[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Terminology question.



If the toothmark did not heal, it seems to mean the animal died before
or immediately afterwards the bite, being either killed and consumed
or just consumed. So, if it was alive before the bite, the bite (or
other bites close in time) was related to its death. Does the term
pathology apply to a cause of death? This may be checked also in
archaeological literature, as there are many human skulls transfixed
by arrows or spears. Anyway, in such a case you only have a possible
pathology, because you cannot dismiss the tooth mark was inflicted
after death.
Perhaps a case to more conservatively suppose scanvenging is that it
just requires to hypothesize consumption behaviour, while assuming
predation, in the case of a carnivore, will imply inferring both
consumption and killing. Although, of course, there are cases where
only killing is present, so it would be similarly parsimonious to
infer either killing or consumption. But only killing seems mostly to
occur to co-specifics or to carnivores (killed either by defending
herbivores or by more powerful carnivores).
Cheers,
Augusto.

2011/7/15 Saint Abyssal <saint_abyssal@yahoo.com>:
> But would the word paleopathology apply to it, in that case?
>
> ~ Saint Abyssal
>
> --- On Fri, 7/15/11, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>
>> Subject: RE: Terminology question.
>> To: saint_abyssal@yahoo.com, "Dinosaur Mailing List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
>> Date: Friday, July 15, 2011, 8:19 PM
>>
>>   The most conservative argument is that the tooth mark
>> occurred in or around death, before burial. We cannot
>> presume the mark was made from scavenging, although the
>> frequency of it may, such as if there were multiple
>> different directions of mark, or many marks, but not
>> necessarily parallel.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>   Jaime A. Headden
>>   The Bite Stuff (site v2)
>>   http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>>
>> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B.
>> Medawar (1969)
>>
>>
>> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with
>> a
>> different language and a new way of looking at things, the
>> human race
>> has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his
>> language or
>> his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan
>> (Beast With a Billion Backs)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:49:51 -0700
>> > From: saint_abyssal@yahoo.com
>> > To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>> > Subject: Terminology question.
>> >
>> > 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?
>> >
>> > ~ Abyssal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>