SMALL MAMMAL BONE ACCUMULATIONS PRODUCED BY MAMMALIAN CARNIVORES
SMALL MAMMAL BONE ACCUMULATIONS PRODUCED BY MAMMALIAN CARNIVORES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0094837300007703
复制
发表时间：
1983-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
EVANS, EMN
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
ANDREWS, P;EVANS, EMN
来自3个食肉哺乳动物科的小型哺乳动物骨骼组合被描述为评估古生物骨骼组合的一种手段。它们是Viverridae， Canidae和Mustelidae。标记食肉动物的行为或它们对厕所区域的使用可以产生与猫头鹰颗粒相当的骨骼浓度，但骨骼组合的性质非常不同。骨骼元素的保存有一种与单个元素的相对强度有关的特征模式，因此最强壮的元素是那些在捕食者牙齿的物理磨损中最能存活下来的元素。骨折在犬科动物中最严重，而在某些豚鼠中最少。所有的食肉动物都在一定程度上发生骨的消化，在猪源性骨组合中，骨头和牙齿都有适度的圆缩，但几乎没有腐蚀；在犬科动物中，骨头和牙釉质有非常大的圆缩和严重的腐蚀（但对牙本质的腐蚀很少）；在鼬源性骨组合中，骨头和牙釉质有中度的圆缩和轻微到中度的腐蚀（但对牙釉质的腐蚀较少）。除了犬科动物的骨骼组合外，牙印通常很少见。这些模式可能使我们能够识别出对化石捕食者组合的积累负责的捕食者，并且考虑到这种类型的捕食者的狩猎和其他行为，然后允许识别化石动物群中可能存在的偏差。例如，在胎生科中，猫鼬会选择体型较大的猎物，并反对头骨；这种基因会吃掉所有大小的猎物以及所有的身体部位。较大的犬科动物，如狐狸和土狼，捕食大小不一的物种，但在比例上，最常见的猎物种类更多。头骨被低估了。小型犬科动物，蝙蝠耳狐，选择了最小的猎物，但把身体的所有部分都拿走了。Mustelids捕获各种大小的猎物，尽管不一定与栖息地的丰度成比例，而且大型物种的代表性不足。因此，如果已知一个化石组合的捕食者类型，在评估动物群的古生态意义时就可以考虑到这些偏差。以坦桑尼亚的Olduvai更新世矿床为例。
Small mammal bone assemblages from the scats of 3 families of mammalian carnivores are described 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; the genet took all prey sizes available to it and all body parts. Larger canids such as foxes and coyotes took 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 [Tanzania] Pleistocene deposits is given.