figginsdiggins Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I think I've got a camel vote and a llama vote on this one so far. Whattayah think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I think I've got a camel vote and a llama vote on this one so far. Whattayah think? Yes, that looks like a camel calcaneum. It's a big one. Where is it from? What formation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I think I've got a camel vote and a llama vote on this one so far. Whattayah think? It's not a camelid at all. It bovid . . . a large cow or a well-worn bison calcaneum. You can find comparison images in my "Bones" album, page 3. With a fossil that is so 3-D, it is more effective to just say a dimension. The focal length of the bone and of the ruler in this case are so different, I am uncertain as to just how long the bone is. Perspective is deceptive. 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...
tracer Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 it's not from a cow, and it's not from a bison. and it's huge. but its size has nothing to do with why i say it isn't bovid. i compared it to examples in the book A Guide to the Identification of Postcranial Bones of Bos taurus and Bison bison, and it did not match either specie on a number of points. i have found a number of these bones from bovids, and they don't look quite like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 What are you using for scale? Cm? Certainly not inches. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 it's graduated as an english ruler, not metric... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) it's graduated as an english ruler, not metric... Inches. The calcaneum is closer than the ruler, so it could be a fair bit smaller. As pointed out by Harry. Edited September 23, 2009 by Bill KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 i'm thinking it's from a previously undescribed animal, which i hereby dub the "hocky". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Inches. The calcaneum is closer than the ruler, so it could be a fair bit smaller. As pointed out by Harry. Thanks, Bill. In other words, closer objects appear larger to the camera lens. Perspective is the key to endless "trick" photography. For our purposes here, it can be mis-leading. When I use a coin for scale in an image, I use a stack of coins (say a penny on a stack of dimes) to elevate the top coin up to the same focal length as the fossil. When I use a rule, I may use a transparent plastic box or a wad of modelling clay to elevate the rule to matching focal lengths. If you don't want to go to that trouble, you can simply state the dimensions (at least one dimension). 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...
figginsdiggins Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 6 and 1/2 inches long, 2 and 1/4 at widest point. No trick photography. Pretty close on the picture with ruler. Same length as the bison bone in Harry's comparison pictures (Particularly the picture with the one inch grid), but doesn't look quite like it to me. According to the one inch scale in same picture, this bone is too big to be cow. Nice pictures over there, Harry, very educational. Thanks for sharing them. Thank you everyone for your input. I saw a couple similar looking bones in some of the other pictures, but don't remember seeing measurements on others. I'll check again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I think I've got a camel vote and a llama vote on this one so far. Whattayah think? I would like to meet the person who can tell the difference between a camel and llama calcaneum. Most people can't even tell the difference in their teeth, much-less their bones. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 the problem is just trying to find pictures of comparison material. i mean, there's probably small differences between the stuff, but if you can't find positively id'd stuff to compare with, you're tracered. (it's an adverb that i just made up. it means something along the lines of...man, i hate when i make up words before i make up the meanings. <sigh>). i'm starting to rethink my earlier pronouncement that the calcaneumus couldn't be bovid, because i can't tell perzacktly how much material has been tumbled off of it, and i can't think of what else it could be, and i'm trying to visualize my calcaneumusesii with material removed to see if the lines and angles would be close enough to say well maybe, but it's giving me a headache and it's only wednesday and smoltz is pitching tonight against the astros, so i'm figuring i may not be any closer to getting this right than they are to the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Hi Figgins.. You said, "6 and 1/2 inches long, 2 and 1/4 at widest point. No trick photography. Pretty close on the picture with ruler". That is exactly the point, in pic's 1 & 3 it appears to be close to 8" long. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 the left end of the bone is on the 1" line, which adds an inch if you don't notice that. plus the ruler gets compressed laterally a bit from the bytes of it having to be pushed through the interwebz all the way to where you're at. but gravity has nothing to do with it, so don't start on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) The left end in pic 1, appears to be just past the 1st 1/4" mark. The right side appears to be almost at the 8" mark. As it is in pic'3. When I look at similar pic's of one item, with rulers, I look at the first pic' size, in this case the 'length', unless the subsequent pic's are of height and/or depth, then I look at the ruler in those. Edited September 24, 2009 by Bill KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 It's still a nice find though. KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 The left end in pic 1, appears to be just past the 1st 1/4" mark. The right side appears to be almost at the 8" mark. As it is in pic'3. When I look at similar pic's of one item, with rulers, I look at the first pic' size, in this case the 'length', unless the subsequent pic's are of height and/or depth, then I look at the ruler in those. no, no, no. the 2nd pic - the one on the right. on that one, the "flange" thingamabob is on the bottom, so it's less misrepresentatiousative. the point of the flange is percisionly fixated on the 1. discounting the shadowesqueness on the right end, it's humptey bump is on the median gradient scoring filled with black paint between the 7 and the 8. that means 6 and a half, which everyone knew in the first place who weren't trying to simply be measurably contentious and distractionalacious. probably a bunch of members of the society for prevention of contemplation of camels or sompin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) Ah, but that dont be the first one. OOO wants to look at the measuring stick in every pic taken of the same lengf, wen theres I-candy in em 2. Edited September 24, 2009 by Bill KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Ah, but that dont be the first one. OOO wants to look at the measuring stick in every pic taken of the same lengf, wen theres I-candy in em 2. Oh Bill, don't go over to the shady side...the gravitational force is strong with that one - he has gyroscopes in those echinoids hanging from his hat...trust me. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 KOF, Bill. Welcome to the forum, all new members www.ukfossils check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I would like to meet the person who can tell the difference between a camel and llama calcaneum. Most people can't even tell the difference in their teeth, much-less their bones. I have a friend who might be able to tell you but one way to do it without knowing morphological differences, assuming the specimen is from Florida, is that cameline camelids (camels) died out in Florida sometime in the Early Pliocene. There were only lamine camelids (llamas) from the Late Pliocene to the Late Pleistocene, a side point being that llamas belong to a subfamily within the camel family. I did not see site data given for the fossil but thought I would add this to the discussion (info from "The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida"). Regarding camels and llamas, I just read that the llama species, Hemiauchenia vera, was moved to a new genus, Pleiolama, by Webb and Meachen (2004). Webb, S.D. and J. Meachen. 2004. On the origin of lamine Camelidae including a new genus from the late Miocene of the High Plains. Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 36: 349-362. 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