bj aurora Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I found this bone in LC a couple of years ago in Yorktown Formation. I had it with me a day that Vince Schneider had a group there from the NC Museum in Raleigh, and they decided it was not bird or reptile. So far, most people agree it is mammal, but do not agree on genus, although feline or canine have both been mentioned. I would appreciate any help with ID on this puzzle! thanks to Mako Mama for the scans of the bone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 It is canid or felid. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 It is canid or felid. This one sent me back to the collection. This bone is only about one inch long. I have drawers full of toe bones, but I can't say I have one exactly like this. I think it is neither dog nor cat. The curve to the shaft suggests cat; but note the dramatic compression dorso-ventrally of the shaft. That is not a cat-like feature. The articulation on the proximal end suggests to me that this is a metapodial, rather than a toe bone. It's vaguely reptilian, but not crocodilian. I think it is a bird metatarsal. Maybe 'Auspex' can help here. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bj aurora Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 I appreciate the input, this one has me totally stumped! Initially I thought avain, but it is rather dense. To my knowledge, it is one of a kind from LC, nobody I have spoken to has ever seen one like it. Thanks to all who particiapte! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 i haven't caught auriculatus wrong yet on any IDs. don't look like bird to me. bird legs - u gots em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I'm afraid that I can only "help" in the negative: it is not avian. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bj aurora Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 Thanks Auspex, that's what the NC Museum experts said... next??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Hey Guys, Hope I don't sound repetitive as far as carnivorans go, but it doesn't look pinniped at all; I.e. phocid or odobenid. I will double check phocid bones to be sure, but I we can definitely rule out walrus. Harry, I thought felid as soon as I saw the curvature. Perhaps it is some other sort of terrestrial carnivore? Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 It is an intriguing bone; I will watch this thread. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I'm afraid that I can only "help" in the negative: it is not avian. 'Auspex' is correct, this is not digit IV of a bird, nor is it a tarso-metatarsus. That leaves me with the reptilian impression I have. this is a one-inch bone from a mature individual. The shafts of phocid (true seal) metapodials in my drawer are neither curved nor compressed dorso-ventrally. And they are much more robust than this bone. I keep coming back to the D-V compression of this bone -- what does that tell us about the animal? Does it suggest that the feet did not need to be as strong as land animals for running, climbing, digging or subduing prey. Even my turtle metapodials seem to be more robust. The bone does not resemble the illustrations I have of crocodile metapodials. If the bone is truly from the Yorktown (Pliocene, marine to brackish), this animal should be well-known (though its foot bones may not be common). Perhaps it's one of the smaller marine turtles. Here are some reptile metapodials for comparison, but I don't think there is a match here. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Members bad-da-bing Posted April 15, 2009 New Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 'Auspex' is correct, this is not digit IV of a bird, nor is it a tarso-metatarsus. That leaves me with the reptilian impression I have.this is a one-inch bone from a mature individual. The shafts of phocid (true seal) metapodials in my drawer are neither curved nor compressed dorso-ventrally. And they are much more robust than this bone. I keep coming back to the D-V compression of this bone -- what does that tell us about the animal? Does it suggest that the feet did not need to be as strong as land animals for running, climbing, digging or subduing prey. Even my turtle metapodials seem to be more robust. The bone does not resemble the illustrations I have of crocodile metapodials. If the bone is truly from the Yorktown (Pliocene, marine to brackish), this animal should be well-known (though its foot bones may not be common). Perhaps it's one of the smaller marine turtles. Here are some reptile metapodials for comparison, but I don't think there is a match here. Is it possible the bone in question is pathological in some way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 its always possible but i dont see anything that stands out with this bone, its fairly symmetrical there are no lumps or growths. I really have no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 im sorry guys i forgot all about it! yes i think harry is right, i think its from a croc i have seen similar bones on papers that i have been reading and on sites. here is a similar bone. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...sa%3DN%26um%3D1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Is Dugong a possibility? Following Harry's "form/function" lead, I went surfing for images of sirenian carpal bones, but found nothing with enough detail. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Is Dugong a possibility?Following Harry's "form/function" lead, I went surfing for images of sirenian carpal bones, but found nothing with enough detail. I have manatee metapodials here that are quite large -- larger even than the phocid homologs. This is a small animal. This bone is only about one inch long. For comparison the smallest bone in this group of carnivore metapodials is 1.66" long. