I see how one could get that impression, it’s a valid point to question the phylogenetic affinities in something with a fossil record only composed of isolated teeth. The problem with this is that C. megalodon is actually known from more than that, it’s merely not well publicised (or, for that matter, properly described in most cases).
For example the only scientific description of a complete associated megalodon dentition is in Japanese and there is no translation. There are other, even better specimens, but they are in private hands and the owners are content with letting them sit in their collections, only partially igured or described on inofficial websites, despite their scientific importance.
For example the only scientific description of a complete associated megalodon dentition is in Japanese and there is no translation. There are other, even better specimens, but they are in private hands and the owners are content with letting them sit in their collections, only partially igured or described on inofficial websites, despite their scientific importance.