Prehistoric Invertebrates

[bmathison1972]

Boki (or anyone else), can I ask for an ID on this one?

Sure looks like the Paleocasts.

It is, and Halichoeres and I have already discussed offline via email . Thanks for mentioning it here though, so others will know!

[Halichoeres]

I like the photos of the Eurypterus, but it's probably an unrealistic pose for an aquatic animal . It's propped up like it's terrestrial.

Maybe it's just coming out a loop! 

[Brontozaurus]

There's been a few Yowies in this thread, but there's been a few missing. Fortunately I just completed that particular set this week.

Series A: Giant Disc Jelly (Dickinsonia), Sea Scorpion (generic eurypterid), Devonian Trilobite (Kettneraspis)


Series B: (l-r) Dubbolimulus, Imperial Ammonite (Tropaeum imperator), Wiwaxiid, Straight-shelled cephalopod (unspecified Ordovician nautiloid), Anomalocaris, Mawsonites


I wish they'd done more non-Palaeozoic invertebrates. A titanopteran insect would've been awesome.

[Halichoeres]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

[Faelrin]

I really need to get that Wiwaxiid at some point to go with my Yowie Anomalocaris. I like how colorful it is.

[BlueKrono]

I really need to get that Wiwaxiid at some point to go with my Yowie Anomalocaris. I like how colorful it is.

It's do much fun! It looks like a birthday cake. I want it just for the colors; I don't normally collect Wiwaxia.

P.S. It's still kinda awesome that my phone autocorrects "Wiwaxia".

[Brontozaurus]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

I got the paper with this one and it only lists 'cephalopod' as the scientific name. Can't find any records of Cameroceras from Australia either, so it's definitely not meant to be that genus.

[SBell]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

I got the paper with this one and it only lists 'cephalopod' as the scientific name. Can't find any records of Cameroceras from Australia either, so it's definitely not meant to be that genus.

I just checked my two, all it says is 'Cephalopod'.

BUT--back in the day when these were still current (yup...I was there for the LK and Forgetten Friends series) Yowies had a good website (realtively...for mid 2000s). They gave further details on each animal. And I am certain that they gave the cephalopod's name as Cameroceras. Not every figure in the Yowies was Australian, or even inspired by Australian fauna.

It would be nice to track down the old website (all Yowies website searches now lead to info on the new series).

[Halichoeres]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

I got the paper with this one and it only lists 'cephalopod' as the scientific name. Can't find any records of Cameroceras from Australia either, so it's definitely not meant to be that genus.

I just checked my two, all it says is 'Cephalopod'.

BUT--back in the day when these were still current (yup...I was there for the LK and Forgetten Friends series) Yowies had a good website (realtively...for mid 2000s). They gave further details on each animal. And I am certain that they gave the cephalopod's name as Cameroceras. Not every figure in the Yowies was Australian, or even inspired by Australian fauna.

It would be nice to track down the old website (all Yowies website searches now lead to info on the new series).

I'll be damned! Thanks to both of you for checking. I'm not sure why I was so convinced it said Cameroceras, because I definitely wasn't collecting back when their web site was live. Dinosauriana has it listed as Cameroceras, but they might also be going off said web site. And Sean, you're right that at least Series C went out of Australia, but Series A and B (the cephalopod was B) were pretty faithfully Australian. So this would be an exception. It's also possible that taxonomy has changed since then. Anyway, happy to have been corrected!

[SBell]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

I got the paper with this one and it only lists 'cephalopod' as the scientific name. Can't find any records of Cameroceras from Australia either, so it's definitely not meant to be that genus.

I just checked my two, all it says is 'Cephalopod'.

BUT--back in the day when these were still current (yup...I was there for the LK and Forgetten Friends series) Yowies had a good website (realtively...for mid 2000s). They gave further details on each animal. And I am certain that they gave the cephalopod's name as Cameroceras. Not every figure in the Yowies was Australian, or even inspired by Australian fauna.

It would be nice to track down the old website (all Yowies website searches now lead to info on the new series).

I'll be damned! Thanks to both of you for checking. I'm not sure why I was so convinced it said Cameroceras, because I definitely wasn't collecting back when their web site was live. Dinosauriana has it listed as Cameroceras, but they might also be going off said web site. And Sean, you're right that at least Series C went out of Australia, but Series A and B (the cephalopod was B) were pretty faithfully Australian. So this would be an exception. It's also possible that taxonomy has changed since then. Anyway, happy to have been corrected!

