Melanie -- it is not possible to identify horse vs. ass vs. mule on the
basis of any single tooth, and anyone who publishes such a thing or claims
to be able to make such differentiation does a great disservice to the
scientific community. The only RELIABLE way to tell horse from ass or mule
is to have a complete skull. I speak from experience here, as a reviewer
of the genus. Even one of my scientific heroes, good ol' Edward Drinker
Cope, was guilty of naming holotypes on the basis of single broken teeth
(e.g., the worst example -- and one which continues to bugger up and
prevent advancements in horse taxonomy -- being Equus simplicidens).
I am afraid the best you can possibly do with the broken tooth you are
working with is to identify it as "Equus sp. indet." (It is, by the way,
most certainly NOT a hemione, and would have zero chance of being a
hemione, unless the locality that produced it is in Asia somewhere, or
else you're doing the archaeology of an old zoo). -- Deb Bennett
> Dear All,
>
> I'm hoping some of you could have a look at images of an equid tooth (see
> link below), and provide your opinion on whether it's likely to be donkey,
> horse (or possibly mule????).
>
> I can provide details of the site off list (but given the consternation my
> ID has caused, I'd like to do this blind).
>
> Thank you!!!!!
>
> Melanie
>
>
> http://lft.ucc.usyd.edu.au/lft-download.cgi?id=93ab2c498ba3d6936c54c439
>
>
> DR MELANIE FILLIOS | ARC Post-doctoral Fellow (Archaeology)
> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm No, 328 Madsen Blg | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
> T +61 2 9351 4853 | F +61 2 9351 7682 | M +61 405 421466
> E [log in to unmask] | www.sydney.edu.au/acmm
>
>
>
|