Small Mammal Bone Accumulations Research Articles

Actualistic taphonomy of barn owl pellet‐derived small mammal bone accumulations in arid environments of South America

ABSTRACTThe avian family of barn owls (Tytonidae, Strigiformes) is the most geographically widespread group of owls in the world and one of the most common accumulators of small mammal bone and tooth remains recovered from archaeological and palaeontological sites. The present study analyses the taphonomic characteristics of modern barn owl pellet‐derived small mammal bone and tooth accumulations at three roosting sites from the central Monte Desert, one of the most arid regions of South America. In order to identify the taphonomic signature of this predator in the formation of zooarchaeological and palaeontological accumulations, taxonomic structure, relative abundance of skeletal elements, bone and teeth breakage patterns, and digestion were evaluated. Taphonomic results locate the barn owl in modification category 1 (light modifier). Although the general taphonomic results obtained in the present study were similar to a common barn owl pattern, the three samples showed variability both among them and with other samples previously reported in different regions of the world. Very light digestion was detected on incisors, whereas the proportion of digestion on incisors was close to 20%. Cricetid and murid rodents as well as marsupials were detected. Salinomys delicatus, a scarcely known and endangered cricetid species, was recovered.

Taphonomy of small mammal bone accumulations generated by the Chaco owl (Strix chacoensis, Strigiformes) from the Monte Desert (Mendoza, Argentina): a contribution to South American archaeological and palaeontological studies

The present study analyses the taphonomic features of recent small mammal bone and teeth accumulations recovered from pellets generated by Strix chacoensis in a Natural Protected Area in the central Monte Desert of Mendoza, Argentina. In order to identify the taphonomic signature of this predator in the formation of zooarchaeological and palaeontological accumulations, taxonomic profiles, relative abundances, bone breakage patterns and digestive corrosion were evaluated. Taphonomic results locate S. chacoensis in modification category 2 (intermediate). Although the general taphonomic patterns detected in the present study were similar to a typical owl pattern, some differences from that pattern were detected. This sample showed lesser relative abundances of skeletal elements, greater loss of teeth and a larger number of incisors modified by digestion than those generated by other strigiforms. The comparison with reported archaeological accumulations suggested that the small mammal remains recovered in some sites from the Monte Desert may correspond to the predatory activity of S. chacoensis. The identification of the action of S. chacoensis in archaeological and palaeontological small mammal bone and teeth accumulations is a promising tool to evaluate the conservation status of native forests in the past.

Restos de micromamíferos identificados en dos conjuntos de época romana: Valentia (la Almoina, València) y la Calerilla de Hortunas (Requena)

We present a study of two small mammal bone accumulations from Roman times.Taphonomical sets reflect a different creation assemblage process. The Almoina is associated with the ethology of Mustela nivalis (least wessel), and the Calerilla with a natural death. Moreover, from the ecological requirements of different documented species, we attempted to characterize the climatic conditions of each site.

Owls, Caves and Fossils. Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of Small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Pleistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-Sub-Mendip, Somerset, United Kingdom Peter Andrews

Owls, Caves and Fossils. Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of Small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Pleistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-Sub-Mendip, Somerset, United Kingdom Peter Andrews

Peter Andrews: Owls, Caves and Fossils. Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Pleistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-Sub-Mendip, Somerset, UK

(1992). Peter Andrews: Owls, Caves and Fossils. Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Pleistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-Sub-Mendip, Somerset, UK. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 126-127.

Owls, Caves and Fossils. Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of Small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Peistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-Sub-Mendip, Somerset, UK. Peter Andrews

<i>Owls, Caves and Fossils. Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of Small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Peistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-Sub-Mendip, Somerset, UK</i>. Peter Andrews

Owls, caves and fossils: predation, preservation, and accumulation of small mammal bones in caves, with an analysis of the Pleistocene cave faunas from Westbury-sub-Mendip, Somerset, UK

Owls, Caves, and Fossils is the first comprehensive, fully illustrated account of small mammal taphonomy. The study of small mammal remains has previously been neglected in favor of such large mammals as elephants, bovids, and carnivores, and Andrews remedies this deficiency by analyzing the taphonomic processes significant in the preservation of small mammal fauna in caves.

Interpreting Fossils: Owls, Caves and Fossils . Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of Small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Pleistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-sub-Mendip, Somerset, U.K. Peter Andrews. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1991. viii, 231 pp., illus. $39.95.

Interpreting Fossils: <i>Owls, Caves and Fossils</i> . Predation, Preservation, and Accumulation of Small Mammal Bones in Caves, with an Analysis of the Pleistocene Cave Faunas from Westbury-sub-Mendip, Somerset, U.K. Peter Andrews. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1991. viii, 231 pp., illus. $39.95.

Small mammal bone accumulations produced by mammalian carnivores

Small mammal bone assemblages from the scats of three families of mammalian carnivores are described here as a means of assessing paleontological bone assemblages. These are the Viverridae, Canidae, and Mustelidae. Marking behavior by the carnivores or their use of latrine areas can produce concentrations of bone comparable with those produced from owl pellets, but the nature of the bone assemblages is very different. Skeletal element preservation has a characteristic pattern related to the relative strength of the individual elements, so that the strongest elements are the ones that best survive the physical abrasion of the predator's teeth. Bone breakage is greatest in canids and least in some viverrids. Digestion of the bone occurs to a certain extent with all carnivores, with moderate rounding but little corrosion of either bones or teeth in viverrid-derived bone assemblages, very great rounding and severe corrosion of bone and tooth enamel (but little corrosion of tooth dentine) in canids, and moderate rounding and slight to moderate corrosion of bone and tooth dentine (but less of enamel) in mustelid-derived bone assemblages. Tooth marks are generally rare except in canid-derived bone assemblages. These patterns may enable the identification of predators responsible for the accumulation of fossil predator assemblages, and a consideration of the hunting and other behavior of that type of predator then permit the identification of possible biases in the fossil fauna. In the viverrids, for instance, the mongoose selected for large prey size and against cranial elements, while the genet took all prey sizes available to it and all body parts. Larger canids such as foxes and coyotes took both large and small species, but proportionally more of the most common prey species were present. Skulls were underrepresented. The small canid, the bat-eared fox, selected for the smallest prey species available to it but took all body parts. Mustelids took all sizes of prey, although not necessarily in proportion to their abundance in the habitat, and large species were underrepresented. If the predator type is known, therefore, for a fossil assemblage, these biases can be taken into account in assessing the paleoecological significance of the fauna. An example from the Olduvai Pleistocene deposits is given.