The real question becomes, what is it then? Clearly an orthocone nautiloid (unless I read the current classifications right, and some people want orthocones 'lifted' to the same level as a sister group to natuiloids, but I digress), but which one? If we stick to Australian genera, I found reference to Dolorthoceras and Plagiostomoceras. The Victoria museum references Orthoceras here but that may not mean anything.

[Halichoeres]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

I got the paper with this one and it only lists 'cephalopod' as the scientific name. Can't find any records of Cameroceras from Australia either, so it's definitely not meant to be that genus.

I just checked my two, all it says is 'Cephalopod'.

BUT--back in the day when these were still current (yup...I was there for the LK and Forgetten Friends series) Yowies had a good website (realtively...for mid 2000s). They gave further details on each animal. And I am certain that they gave the cephalopod's name as Cameroceras. Not every figure in the Yowies was Australian, or even inspired by Australian fauna.

It would be nice to track down the old website (all Yowies website searches now lead to info on the new series).

I'll be damned! Thanks to both of you for checking. I'm not sure why I was so convinced it said Cameroceras, because I definitely wasn't collecting back when their web site was live. Dinosauriana has it listed as Cameroceras, but they might also be going off said web site. And Sean, you're right that at least Series C went out of Australia, but Series A and B (the cephalopod was B) were pretty faithfully Australian. So this would be an exception. It's also possible that taxonomy has changed since then. Anyway, happy to have been corrected!

The real question becomes, what is it then? Clearly an orthocone nautiloid (unless I read the current classifications right, and some people want orthocones 'lifted' to the same level as a sister group to natuiloids, but I digress), but which one? If we stick to Australian genera, I found reference to Dolorthoceras and Plagiostomoceras. The Victoria museum references Orthoceras here but that may not mean anything.

Any useful information in the paper insert? Period, locality, etc? The "Ducabrook rhizodont" is just listed as being a rhizodont but it's easy to figure out from the description that it refers to Strepsodus.

[SBell]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

I got the paper with this one and it only lists 'cephalopod' as the scientific name. Can't find any records of Cameroceras from Australia either, so it's definitely not meant to be that genus.

I just checked my two, all it says is 'Cephalopod'.

BUT--back in the day when these were still current (yup...I was there for the LK and Forgetten Friends series) Yowies had a good website (realtively...for mid 2000s). They gave further details on each animal. And I am certain that they gave the cephalopod's name as Cameroceras. Not every figure in the Yowies was Australian, or even inspired by Australian fauna.

It would be nice to track down the old website (all Yowies website searches now lead to info on the new series).

I'll be damned! Thanks to both of you for checking. I'm not sure why I was so convinced it said Cameroceras, because I definitely wasn't collecting back when their web site was live. Dinosauriana has it listed as Cameroceras, but they might also be going off said web site. And Sean, you're right that at least Series C went out of Australia, but Series A and B (the cephalopod was B) were pretty faithfully Australian. So this would be an exception. It's also possible that taxonomy has changed since then. Anyway, happy to have been corrected!

The real question becomes, what is it then? Clearly an orthocone nautiloid (unless I read the current classifications right, and some people want orthocones 'lifted' to the same level as a sister group to natuiloids, but I digress), but which one? If we stick to Australian genera, I found reference to Dolorthoceras and Plagiostomoceras. The Victoria museum references Orthoceras here but that may not mean anything.

Any useful information in the paper insert? Period, locality, etc? The "Ducabrook rhizodont" is just listed as being a rhizodont but it's easy to figure out from the description that it refers to Strepsodus.

Not much. It says Ordovician, North-central Australia, straight-shelled cephalopod (so, potentially not even an orothoconoid...) and about twice the length of a hand.

[Brontozaurus]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

I got the paper with this one and it only lists 'cephalopod' as the scientific name. Can't find any records of Cameroceras from Australia either, so it's definitely not meant to be that genus.

I just checked my two, all it says is 'Cephalopod'.

BUT--back in the day when these were still current (yup...I was there for the LK and Forgetten Friends series) Yowies had a good website (realtively...for mid 2000s). They gave further details on each animal. And I am certain that they gave the cephalopod's name as Cameroceras. Not every figure in the Yowies was Australian, or even inspired by Australian fauna.

It would be nice to track down the old website (all Yowies website searches now lead to info on the new series).

