- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 22
Folks,
Mention of the Hollingsworth fossil was interesting, I saw the specimen once or twice while helping one of the collectors try to image and interpret the thing. It is very strange, and at best it seems to have something in the body chamber but I wouldn't say for certain it was an ammonite body.
What's much more interesting is that in the places soft body squids turn up (e.g. Solenhofen limestone, Christian Malford clays, etc.) ammmonite shells can also be found, but no soft body ammonites. I wonder if this is telling us something? Perhaps ammonites had glutinous bodies that didn't preserve? Or maybe they weren't strongly attached to the shell? Maybe they could even leave the shell if they wanted to and used it for egg laying or something? All speculation, of course, but curious.
Cheers,
Neale
Mention of the Hollingsworth fossil was interesting, I saw the specimen once or twice while helping one of the collectors try to image and interpret the thing. It is very strange, and at best it seems to have something in the body chamber but I wouldn't say for certain it was an ammonite body.
What's much more interesting is that in the places soft body squids turn up (e.g. Solenhofen limestone, Christian Malford clays, etc.) ammmonite shells can also be found, but no soft body ammonites. I wonder if this is telling us something? Perhaps ammonites had glutinous bodies that didn't preserve? Or maybe they weren't strongly attached to the shell? Maybe they could even leave the shell if they wanted to and used it for egg laying or something? All speculation, of course, but curious.
Cheers,
Neale