Canid Coprolites from the Late Pleistocene of Hidalgo, Central Mexico: Importance for the Carnivore Record of North America

Bravo-Cuevas, Víctor Manuel; Morales-García, Nuria Melisa; Barrón-Ortíz, Christian R.; Theodor, Jessica M.; Cabral-Perdomo, Miguel Ángel

doi:10.1080/10420940.2016.1270209

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in contrast to the bear-dog, or unidentified canids in other studies (e.g. Bravo-Cuevas et al 2017), the Skara Brae dog faeces contain fewer identifiable remains, most being too finely fragmented to permit the recognition of anatomical and taxonomical provenance. Bone inclusions from Skara Brae were also tightly condensed, often with only a small amount of coprolite matrix between the pieces of trabecular bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The presence of micromammal remains provides evidence of other processes taking place at the site. Orkney vole remains from Skara Brae coprolites are much smaller than the North American pocket gophers (Pappogeomys/ Cratogeomys) in canid coprolites studied by Bravo-Cuevas et al (2017), but show a similar level of preservation, with fragments being easily identifiable anatomically and in many cases also taxonomically. Previous research on the Skara Brae micromammal assemblages found significant concentrations of rodents within the site centre (Trench I) and periphery (Trench II), possibly related to human occupation (Romaniuk et al 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The best known coprolite assemblages are predominantly of canid origin, and have been studied since the nineteenth century (Buckland 1823). More recently, canid coprolites have been examined using μCT scanning to analyse their internal structure (Bravo-Cuevas et al 2017;Wang et al 2018). The internal composition of the four intact coprolites from Skara Brae resembles that of finds examined in Wang et al (2018), (Payne and Munson 1985 t.5) Sylvilagus remains in dog faeces (Payne and Munson 1985 attributed to the extinct bear-dog Borophagus parvus, with a number of fragmented bones entrapped completely or almost completely within the fossilized faecal matter.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Initially used only to generate 2-dimensional cross-sectional data (e.g. Farlow et al 2010), it has more recently been combined with 3-dimensional (3D) digital imaging techniques for more comprehensive analysis of content and structure (Milàn et al 2012a, b;Bravo-Cuevas et al 2017;Wang et al 2018). This has permitted identification of the coprolite depositor as well as its prey and other food items.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Combined visual and biochemical analyses confirm depositor and diet for Neolithic coprolites from Skara Brae

Romaniuk

Panciroli

Buckley

et al. 2020

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coprolites (fossilized faeces) can provide valuable insights into species’ diet and related habits. In archaeozoological contexts, they are a potential source of information on human-animal interactions as well as human and animal subsistence. However, despite a broad discussion on coprolites in archaeology, such finds are rarely subject to detailed examination by researchers, perhaps due to the destructive nature of traditional analytical methods. Here, we have examined coprolitic remains from the Neolithic (third millennium BCE) settlement at Skara Brae, Orkney, using a range of modern methods: X-ray computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy, lipid and protein analysis (shotgun proteomics of the coprolite matrix as well as collagen peptide mass fingerprinting of isolated bone fragments). This combined approach minimised destructiveness of sampling, leaving sufficient material for subsequent study, while providing more information than traditional morphological examination alone. Based on gross visual examination, coprolites were predominantly attributed to domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), with morphologically identified bone inclusions derived from domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and common voles (Microtus arvalis). Partial dissection of a coprolite provided bone samples containing protein markers akin to those of domestic sheep. Considering the predominance of vertebral and distal limb bone fragments, Skara Brae dogs were probably consuming human butchery or meal refuse, either routinely fed to them or scavenged. The presumably opportunistic consumption of rodents may also have played a role in pest control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Combined visual and biochemical analyses confirm depositor and diet for Neolithic coprolites from Skara Brae

Romaniuk

Panciroli

Buckley

et al. 2020

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Larger camel and dromedary are very drought-tolerant, whereas the smaller vicuña is quite waterdependent. Some Camelops δ 18 O values overlap with Bison, Equus, and Mammuthus compositions, suggesting substantial consumption of free-standing waters, but commonly, slightly higher Camelops tooth enamel δ 18 O values suggest a greater droughttolerance (see data from Connin et al, 1998;Higgins and MacFadden, 2009;Kohn and McKay, 2012;Perez-Crespo et al, 2012;Kita et al, 2014;Trayler et al, 2015;Bravo-Cuevas et al, 2017). Creek locality, Nevada, and 12 fossil tufas from units D1, E0, E1b, and E2 (Table 5).…”

Section: Specimens and Research Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Stable Isotope Geochemistry of Bioapatite

Drewicz¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument for field collections and curatorial assistance of fossils from Oregon; and M. Thompson and W. Akersten of the Idaho Museum of Natural History for providing samples from Idaho. I thank Jeff S. Pigati and Kathleen B. Springer at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Eric Scott at the Cogstone Resource Management for fossil specimens and tufa samples, as well as for temporal context for the Las Vegas Wash. Specifically I would like to thank Kathleen Springer and Jeff Pigati at the USGS for their insights into my work. I also thank Robin Trayler, Mariah Hollaway, and Samantha Evans for insights and for laboratory assistance.

show abstract

Nondestructive recognition and differentiation of quasi‐spherical structures of biologic interest

Rothschild

Biehler‐Gomez

2021

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Biological findings in archaeological and paleontological contexts are not limited to bones. In particular, biological concretions can present valuable information regarding the health of the organisms under examination. However, these structures are often difficult to recognize and identify. Chemical analyses (e.g., Raman spectroscopy) can allow their identification but they are time‐consuming and destructive techniques, even if minimally so. In this research, the potential of nondestructive high magnification surface microscopy is investigated for the distinction of uroliths from other biological and nonbiological concretions, specifically gallstones, bezoars, gastric pellets, coprolites, eggs, gastroliths and geological concretions. Methods The external surfaces of uroliths, bezoars, gastric pellets, gallstones, coprolites, gastroliths, eggs and geologic concretions were examined microscopically at ×20, ×50 and ×200 magnification. Results Morphological surface appearance of uroliths was independent of producer phylogeny and chemical composition and presented as smooth surfaces with level, faceted or lobulated configurations. Gallstones also presented a large array of shapes with smooth or porous external surfaces. Gastric pellets, bezoars and coprolites could be distinguished from other biological stones by the common presence of hair, sand grains, bone fragments or hair. Presence of uniform pores permitted the recognition of egg shells. Distinguishing gastroliths and geologic concretions requires additional diagnostic criteria. Conclusion High magnification surface microscopy of biological concretions from reference collections permits a better understanding of biological concretions and their normal variation. In addition, it allowed the distinction of uroliths from most biological concretions. Nonetheless, gallstones constitute the major differential diagnosis of uroliths, and destructive chemical analyses may be ultimately required for their distinction.

show abstract

Canid Coprolites from the Late Pleistocene of Hidalgo, Central Mexico: Importance for the Carnivore Record of North America

Cited by 15 publications

References 20 publications

Combined visual and biochemical analyses confirm depositor and diet for Neolithic coprolites from Skara Brae

Combined visual and biochemical analyses confirm depositor and diet for Neolithic coprolites from Skara Brae

Stable Isotope Geochemistry of Bioapatite

Nondestructive recognition and differentiation of quasi‐spherical structures of biologic interest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About