Bullyland ammonites

[itstwentybelow]

Hey all,

I've been checking out the Bullyland ammonites recently, particularly the larger one, because I think it would look great as a fleshed-out model to put with my fossilized ammonites. I am not a professional invertebrate paleontologist, so I was wondering if anyone who has them or knows more could tell me how accurate Bullyland's reproductions are. I have noticed that the operculum or aptychus seems to be missing on both of them, but I don't know if all ammonite genera had such a structure. Finally, does anybody know which species both Bullyland models represent, if any species in particular? Thanks!

[Gorgonopsid]

that's the one that's kinda spiked right? If so I don't even own that one. Its a brown color?

It looks pretty good from what I can see in photos.

[sbell]

Mar 9, 2011 4:20:44 GMT itstwentybelow said:

Hey all,

I've been checking out the Bullyland ammonites recently, particularly the larger one, because I think it would look great as a fleshed-out model to put with my fossilized ammonites. I am not a professional invertebrate paleontologist, so I was wondering if anyone who has them or knows more could tell me how accurate Bullyland's reproductions are. I have noticed that the operculum or aptychus seems to be missing on both of them, but I don't know if all ammonite genera had such a structure. Finally, does anybody know which species both Bullyland models represent, if any species in particular? Thanks!

I am pretty sure that not all genera have aptychus or opercula.

As for genera (good luck with the species) there was a thread 4 years ago where we determined that the 'small' one (the yellow one) is probably Perisphinctes and the larger, brown one may be Pachydiscus (that one was not as certain).

[itstwentybelow]

Thanks a lot sbell! That was very helpful. What's your opinion on the soft parts? Accurate? Outdated?

[bowheadwhale]

Outdated. Cute and fun to play with, but still outdated.
You know, the rings we see on ammonite fossils are actually NOT the shells themselves, but the air chambers. During fossilisation, air chambers got filled with sediment. Then, the shells disappeared, but the mold of the chambers remained. So, the shells should have been represented smooth, not ringed.
As for the soft parts, they are also outdated, because all living molluscs have a hard "cover little shell to close it when they retire into their shells; even nautiluses have one (it's the little hat-like body part they have above their tentacles). If all molluscs have it, ammonites must have had it as well; without it, they would have not been well protected against intruders while the tentacles were retired inside. See what I mean?
But that doesn't mean they are not worth being bought. Bullyland is one of the very rare companies to have represented ammonites, so, they deserve being congratulated for their efforts. After all, two outdated ammonites is a lot better than no ammonite at all.

[crackington]

Tedco also did a rather nice small model as part of their "Prehistoric Panorama" series, but not sure what species it is or its accuracy, given the above info.

You can just see it in this photo of my collection, to the top left above the dimetrodon, straight above the Safari Ammonite - in the end compartment of the case. I display both models with actual ammonite fossils, which you can also just about make out (mostly from Lyme Regis). Sorry about the glare in the photo.

[sbell]

Oct 9, 2011 18:42:27 GMT bowheadwhale said:

Outdated. Cute and fun to play with, but still outdated.
You know, the rings we see on ammonite fossils are actually NOT the shells themselves, but the air chambers. During fossilisation, air chambers got filled with sediment. Then, the shells disappeared, but the mold of the chambers remained. So, the shells should have been represented smooth, not ringed.
As for the soft parts, they are also outdated, because all living molluscs have a hard "cover little shell to close it when they retire into their shells; even nautiluses have one (it's the little hat-like body part they have above their tentacles). If all molluscs have it, ammonites must have had it as well; without it, they would have not been well protected against intruders while the tentacles were retired inside. See what I mean?
But that doesn't mean they are not worth being bought. Bullyland is one of the very rare companies to have represented ammonites, so, they deserve being congratulated for their efforts. After all, two outdated ammonites is a lot better than no ammonite at all.

What on earth are you talking about? Your sources must be terrifying indeed.

The sculpting on the sides of some ammonnoids are just that--ridges (and other textures). I have held ammonite fossils that contain those features (I assume many here have). As well, while the shells are indeed separated into chambers--separated by septa on the inside of the shell those are on the inside of the shell; the living part at the front often fills with sediment, but that is because it is open to the elements. The 'gas-filled chambers' are the internal, walled off chambers.

