Re: Cephalopod parasites (from N. Monks)

From
Date
Reply-To
X-Sender: neam@mailserver.nhm.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:56:32 +0100
To: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk
From: N.Monks@nhm.ac.uk (Neale Monks)
Subject: Re: Cephalopod parasites
Status: O

David,

Thanks for the e-mail.

The blister that I have seen on these ammonites are much smaller than those
seen in oysters, but I agree with your interpretation. I have to find an
explanation for such large numbers of more or less identical blisters. To
my mind, this is not something normally associated with 'pearl' formation
in bivalves.

Also, they suddenly develop after the final septa is laid down. There are
hundreds of these blisters seen in the final living chamber (possibly
thousands in complete specimens); but not a single one in any phragmocones.
If they are parasites or irritants, why do they only develop at maturity?

They may have been sexual features, but only a few specimens from the same
locality have these features. Given that they are internal, what possible
function could they have had?

They almost certainly grew upwards and out from the inner face of the shell
(i.e. into the living chamber) and seem to be entirely unassociated with
the 'proper' shell layers.

Regards,

Neale.



>From  Neale Monks' PowerBook, at...

Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD
Internet: N.Monks@nhm.ac.uk, Telephone: 0171-938-9007

"...now Nature is having the last laugh. The freaky stuff is turning out to
be the mathematics of the natural world"

from 'Arcadia', by Tom Stoppard