Yeah I remember the old website. I don't think it had much more information than the leaflets did; if anything it only had very short summaries of each model. I'd love to have the old website back, or at least something with more details of each series; the most detailed one I could find only covered series C with more than a checklist.

To get technical for a second (and I apologise if this comes off as rude or anything), the only entirely non-Australian species in the LK series were the dinosaurs in series C. It's true that there were a fair few animals that weren't exclusively Australian in the series (mostly Paleozoic ones) but they all occurred in local fossil deposits (e.g. Anomalocaris and Wiwaxia are in the South Australian Emu Bay Shale). Because of this I'm doubtful that the cephalopod was intended as Cameroceras. It could just be intended as a generic orthocone, like how the sea scorpion from series A is a generic eurypterid, and how two of the series B dinosaurs are a generic sauropod and stegosaur representing fossil footprints.

Though it's such a generic orthocone that no one would blink if you put it in a diorama or something as a Cameroceras.

[SBell]

@Brontozaurus: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the paper insert for the Yowie cephalopod named it as Cameroceras. I no longer have one, so I can't verify, but I would still bet money on it.

I got the paper with this one and it only lists 'cephalopod' as the scientific name. Can't find any records of Cameroceras from Australia either, so it's definitely not meant to be that genus.

I just checked my two, all it says is 'Cephalopod'.

BUT--back in the day when these were still current (yup...I was there for the LK and Forgetten Friends series) Yowies had a good website (realtively...for mid 2000s). They gave further details on each animal. And I am certain that they gave the cephalopod's name as Cameroceras. Not every figure in the Yowies was Australian, or even inspired by Australian fauna.

It would be nice to track down the old website (all Yowies website searches now lead to info on the new series).

Yeah I remember the old website. I don't think it had much more information than the leaflets did; if anything it only had very short summaries of each model. I'd love to have the old website back, or at least something with more details of each series; the most detailed one I could find only covered series C with more than a checklist.

To get technical for a second (and I apologise if this comes off as rude or anything), the only entirely non-Australian species in the LK series were the dinosaurs in series C. It's true that there were a fair few animals that weren't exclusively Australian in the series (mostly Paleozoic ones) but they all occurred in local fossil deposits (e.g. Anomalocaris and Wiwaxia are in the South Australian Emu Bay Shale). Because of this I'm doubtful that the cephalopod was intended as Cameroceras. It could just be intended as a generic orthocone, like how the sea scorpion from series A is a generic eurypterid, and how two of the series B dinosaurs are a generic sauropod and stegosaur representing fossil footprints.

Though it's such a generic orthocone that no one would blink if you put it in a diorama or something as a Cameroceras.

Well, they gave a time and place. So it is likely based on something mostly real, if not exclusively Australian.

[Megalosaurus]

Fantastic photos everyone.

Does any of you know how to get the Nayab Eryon?

[Halichoeres]

North-central Australia narrows it down to probably five genera (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1299872?seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents):

Madiganella
Bactroceras
Cyclendoceras
Endoceras
Catoraphiceras

Bactroceras is probably the best size match. But Brontozaurus is right that the toy is pretty generic and you can pretty much use it however you like.

[bmathison1972]

With all these discussions I have revisited my Yowie 'Eurypterus'. I am not sure where I got that name, but morphologically it is not a Eurypterus. It is probably Pterygotus australis, whose identity in itself is questionable.

[SBell]

With all these discussions I have revisited my Yowie 'Eurypterus'. I am not sure where I got that name, but morphologically it is not a Eurypterus. It is probably Pterygotus australis, whose identity in itself is questionable.

Again, something tells me that it says somewhere that it is meant to be Pterygotus. I'll have to track down the paper.

North-central Australia narrows it down to probably five genera (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1299872?seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents):

Madiganella
Bactroceras
Cyclendoceras
Endoceras
Catoraphiceras

Bactroceras is probably the best size match. But Brontozaurus is right that the toy is pretty generic and you can pretty much use it however you like.

Given the time and place I will change mine but, yeah, it's a pretty generic stand in for any orthocone nautiloid.

[Brontozaurus]

I checked out the paper for the eurypterid. It simply says "eurypterid family". But according to the collector's handbook I pasted the paper into, the eurypterid may be intended to represent fossils from the Burrinjuck Dam...which is Devonian, and the paper says this eurypterid is Silurian...

CHAOS REIGNS.

[Halichoeres]

Ha. Damn you, Yowies.