They are not (always) casts and molds. In fact, being solid shells, they are frequently preserved just fine.

Further NOT ALL cephalopods have aperture covers--including cuttlefish, squid, and octopus (and their lack of aptychus didn't appear to make any difference in their long-term survival). And we are not sure that all of them had them. Plus, with the body actually sticking out, the aptychus may have been tucked in. They most likely were not set up like a nautilus just because it is another coiled mollusc; we might as well use snails as an example.

This is a really good, general site for describing how ammonites are understood:
www.ukfossils.co.uk/guides/ammonites.html

[sbell]

Oct 9, 2011 20:30:48 GMT crackington said:

Tedco also did a rather nice small model as part of their "Prehistoric Panorama" series, but not sure what species it is or its accuracy, given the above info.

You can just see it in this photo of my collection, to the top left above the dimetrodon, straight above the Safari Ammonite - in the end compartment of the case. I display both models with actual ammonite fossils, which you can also just about make out (mostly from Lyme Regis). Sorry about the glare in the photo.

I wouldn't worry about one person's "information" affecting your perception.

Also, there are several really good small ammonites made by Kaiyodo--Pachydiscus, Douvilleceras, Polyptychus, and Nipponites (that last one is especially rare and pricey, but I do just happen to have a spare for sale).:

[crackington]

Yep, they're definitely better than the Tedco! Lovely models.

[sbell]

Oct 9, 2011 21:14:08 GMT crackington said:

Yep, they're definitely better than the Tedco! Lovely models.

Thanks.

By the way, what is the crazy dragonfly-looking critter in there?

[crackington]

That's supposed to be a Meganeura, I think, and is from the Revell (Aurora re-issue) Dimetrodon, "Sail-back Reptile" kit. It looks better in the photo than in reality as I'm not the greatest of model builders! Its being suspended literally on a thread and has a large-ish chuck of blue tac (useful stuff) on its back keeping the thread in place!

[itstwentybelow]

Yes, as sbell has already explained, plenty of ammonite genera had ridged and textured shells, many of which are found preserved in excellent condition, so I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, bowhead.

My verdict on the larger Bullyland ammonite (the brown one), which I bought shortly after creating this thread, is that it's an Asteroceras. I have a black fossilized one from the oily Peruvian shales, and comparing it with the figure brought up a lot of similarities. What do you guys think?

[sbell]

Oct 12, 2011 1:38:31 GMT itstwentybelow said:

Yes, as sbell has already explained, plenty of ammonite genera had ridged and textured shells, many of which are found preserved in excellent condition, so I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, bowhead.

My verdict on the larger Bullyland ammonite (the brown one), which I bought shortly after creating this thread, is that it's an Asteroceras. I have a black fossilized one from the oily Peruvian shales, and comparing it with the figure brought up a lot of similarities. What do you guys think?

It's hard to tell--I do know that way back in the day there was a thread for this sort of thing. We came up with Perisphinctes for the small; I've always considered the large as Pachydiscus, but it was harder to be sure.

[stemturtle]

Oct 12, 2011 3:19:46 GMT sbell said:

Oct 12, 2011 1:38:31 GMT itstwentybelow said:

Yes, as sbell has already explained, plenty of ammonite genera had ridged and textured shells, many of which are found preserved in excellent condition, so I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, bowhead.

My verdict on the larger Bullyland ammonite (the brown one), which I bought shortly after creating this thread, is that it's an Asteroceras. I have a black fossilized one from the oily Peruvian shales, and comparing it with the figure brought up a lot of similarities. What do you guys think?

It's hard to tell--I do know that way back in the day there was a thread for this sort of thing. We came up with Perisphinctes for the small; I've always considered the large as Pachydiscus, but it was harder to be sure.

Is there a DTF member living near Aalen, which is in Baden-Wuerttemberg? The tag on the Bullyland ammonite says that it was sculpted under the guidance of the Urwelt-Museum Aalen. Perhaps there is a paleontologist there who could ID the ammonites.

