Doc said it right! The Great White has nothing on this guy.
Very basic, and somewhat wrongfull oversight on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcharocles_auriculatus
The 'biggest' authors are pretty much in agreement on Otodus as the only valid name for the genus, and practically of the whole lineage starting from Otodus obliquus.
The wikipedia page fails to suggest Belgium, Germany and Kazachstan as large 'producers' of O. auriculatus teeth.
Furthermore, the author doesn't seem to know where to position himself in some discussions. When describing species, you've got "splitters" and "keepers". The splitters take every smallest difference as a sign of a different species, whereas the "keepers" think that's rubbish.
Take for example serrations: is the presence of serrations on teeth enough to speak of a different species, without any knowledge of other characteristics because you lack fossil skulls or bones? Some say yes, others say no. Same thing for "side cusps" next to the main cusp. Some say that the mere presence of sidecusps are significant to talk of different species, but what with in species variability? You've got species with one or two pairs of sidecusps, yet no difference in DNA. You've got juvenile teeth of some species WITH sidecusps, whereas teeth of adult specimens don't have sidecusps. It makes the discussion rather difficult. What I wanted to say was that the author included some species such as O. chubutensis, that are described by "splitters". "Keepers" would disagree with the presence of that species in the list. Furthermore, another 'species' namely O. mugodzharicus is not included in the list. Oh well

. Just ranting, it's snark here anywayz.
Inb4 cool story bro
