Well, back in 1954 two well-known cephalopod paleontologists, John B. Reeside and William A. Cobban (one prominent then, and one then becoming prominent), postulated that concretions in the Mowry and Aspen Shales were possibly "fecal matter of some large carnivore--reptile, fish or cephalopod", and "The diet of the carnivore would have had to be almost entirely ammonites and fish, and the carnivore would perhaps, like the living octopus, have had to frequent a sort of lair, to which it repaired and in which the mucous-bound fecal matter could accumulate" (Reeside & Cobban 1954, 1960).
Some of these concretions were over 2 meters in diameter, so you have a mosasaur like that in the movie Jurassic World, a very large fish, or another Kraken. Though nowhere near the size of the Triassic Kraken.
I wonder, had there been the internet in 1954, would there have been the same or similar response?
|Plate 28 from Reeside & Cobban 1960|
It was these fossils that Reeside and Cobban used in their 1960 paper to show the advantages of a population approach in taxonomy to a strictly typological one, especially for ammonoids with a large amount of intraspecific variation. A significant moment for the lumpers of the world.
McMemamin, M. A. S., and McMenamin, D. L. S., 2011. Triassic Kraken: The Berlin Icthyosaur Death Assemblage Interpreted as a Giant Cephalopod Midden: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 310
McMemamin, M. A. S., and McMenamin, D. L. S., 2013. The Kraken's Back: New Evidence Regarding Possible Cephalopod Arrangement of Icthyosaur Skeletons: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 45, No. 7, p. 900
Reeside, J. B., Jr., and Cobban, W. A., 1954. Ammonite accumulations in the Cretaceous Mowry and Aspen shales: Science, v. 119, p. 255.
Reeside, J. B., Jr., and Cobban, W. A., 1960. Studies of the Mowry Shale (Cretaceous) and Contemporary formations in the United States and Canada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 355, 126 p.