior and lateral positions must be compared separately.
  • Anterior cutting edges: extend to the base of the main cusp.
  • Anterior labial base: distinctly depressed.
  • Lateral cusplets: relatively small and less detached than in comparable Hypotodus verticalis material.
  • Upper lateral teeth: supported by a thicker crown and a more deeply concave basilar root margin in the established differential.
  • Identification limit: a sufficiently complete tooth and correct positional comparison are required; a detached central cusp is insufficient.

Fossil Details

Fossil material
Tooth
Preservation
Breakage commonly removes lateral cusplets or root extremities, while wear can soften the crown-base profile. Because the dentition is heterodont, incomplete teeth without a secure positional interpretation should not be used for a confident species assignment.

Similar Species

Recorded Fossil Sites

Synonyms & Previous Names

Hypotodus heinzelini; Jaekelotodus heinzelini

Diagnostic Sources

References 2136 and 1855 support the positional dentition, anterior cutting-edge and crown-base characters, lateral cusplet/root morphology and the differential with Hypotodus verticalis.

  • Cappetta, H.; Nolf, D. (2005). Révision de quelques Odontaspididae (Neoselachii: Lamniformes) du Paléocène et de l’Eocène du Bassin de la Mer du Nord. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Science de la Terre, 75, 237–266 View reference
  • Casier, E. (1967). Le Landénien de Dormaal (Brabant) et sa faune ichthyologique. Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 156, 5–66. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles View reference

References

  • Cappetta, H.; Nolf, D. (2005). Révision de quelques Odontaspididae (Neoselachii: Lamniformes) du Paléocène et de l’Eocène du Bassin de la Mer du Nord. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Science de la Terre, 75, 237–266 View reference
  • Casier, E. (1967). Le Landénien de Dormaal (Brabant) et sa faune ichthyologique. Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 156, 5–66. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles View reference
  • Dineley, D. & Metcalf, S. (1999). Fossil Fishes of Great Britain. Geological Conservation Review Series, 675 pp.. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough View reference
  • Ward, D.J. (1978). The Lower London Tertiary (Palaeocene) succession of Herne Bay, Kent. Report of the Institute of Geological Sciences. Institute of Geological Sciences View reference
  • Ward, D.J. (1980). The distribution of sharks, rays and chimaeroids in the English Palaeogene. Tertiary Research, 3(1), 13–19 View reference
Last Reviewed
21 August 2026 Reviewed by Sam Harris