Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
holes found on so many Upper Cretaceous ammonites are mosasaur bite
marks, and why (ot how) was it shown to be wrong?
A tempting interpretation
The story began in the early 1960s and was originated by one of the most
flamboyant and colorful characters ever to have studied the deep past, Erie
Kauffman. Erie, as he is known to all, remains one of the most revered of liv-
ing paleontologists. He grew up in the west, and during his long career he be-
came perhaps the finest field paleontologist of the twentieth century, spe-
cializing in the paleontology and stratigraphy of Cretaceous rocks. His major
study area has been the great Western Interior Seaway of the United States,
the large sea that split the land area of North America in half, running from
north to south. This seaway was the home to uncounted ammonites, and not
a few mosasaurs as well, judging from the large numbers of skeletons that
have been collected over the years from formations such as the Pierre Shale
and the Niobrara chalk. Somewhere, early in his career, Erie came to the
conclusion that mosasaurs must have eaten ammonites.
The logic is impeccable. The very abundance of ammonites in Creta-
ceous oceans must have made them a tempting and attractive food source for
many types of marine carnivores. Because many ammonites were large
(many species had shells over 3 feet in diameter), they would have been a
very appropriate prey for the mosasaurs—providing, of course, that the hard
outer shell of the ammonite could be breached.
Erie and his academic advisor A. Kesling at the University of Michigan
fitst published this interpretation in 1960. The paper remains sprightly and
readable. It starts as follows:
An Upper Cretaceous ammonite of the genus Placenticeras has
been found bearing numerous perforations and impressions made
by the teeth of a mosasaur. . . . The shell was bitten tepeatedly, and
bears dramatic evidence of the fatal encounter. From a composite
Search WWH ::




Custom Search