Goober Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Hi all, I unearthed a partial horse skeleton today in Rosebud County Montana and I'm not sure if its a Pleistocene or something more recent. I took a few pictures but the quality isn't very good, hopefully they are good enough for someone to id this or point out what to look for. Any help appreciated.... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenixflood Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Not sure from the pictures. Sorry, a good way to tell if something is a fossil is to: one, try the click test. Find a rock and click it against the bone in question. If it makes a click like a rock against a rock that's a good sign. Next is the burn test, or hot needle test. You can hold a flame up to the end of a bone and if it's not a fossil it will smell like burnt hair. If you use a needle you heated up in a flame (be careful of your hands and use pliers) it can have the same effect. Try poking it into the bone if it goes in it is not a fossil. This should also give you the burnt hair smell as well if it is not a fossil. Hopefully they are fossils(fingers crossed) Welcome to the Forum BTW The soul of a Fossil Hunter is one that is seeking, always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 really likely to be recent. it would be very uncommon to find a large vertebrate skeleton in that degree of preservation in that ground if it were ten thousand years old or older. but having said that doesn't mean it's from a critter that passed away in your lifetime. and i do think practicing unearthing something like that can be good practice and fun at the same time. and now you have comparative horse material if you find an isolated bone and wonder if it's from a horse. and you also have bones to study anatomy with. you can learn the names and study the articulations and try to figure out how the bones work together. it's all good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 if you know how, or are willing to figure out how to interpret geologic maps, this will help you... info link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 8, 2009 Author Share Posted November 8, 2009 Not sure from the pictures. Sorry, a good way to tell if something is a fossil is to: one, try the click test. Find a rock and click it against the bone in question. If it makes a click like a rock against a rock that's a good sign. Next is the burn test, or hot needle test. You can hold a flame up to the end of a bone and if it's not a fossil it will smell like burnt hair. If you use a needle you heated up in a flame (be careful of your hands and use pliers) it can have the same effect. Try poking it into the bone if it goes in it is not a fossil. This should also give you the burnt hair smell as well if it is not a fossil. Hopefully they are fossils(fingers crossed) Welcome to the Forum BTW Glaciated remains in this area don't seem to have much mineralization at all, every bone I've found from lower gravel deposits are extremely brittle except for those found in silt deposits. The horse remains were resting on shale and covered over by approximately 5 feet of sandy silt and clay layers. What I can't seem to find anywhere on line is what distinguishing features identify the Pleistocene from a modern day horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 It could be late Pleistocene...I've found some bison and mammoth material in Kansas that is similarly preserved...sitting on top of the chalk buried under several feet of glacial till. I did some research and found several tiny snails mixed in with the material I found the bones in. Turns out someone had studied them and I was able to use them to pinpoint the age of the deposit....from the Kansan Glacial event for the mammoth and the Wisconsin glacial event for the bison. Maybe someone has done some similar studies for your area? Really cool find regardless. Even if it is of more modern age (hundred of years old) not many people get to excavate a complete large mammal skeleton. It's a worthwhile adventure, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Check and see if there's a shoe on the hoof. If so, probably modern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seldom Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 What I can't seem to find anywhere on line is what distinguishing features identify the Pleistocene from a modern day horse. 10,000 years give or take a long week end. It is one cool find. Like X-Man said not many people get to excavate a complete large mammal skeleton 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...
Serack Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Take this with a grain of salt considering I don't actually know what I am talking about, but all the organic material (and roots and such) that appear to be around the bones (particularly the stuff I see around the verts) makes me think the roots are "digesting" the remaining organic material left behind from the carcass, implying more recent material to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I guess you didn't record a bonebed map or take taphonomic data before/during excavation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Glaciated remains in this area don't seem to have much mineralization at all, every bone I've found from lower gravel deposits are extremely brittle except for those found in silt deposits. The horse remains were resting on shale and covered over by approximately 5 feet of sandy silt and clay layers. What I can't seem to find anywhere on line is what distinguishing features identify the Pleistocene from a modern day horse. well, x-man gave a cool idea for trying to sort out the context. i've struggled with my own equid finds in trying to figure out their approximate age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fig rocks Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 See, if that was Mr. Ed he could tell you himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 well, x-man gave a cool idea for trying to sort out the context. i've struggled with my own equid finds in trying to figure out their approximate age. Yeah, if it's not "float", nor reworked, microfossil associations could be a great help in dating. "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...
