[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
If there's a theropod toothmark on a dinosaur bone and there's no sign of
healing, but also no compelling reason to believe the bone was marked during
scavenging, would that toothmark be considered a paleopathology? Would it just
be assumed out of conservatism to be due to scavenging even in the absence of
positive evidence for it just because there wasn't any evidence to support the
idea that the mark was received while the subject was alive? Or, would it fall
into a grey zone of "we're not sure whether this is a paleopathology or not".
Basically I'm confused about the exact way that the term paleopathology is used
when dealing with evidence for damage to bone that one can't be certain whether
or happened before or after death. Could anyone help me out?