“…The benefit of actualistic taphonomy is that the time taken to progress through the five stages of vertebrate decay --(1) fresh, (2) bloated, (3) active decay, (4) advanced decay, and (5) remains (modified from Payne, 1965;Anderson and Hobischak, 2004;Cambra-Moo et al, 2008) --along with the level of skeletal articulation during these five stages, can be observed in real time, providing an "…empirical database of cause (taphonomic process) and effect (preservational bias)" (Allison et al, 1991, p. 78). A combination of relational analogies and actualistic taphonomy have been successfully used to interpret the taphonomic histories of fossil fish (Elder and Smith, 1984;Elder, 1985;Elder et al, 1988;Hellawell and Orr, 2012;Iniesto et al, 2013), reptiles (Brand et al, 2003a,b;Beardmore et al, 2012a,b;Meyer, 2012;Richter and Wuttke, 2012;Smith and Wuttke, 2012), mammals (Weigelt, 1989;Brand et al, 2003b;Noto, 2009;Behrensmeyer and Miller, 2012;Schwermann et al, 2012), and avian dinosaurs (Davis and Briggs, 1998;Brand et al, 2003b;Cruz, 2007;Faux and Padian, 2007;Prassack, 2011). Even with the potential pitfalls of assuming taphonomic uniformitarianism (see discussion in Gifford, 1981;Elder et al, 1988;Brasier et al, 2011), actualistic taphonomy can provide a more powerful analytical tool than analogical reasoning alone (Young, 1989;Denys, 2002;Noto, 2009).…”