Metatarsals?

[ashcraft]

I am a member of the Mo. Archaeological Society, which is in the process of making a data base of Clovis and Dalton points throughout the state, with measurements, material type, size, etc. I found what I believe to be a metatarsal bone in the general area that I picked these up, and I am trying to I.D. it, to see if it needs to be included with the data base. The deposit is less then 10.000 years old, and was a peat bog, now converted to farming, so bone fragments are common, preserved in the acidic conditions. I have tried to identify the object from Gilbert's book on Mammalian Osteology, but it is larger then a white-tailed deer bone, and smaller then an elk. Is it a domestic animal of some sort? Is it perhaps a large white-tailed deer? The general shape seems wrong though. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Brent Ashcraft

[Guest bmorefossil]

wow i would call that a fossil if i had found it but its good to know what age the sediment in the area is, here on the bay and river its mixed so well and then you can find recent stuff, you never know what you may find haha.

[Auspex]

Does it appear to be a fully ossified adult bone?

[ashcraft]

Does it appear to be a fully ossified adult bone?

Duuuuh.......What does that mean? The bone appears to be fully "bone-ified", no cartilage. When you put a match to it, it does not smell like burning hair.

If you can clarify my ignorance, I'll try to answer better.

Brent Ashcraft

[Auspex]

Duuuuh.......What does that mean? The bone appears to be fully "bone-ified", no cartilage. When you put a match to it, it does not smell like burning hair.

If you can clarify my ignorance, I'll try to answer better.

Brent Ashcraft

My thought was to eliminate a juvenile of some species from consideration (the "size" thing). If there is no sign of missing structure on the articulation surfaces (due to its having been cartilage), then we're still looking for a critter that is intermediate in size from the usual suspects. Since my knowledge of mammal bones is close to zero, all I can offer to the dialog are thoughts and observations.

[ashcraft]

My thought was to eliminate a juvenile of some species from consideration (the "size" thing). If there is no sign of missing structure on the articulation surfaces (due to its having been cartilage), then we're still looking for a critter that is intermediate in size from the usual suspects. Since my knowledge of mammal bones is close to zero, all I can offer to the dialog are thoughts and observations.

In that respect, it does appear whole. But I must add that my knowledge of bone structure would fill a very small thimble about half full.

I did take it to our local university and had the mammologist look at it, he is no expert on fossils or old material, but he did say that he thought it was a bit large to be a deer. Size wise, the closest thing it compared to in the Mammal Osteology book was a reindeer, shape was similar, but somewhat different.

So I am looking at something around 700ish pounds, if a juvenile, you could be looking at elk, moose, bison, or the ubiquitous moo-moo (in which case, boo-hoo). If adult, it could be reindeer, or something extinct. Or maybe a large pig, my knowledge of their bone structure is even less.

Speculation is also encouraged

Brent Ashcraft

[Harry Pristis]

In that respect, it does appear whole. But I must add that my knowledge of bone structure would fill a very small thimble about half full.

I did take it to our local university and had the mammologist look at it, he is no expert on fossils or old material, but he did say that he thought it was a bit large to be a deer. Size wise, the closest thing it compared to in the Mammal Osteology book was a reindeer, shape was similar, but somewhat different.

So I am looking at something around 700ish pounds, if a juvenile, you could be looking at elk, moose, bison, or the ubiquitous moo-moo (in which case, boo-hoo). If adult, it could be reindeer, or something extinct. Or maybe a large pig, my knowledge of their bone structure is even less.

Speculation is also encouraged

Brent Ashcraft

This appears to me to be a bovid naviculo-cuboid, a tarsal (actually, two fused tarsals in bovids). Any university archeology department should have a comparative collection you can check. Perhaps a local large-animal vet clinic has such a set of bones you could check.

My thought was to eliminate a juvenile of some species from consideration (the "size" thing). If there is no sign of missing structure on the articulation surfaces (due to its having been cartilage),...

Keep in mind that the bone epiphysis does not go missing from a juvenile bone because it is made of cartilage. It is bone just like the shaft -- the two parts are simply not yet fused.

The area between the epiphysis and the shaft is an area of growth, the "growth plate." Each long bone has two epiphyses, one at each end. When the animal reaches adulthood, growth stops, and the epiphyses fuse to the shaft of the bone.

[ashcraft]

Thanks Harry, I have tried to google a photo for comparison, with little luck. I will tuck a note away with the specimen for "one of thesedays".

Brent Ashcraft