Sea Monsters

there were probably some fish, but these sea reptiles probably didn't just rely on fish. ammonites, sharks, and even the occasional pterosaur made up a part of their diet as well.

Yeah, you right but, in the spots there,s no fossils of ammonites and sharks, just sea monsters, but they actually found something : which is a squid beak. probably there are abundant of squid in there i just forgot to put it there because before i finished it there,s a blackout so i have to forced to closed my laptop that has a low battery HeHe.....!

that's possible. maybe fish didn't fossilize as well as squid in that area too...so there might have been fish they may have not been fossilized well though

Probably quite a bit of squid I'm the area, maybe they ate each other as well. That's interesting though.

My question is where was the dig?

Squids are likely. Remember there could be some fish. Not everything fossilizes very good over millions of years!

And RexFan's right. A place would be helpful. Most for geological stuff.

That, and, let's say the dig was in Kansas. Well, I'd assume the fossils dug up were from the Western Interior Seway. And Kansas was at one of the deepest parts of the sea. Small to medium sized fish are rarely found in deep water. That's the home to most of the filter feeders and apex predators. So, naturally, I would not expect to find many fish fossils there. That's why a location is vital in this.

It,s In Svalbard at The Arctic Circle

That explains a lot. There are some species of fish that live that far north(small-medium sized), but not that many. Relativley small fish are rare in the far north. I wouldn't expect to find too many there. Squid on the other hand are pretty common, as are large sean animals. Today most of the animals found in arctic waters are invertabrates, large fish, whales, and other sea mammals. I would assume it was the same way millions of years ago, only with sea reptiles instead of whales and mammals.