2013
DOI: 10.1002/oa.2365
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Taphonomic Study of Japanese Quail (Coturnix japonica) Bone Modification Resulting from the Burial and Feeding Behavior of the American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

Abstract: Actualistic and observational studies of bird bone disarticulation, wear, and damage contribute to understanding the development of fossil assemblages and distinguishing non-cultural from cultural deposition. The American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) is known for seeking small bird carcasses to lay eggs and provide food for its brooding larvae. In this study, we examine the resulting body parts of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) carcasses to investigate the taphonomy resulting from the burial and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each bone was examined under a light microscope (magnification 10-40×) and a Dino-Lite AD-7013MZT digital microscope (magnification 30-250×) for surface modifications caused by abiotic and biotic processes, such as carnivores, raptors, rodents, roots and human predation [69][70][71] . We have distinguished the technical traces from others, characteristic of gnawing, but also perforations, tearing and depressions caused by insects or the beaks, claws, teeth and talons of scavengers or birds of prey [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81] . Anthropic perforations were differentiated from natural holes based on five main criteria: We recorded every element and factor (time, number of incisions, the position of the hand, etc.)…”
Section: Archaeologicalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each bone was examined under a light microscope (magnification 10-40×) and a Dino-Lite AD-7013MZT digital microscope (magnification 30-250×) for surface modifications caused by abiotic and biotic processes, such as carnivores, raptors, rodents, roots and human predation [69][70][71] . We have distinguished the technical traces from others, characteristic of gnawing, but also perforations, tearing and depressions caused by insects or the beaks, claws, teeth and talons of scavengers or birds of prey [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81] . Anthropic perforations were differentiated from natural holes based on five main criteria: We recorded every element and factor (time, number of incisions, the position of the hand, etc.)…”
Section: Archaeologicalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mandibles of cockroaches (Blattoidae), ants (Formicidae), and hide beetles of the genera Dermestes and Omorgus produce perforations and striations similar in size to those of termites (Dirks et al, 2015; Dirrigl & Perrotti, 2014; Go, 2018; Parkinson, 2012; Zanetti, Visciarelli, & Centeno, 2014). Cockroach marks do not, however, appear in the tightly clustered patches characteristic of termites, and insect striations in general are wider and less evenly spaced than the radulation traces of gastropods (see Section 3.3.3).…”
Section: Classes Of Bone Surface Modifications and Their Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The last decade has seen substantial advances in research on a wide range of taphonomic indices. New actualistic studies have considerably enhanced understanding of the impact of specific agents in defined environments (González et al 2012;Andrews and Whybrow 2005;Armstrong and Avery 2014;Coumont 2009;Dirrigl and Perotti 2014;Klippel and Synstelien 2007;Krajcarz and Krajcarz 2014;Lloveras et al 2014a, b;Marín-Arroyo and Margalida 2012;Montalvo et al 2014;Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al 2013;Rudzik et al in press;Sala et al 2014;Sanchis Serra et al 2014). Controlled experiments have aided with approaches to identification and the differentiation of modifications (Blasco et al 2008;Domínguez-Rodrigo et al 2009;Domínguez-Solera and Domínguez-Rodrigo 2009;Marín-Monfort et al 2014).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%