plesiosaurs feeding

Artist's impression of plesiosaurs feeding on the sea floor [AI-assisted image] (Credit: Lente Artemieff)

In a Nutshell

  • Scientists studying oil-drilling rock samples from offshore Norway identified centimeter-sized clumps of shells, worm tubes and plant bits as fossilized vomit from Jurassic sea creatures.
  • Long-necked plesiosaurs called Cryptoclididae most likely produced the vomit, hunting for food along the seafloor but swimming toward shore to throw up their leftovers.
  • Most of these ancient vomit clumps did not survive intact. Burrowing creatures, mineral buildup and wave action broke down or absorbed most of them over time.

Roughly 160 million years ago, a long-necked sea reptile cruising the shallows off what is now Norway opened its mouth and heaved up everything it couldn’t stomach: a slurry of broken shells, worm tubes and waterlogged wood. That sloppy mouthful settled into the mud, hardened into stone, and sat untouched until an oil crew drilling for petroleum and carbon-storage sites hauled it back to the surface.

A scientist working for the Norwegian energy company Equinor spent decades examining core samples, the long cylinders of rock brought up from deep wells, and kept noticing strange little clumps packed with broken shells, worm tubes and tiny plant fragments. Those clumps didn’t look like anything waves or currents naturally deposited. They looked like something had eaten a meal, failed to digest parts of it, and thrown the rest back up.

That hunch became the basis of a new study published in Geological Magazine, which argues these clumps, ranging in size from a walnut to a mango, are fossilized vomit, technically known as regurgitalites, most likely produced by a group of long-necked, small-headed sea reptiles called plesiosaurs. It makes for an odd kind of evidence: a hard record of what an ancient sea monster ate, and where it stopped to bring it back up.

How Oil Drilling Cores Turned Up Ancient Fossil Vomit

Most fossil discoveries come from cliffs, quarries or riverbanks, where erosion exposes old rock. This one came from somewhere far less picturesque: continuous rock cores drilled from wells in the Troll oil and gas field area, offshore Norway, as part of routine energy exploration and carbon storage work. Those cores cut through rock layers dating from about 168 million to roughly 155 million years ago, when the area was a river delta system dumping sand and mud into a shallow sea.

Norwegian geologist Dirk Knaust closely examined about 20 to 30 clumps, though the exact count is fuzzy because many had broken down over time. High-resolution scans, borehole images, and detailed photographs allowed Knaust to examine each clump layer by layer, checking how the shells and other fragments were packed together.

These clumps kept turning up in one spot: the front edge of ancient river deltas, where freshwater flowing off the land mixed with salty ocean water. That location became a major clue. Many of the creatures packed inside the clumps, including tube worms and sea lilies called crinoids, can only survive in steady, fully salty ocean water. Finding them clustered in a zone where the water constantly shifted between salty and fresh didn’t make sense, unless something had carried them there from elsewhere and dropped them off.

Ruling Out Poop, Burrows and Storm Debris

Before calling anything vomit, the study had to rule out several look-alikes. Storms naturally pile sediment into shell-packed layers, and burrowing animals can dig tunnels stuffed with shell fragments that look similar when sliced open. The clumps could also have been fossilized droppings.

A few details tipped the scale toward vomit. The clumps were tightly packed rather than loosely scattered, mixed complete and broken shells of very different sizes together, and showed pitted, worn edges consistent with partial digestion. Droppings tend to have a smooth, even texture because stomach acid breaks material down uniformly. These clumps instead held a messy mix of undigested leftovers, exactly what an animal would leave behind when it couldn’t process the food. The study also compared the Norwegian samples with similar clumps found in outcrops on Jameson Land in East Greenland, an area with matching rock layers and age, and found the same mix of shell types and structure.

Panel A: A photo showing a poorly constrained clump with complete and fragmented bivalve shells together with plant debris. Panel B: A photo displaying a large clump with a diffuse boundary, containing shell fragments of bivalves, an articulated brachiopod shell, and large plant fragments with partly attached brachiopods at the center. Panel C: A photo similar to Panel B, highlighting twigs. Panel D: A photo of an erosional abraded clump with small, rounded shell and plant fragments. Panel E: A close-up photo of the erosional abraded clump from Panel D. Panel F: A photo showing the counterpart of Panel D with two abraded clumps with worn bioclasts in a sandy matrix, together with a belemnite indicated by an arrow. Panel G: A close-up photo of the counterpart from Panel F. Panel H: A photo of a clump with a defined margin and sandy matrix. Panel I: A close-up photo of the clump from Panel H.
Panel A: A photo showing a poorly constrained clump with complete and fragmented bivalve shells together with plant debris. Panel B: A photo displaying a large clump with a diffuse boundary, containing shell fragments of bivalves, an articulated brachiopod shell, and large plant fragments with partly attached brachiopods at the center. Panel C: A photo similar to Panel B, highlighting twigs. Panel D: A photo of an erosional abraded clump with small, rounded shell and plant fragments. Panel E: A close-up photo of the erosional abraded clump from Panel D. Panel F: A photo showing the counterpart of Panel D with two abraded clumps with worn bioclasts in a sandy matrix, together with a belemnite indicated by an arrow. Panel G: A close-up photo of the counterpart from Panel F. Panel H: A photo of a clump with a defined margin and sandy matrix. Panel I: A close-up photo of the clump from Panel H. (Credit: Dirk Knaust)