tracer Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I guess you didn't record a bonebed map or take taphonomic data before/during excavation? dang, bobby! don't be goin' all scientist on us here. hey, just for the record, i was in the bathroom reading something scholarly whilst all this was goin' on. but if you're every tempted to ask me something like the above over one of my finds, be prepared for the reply, "huh?" <trudging off to look up "taphonomic" again. looked it up last time he said it, but can't remember what it meant> p.s. - i'm now kinda wondering what having a glacier push over stuff does to the preversatiative process. taphonomically speaking, of course. diagenesis, diagenesis, diagenesis! so do the anaerobes get frozenated by teh glacieriztiveness and not reduce the suphlates? is that whud hapents? that could acoont for teh lack of minralzatives, i wouldst think (dang! lapsed into shakespearean instead of eduhick. hate when i get out of character!) FIE on't! 'tis an unweeded garden! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 8, 2009 Author Share Posted November 8, 2009 Check and see if there's a shoe on the hoof. If so, probably modern. If it had shoes I wouldn't waste anyone's time here.... thanks for looking out for me though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 8, 2009 Author Share Posted November 8, 2009 See, if that was Mr. Ed he could tell you himself! I use to watch Mister Ed and I can tell you he was for sure bigger than this pile of bones.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 8, 2009 Author Share Posted November 8, 2009 I guess you didn't record a bonebed map or take taphonomic data before/during excavation? No.... time was too short and the weather to vicious in the canyon area.... I did however photograph stages of the excavation and after removing all the specimen I cleared debris and photographed the underlying impression left by the bones. The weather here is flaky this time of year, if it rains you don't get in or out of the ranch were I excavated this. The ranch is 18 sections with only gumbo roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Man Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Check the canine teeth to see if they have been cut down. I think its been a common practice on domesticated horses. Nice find! Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 8, 2009 Author Share Posted November 8, 2009 if you know how, or are willing to figure out how to interpret geologic maps, this will help you... info link I've looked at them before but they don't help in this case, this is Bearpaw shale region but highly glaciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 8, 2009 Author Share Posted November 8, 2009 Check the canine teeth to see if they have been cut down. I think its been a common practice on domesticated horses. Nice find! Dan I posted a picture of the skulls underside showing the teeth, not the best pic.... the shale needs to be cleaned off to get a cleaner pic.....sorry The canines are intact however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 8, 2009 Author Share Posted November 8, 2009 What I can't seem to find anywhere on line is what distinguishing features identify the Pleistocene from a modern day horse. 10,000 years give or take a long week end. It is one cool find. Like X-Man said not many people get to excavate a complete large mammal skeleton It wasn't complete..... missing the aft section past the ribs...not by erosion it would appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Take this with a grain of salt considering I don't actually know what I am talking about, but all the organic material (and roots and such) that appear to be around the bones (particularly the stuff I see around the verts) makes me think the roots are "digesting" the remaining organic material left behind from the carcass, implying more recent material to me. Serack - the plants are most likely seeking minerals, rather than organics. We find Cretaceous bones in Kansas completely covered in roots where the plants have sent roots down through cracks until they have found the bones more rich in minerals than the surrounding material. I also found a mammoth tusk section that looked like it had fur there were so many roots on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefootgirl Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Its still a cool find and good practice whether its new or old. I keep every skull I come across just about. In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat: but in the evolution of real knowledge, it marks the first step in progress toward victory. Alfred North Whithead 'Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenixflood Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 It wasn't complete..... missing the aft section past the ribs...not by erosion it would appear. I wonder where the other half is? Perhaps it's in the area somewhere, or maybe it never was buried and was carried off. The soul of a Fossil Hunter is one that is seeking, always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 10, 2009 Author Share Posted November 10, 2009 Serack - the plants are most likely seeking minerals, rather than organics. We find Cretaceous bones in Kansas completely covered in roots where the plants have sent roots down through cracks until they have found the bones more rich in minerals than the surrounding material. I also found a mammoth tusk section that looked like it had fur there were so many roots on it. That's very true, I had the same problem with some Mosasaur bones I recovered.... the Prairie Grass gets down and dirty with mineralized material! 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