[brontodocus]

I won't make a guess on the smaller Bullyland ammonite since I don't have it but the larger one looks exactly like Pleuroceras, probably P. spinatum, from the Pliensbachium which is commonly found in southern Germany (Aalen is in Baden-Württemberg). The rectangular cross-section of the chambers, the simple ribs, often with node-like projections, and the keel with its braided structure are typical characteristics of Pleuroceras and they are also shown on the model.

Here's one example:


P. spinatum wasn't really big, only something like 40 mm up to over 100 mm in diameter, so the model would also be about life size.

_{Grrr, I have a really nice Pleuroceras somewhere myself but why won't I find it anymore...?}

[bowheadwhale]

Oct 9, 2011 20:59:19 GMT sbell said:

Oct 9, 2011 18:42:27 GMT bowheadwhale said:

Outdated. Cute and fun to play with, but still outdated.
You know, the rings we see on ammonite fossils are actually NOT the shells themselves, but the air chambers. During fossilisation, air chambers got filled with sediment. Then, the shells disappeared, but the mold of the chambers remained. So, the shells should have been represented smooth, not ringed.
As for the soft parts, they are also outdated, because all living molluscs have a hard "cover little shell to close it when they retire into their shells; even nautiluses have one (it's the little hat-like body part they have above their tentacles). If all molluscs have it, ammonites must have had it as well; without it, they would have not been well protected against intruders while the tentacles were retired inside. See what I mean?
But that doesn't mean they are not worth being bought. Bullyland is one of the very rare companies to have represented ammonites, so, they deserve being congratulated for their efforts. After all, two outdated ammonites is a lot better than no ammonite at all.

What on earth are you talking about? Your sources must be terrifying indeed.

The sculpting on the sides of some ammonnoids are just that--ridges (and other textures). I have held ammonite fossils that contain those features (I assume many here have). As well, while the shells are indeed separated into chambers--separated by septa on the inside of the shell those are on the inside of the shell; the living part at the front often fills with sediment, but that is because it is open to the elements. The 'gas-filled chambers' are the internal, walled off chambers.

They are not (always) casts and molds. In fact, being solid shells, they are frequently preserved just fine.

Further NOT ALL cephalopods have aperture covers--including cuttlefish, squid, and octopus (and their lack of aptychus didn't appear to make any difference in their long-term survival). And we are not sure that all of them had them. Plus, with the body actually sticking out, the aptychus may have been tucked in. They most likely were not set up like a nautilus just because it is another coiled mollusc; we might as well use snails as an example.

This is a really good, general site for describing how ammonites are understood:
www.ukfossils.co.uk/guides/ammonites.html

Marine snails have aperture covers...

[bowheadwhale]

Oct 12, 2011 14:07:41 GMT brontodocus said:

I won't make a guess on the smaller Bullyland ammonite since I don't have it but the larger one looks exactly like Pleuroceras, probably P. spinatum, from the Pliensbachium which is commonly found in southern Germany (Aalen is in Baden-Württemberg). The rectangular cross-section of the chambers, the simple ribs, often with node-like projections, and the keel with its braided structure are typical characteristics of Pleuroceras and they are also shown on the model.

Here's one example:


P. spinatum wasn't really big, only something like 40 mm up to over 100 mm in diameter, so the model would also be about life size.

_{Grrr, I have a really nice Pleuroceras somewhere myself but why won't I find it anymore...?}

I HAVE the big brown Bully ammonite. And yes, its shell was represented exactly like that. If you say that this fossil above is a pleuroceras, so, yes, the big brown Bully ammonite must be a pleuroceras.

[itstwentybelow]

Yeah it's gotta be a Pleuroceras, then. The keel is identical.

[bowheadwhale]

But then, the little white ammonite must represent a different species, since the keel is different. Can anyone tell us what ammonite species the little white Bully ammonite can be?

[sbell]

Oct 13, 2011 17:59:14 GMT bowheadwhale said:

But then, the little white ammonite must represent a different species, since the keel is different. Can anyone tell us what ammonite species the little white Bully ammonite can be?

I already mentioned that one--it is probably Perisphinctes.

As I mentioned, this has come up before:
dinotoyforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=toys&action=display&thread=124&page=2

Although the ID on the big ammonite was never satisfied.