In this case, predation is the most likely possibility. Just because fossil remains of multiple creatures are found together doesn’t necessarily mean that they were interacting with each other in life – every association demands an explanation. The small invertebrates could have been eaten by the ammonite, might have been feeding on the buccal mass of the dead ammonite, or might have been washed into the body of the ammonite during preservation. Portions of several small isopods and a larval snail were preserved in the mouth area.Īs Kruta and colleagues pointed out, though, there’s more than one explanation for the association. One Baculites specimen – AMNH 66253 – contained the remains of several small invertebrates inside the buccal mass. But some fortuitous fossilization provided the paleontologists with a rare view of what the ammonite may have actually be eating. Unauthorized use is prohibited.Ī bit of comparative anatomy narrowed down the list of possible prey. The buccal mass of the prehistoric cephalopod most closely resembled its counterpart in small, open-ocean octopuses that feed on krill, copepods, and other small fare. As scary as the reconstructed radula looked, though, Kruta and collaborators pointed out that the mouthparts didn’t represent a rapacious lifestyle of tearing chunks out of fish and other prey. And the ammonite’s radula was a nasty, net-like arrangement of hard teeth which could have folded and unfolded in life. In each specimen, the lower jaw was more than twice as long as the upper, and it seemed that the upper jaw might have been slightly more flexible than its counterpart. The Cretaceous cephalopod had asymmetrical jaws. Thanks to high-resolution x-ray imaging techniques, however, Kruta and co-authors were able to scan the contents of three roughly 66 million year old Baculites specimens from South Dakota’s Pierre Shale to reconstruct what the mouths of these animals looked like. These delicate hard parts are sometimes preserved inside ammonite shells, but, most often, are only seen when the creature’s shell breaks in just the right place or the sediment around the structures erode just enough to reveal their presence. The key was the cephalopod’s buccal mass – the upper jaw, lower jaw, and a rasping feeding structure called a radula. Isabelle Kruta and colleagues outlined the diet of Baculites in a Science paper last year. When paleontologists looked in detail at the feeding apparatus of the straight-shelled ammonite Baculites, they were lucky enough to find the cephalopod’s prey preserved, too. The best clues about ammonite diets come from occasionally-preserved jaws – similar to the hard beaks of modern octopus and squid. We don’t find ammonite gut contents in the same way that we can pick apart the fossilized food scraps in the stomachs of their predators, such as mosasaurs. The immense, seagoing lizards had a well-honed technique for breaking open the outer defenses of cephalopods – more squishy ammonite meat, less hard shell pieces.īut what did ammonites eat? Even though their fossils are extremely common, much of what we know about ammonites comes from shells, or pieces of shell. A few weeks ago I wrote about how mosasaurs deftly cracked into the coiled shells of ammonites.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |