Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
mosasaurs dentition, based on a composite of all bites, all teeth
represented in bite 1 are strongly developed. Since only three per-
forated the shell, the mosasaur did not exert much pressure in this
bite. . . . Since the bite was directed for the anterodorsal side of
the ammonite shell, above its aperture, the animal may have been
picked up from the bottom or attacked while swimming at some
distance below the surface.
And so on, for fifteen more bites.
The authors concluded that the attack was directed at the upper side of
the ammonite. They thought that the mosasaur tried to swallow the entire
ammonite, pulling it as far back into the throat as possible, and that the
mosasaur was in the habit of eating ammonites.
The plan of assault—seizure from above, attempt to swallow
whole, and failing this, crushing the living chamber to squeeze
out the soft parts—seems to indicate familiarity with the prey.
The large, conical biting teeth and the wide intermaxillary angle
appear to be adaptations for catching, killing, and swallowing or
crushing big shelled animals, such as ammonites. (Kauffman and
Kesling, 1960, pp. 234-235)
All in all, the paper was a sensation, and it launched Erie's career.
There was only one huge, glaring problem: Was this the only mosasaur in the
history of the world that ate ammonites? Kauffman and Kesling conceded
that this was the only specimen known with bite marks. Surely, if one
mosasaur was such an avid (if incompetent) ammonite eater, then other
shells bearing other telltale bite marks should be known.
Thirty years after his initial publication on this subject, Erie Kauffman
was still championing the idea that mosasaurs bit ammonites. By this time
he had identified another 30 specimens with "definite predation marks" and
at least this many with "suspect" marks. Furthermore, Kauffman asserted
that most of the confirmed predated ammonites were attacked in a manner