Tracking Down the Plesiosaur Vomit Culprit

Once vomit seemed like the best explanation, the obvious next question was whose vomit it actually was. The study worked through a list of suspects. Knaust considered squid-like creatures, but they produce different, smaller waste piles. Fish were ruled out as too small to cough up chunks this size. Sharks called hybodonts, common in the Jurassic and known for crushing teeth built for eating shellfish, stayed on the list as a possibility. Crocodile relatives were mostly ruled out, since their typical prey, fast-moving fish and squid, doesn’t match a stomach full of bottom-dwelling shellfish and worms.

That left plesiosaurs, specifically a family called Cryptoclididae, animals with long necks, small heads and rows of thin, tightly packed teeth. Fossil skeletons and stomach contents from related plesiosaurs elsewhere show they fed by sifting through mud on the seafloor for shellfish, worms, crustaceans and small sea lilies, a feeding style that lines up closely with what’s packed inside these clumps. Their necks also allowed more up-and-down movement than side-to-side swinging, another detail that fits an animal dipping its head toward the bottom rather than chasing fast prey through open water. Timing also fits: Cryptoclididae were common in the area during the same stretch of Jurassic time when these vomit clumps formed.

A vertebra from an ichthyosaur, another type of marine reptile, turned up in the same rock alongside the clumps, but the study notes ichthyosaurs mostly ate soft-bodied swimming prey like squid and fish, so it likely wasn’t the source. Fossilized droppings from crocodile relatives also appeared nearby, further evidence that a whole community of Jurassic predators was active in the area, even if the vomit itself points most strongly to the long-necked plesiosaurs.

What Plesiosaur Vomit Reveals About Ancient Sea Life

Most of this fossil vomit didn’t survive intact. River delta environments are busy, fast-changing places with lots of sediment piling up and burrowing creatures constantly churning through the mud. As a result, burrowing animals broke many clumps apart, chewed them, or slowly absorbed them into the surrounding mud, leaving only scattered fragments.

A few pellets made it through because they were durable, tightly compacted and bound by mucus when the animal brought them up. Rapid burial under river sediment helped, as did a lucky landing in burrows left by seafloor crustaceans. In some clumps, calcite slowly cemented the contents into a hard lump before scavengers or currents could scatter them. Others were dug up again by shifting currents and worn down, ending up smaller, rounder and more scattered than when they first settled. Only a fraction stayed intact enough for scientists to study today.

Because these clumps kept appearing in a recognizable form, the study formally classified them as a new type of trace fossil, a fossil that records behavior rather than the creature’s body. The clumps were named Vomitus, a straightforward nod to their contents, with three types: one dominated by shell fragments, one by worm tubes, and one by crinoid fragments. Giving them an official name gives other researchers digging through old rock cores or outcrops elsewhere in the world a defined checklist for spotting similar vomit clumps if they come across them.

What these leftovers reveal matters more than the gross-out factor. They point to a long-necked sea reptile that hunted along the muddy seafloor, then swam toward the coast to bring up what it couldn’t digest, much as fur seals and dolphins do today. Preserved by accident in rock drilled up for oil and gas exploration, that behavior hands paleontologists something stomach contents rarely can: a glimpse of what an ancient predator ate and where it traveled afterward.

Paper Notes

Limitations

Specimens came from a limited number of wells in a single offshore basin, and researchers couldn’t pin down the exact number examined because many were in different stages of breaking down or being absorbed into the surrounding rock by the time they were studied. Identifying the likely producer as Cryptoclididae rests on matching anatomy, feeding behavior and timing rather than a direct physical link between a specific animal and a specific clump, and the study notes that a type of shark called hybodonts cannot be ruled out as a contributor either.

Funding and Disclosures

Knaust thanked Equinor ASA, specifically the Smeaheia Project, for supporting the study, along with several named colleagues who provided guidance or discussion on topics including Greenland fieldwork, fossilized vomit, coprolites, crinoids, plesiosaur biology and worm tubes. He reported no competing interests.

Publication Details

Paper Title: “The fate of supposed plesiosaur vomit from Jurassic delta deposits offshore Norway”

Author: Dirk Knaust of Equinor ASA, Norway

Journal: Geological Magazine (volume 163, article e43).

DOI: 10.1017/S0016756826100806

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor