In a message dated 11/30/00 9:46:54 AM, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< Since these animals are usually buried, or covered with algae, marl, or
insect cases, there can be no camouflage value. >>

Ah, but  could it be that the surface is more inviting for the algae? And in
the case of those species, like those cymatiums, that have hairy periostraca
(??), don't the fibers provide more surface area for any algae to cover?

There are plenty of fish with beaks. How about puffers and porcupine fish?
(Maybe even triggers.)

I found a fossil fragment on a beach on Grassy Key on Marathon a few years
ago that had me stumped. I gave it to a friend at the Peabody here in New
Haven. He said it was a jaw fragment from a puffer or porcupine fish, a
serious crushing apparatus. Trust me, you wouldn't want to stick your finger
in that mouth.

Puffers could easily munch a shell, especially thin ones like tuns. And tuns,
I understand, have slightly fuzzy periostracum when they are alive. Not that
I've ever found any live ones. Drat.

Porcupine fish have great big anxious headlamp eyes. Aren't they hunting by
sight?

Ellen

amateur musings offered free of charge