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenixflood Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I'm thinking cat BJ, but what do I know http://www.flickr.com/photos/85423753@N00/231528602/ http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/lad...mestic_WEB1.jpg The font ones seem long but look at the shape The soul of a Fossil Hunter is one that is seeking, always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 ok, please indulge my focusing of the discussion for a moment. can we please attempt to verify or disprove that it is a felid middle/second or proximal phalanx before we consider every other creature extant or formerly so? felid phalanges are, i believe, flattened somewhat dorso-ventrally. the bone doesn't look like a "metapodial" (metacarpal), and one inch in length is, i think, plenty large enough to be a phalanx from a cat. you can read the text and then scroll back up a couple of pages to the diagram in the accompanying link and see what you think. buy this book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 ok, please indulge my focusing of the discussion for a moment. can we please attempt to verify or disprove that it is a felid middle/second or proximal phalanx before we consider every other creature extant or formerly so? felid phalanges are, i believe, flattened somewhat dorso-ventrally. the bone doesn't look like a "metapodial" (metacarpal), and one inch in length is, i think, plenty large enough to be a phalanx from a cat. you can read the text and then scroll back up a couple of pages to the diagram in the accompanying link and see what you think. Looking good! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Looking good! If this bone belongs to a cat, I think it cannot be a phalanx. Phalanges do not have have this rounded articulation on the proximal end (nor do carnivore metapodials, AFAIK). Metapodials are the bones in the back of your hand (metacarpals) and in the arch of your foot (metatarsals). These are not considered toe bones. Toe bones are "phalanges' (singular, "phalanx"). The default number of phalanges for a carnivore toe is three, the proximal phalanx, the medial phalanx, and the "ungual phalanx" or "claw core." Carnivore toes have . . . well, just look at the articulating ends of the cat toe bones below. Carnivore metapodials have strong, angular facets on the proximal end which articulate with the carpals (wrist bones) and tarsals (ankle bones). All these bones are bound together by ligaments into a load-bearing package that won't disarticulate under stress. The mystery bone does not have the channels, ridges, and angles on its proximal end. The rounded articular surface strikes me as reptile-like. It seems to indicate an ankle (or wrist) that was not made for running or digging, but perhaps for swimming. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 perhaps this mysterious bone is from something not yet known? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seldom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 perhaps this mysterious bone is from something not yet known? Man that is a way cool idea, :shades: Galveston Island 32 miles long 2 miles wide 134 bars 23 liquor stores any questions? Evolution is Chimp Change. Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass; it's about learning to dance in the rain! "I like to listen. I have learned a great deal from listening carefully. Most people never listen." Ernest Hemingway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 welp - looks too short to be a metacarpal and don't have the approved feline proximal end to be a phalanx and ain't a bird or manatee. guess if i get bored i'll research dogs, but otherwise just call it chupacabra and forget about it. maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bj aurora Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 I respect the knowledge of this group more than you can imagine. In fact, the more I read the various threads, the more humble I feel in my ignorance of anatomy, physiology, and paleontology. I am not sure how I feel about the debate over this bone except I no longer feel totally stupid for not being able to ID it. If Chupacabra doesn't fit, maybe fetal Yeti? I almost had a "new" specie of peccary (one tooth doth not a new specie make), but this bone.. so far I am prone to believe either new to the area, or pathological. OK.. I am HOPING it is something really cool... but I truly would settle for an ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I respect the knowledge of this group more than you can imagine. In fact, the more I read the various threads, the more humble I feel in my ignorance of anatomy, physiology, and paleontology. I am not sure how I feel about the debate over this bone except I no longer feel totally stupid for not being able to ID it. If Chupacabra doesn't fit, maybe fetal Yeti? I almost had a "new" specie of peccary (one tooth doth not a new specie make), but this bone.. so far I am prone to believe either new to the area, or pathological. OK.. I am HOPING it is something really cool... but I truly would settle for an ID. hang in there. somebody will figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 According to Harry and i think even Boesse it has aquatic species written all over it but since it doesnt fit any known species from that area or any other it seems it may be a new species Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now