Dear Richard,
I would say, from the photo, that morphologically it looks very similar to
the kangaroo femur, taking into account that it is very eroded and the
opposite body side. The size does appear to be a problem, especially given
the bone is unfused, are there any larger kangaroo species that it may
belong to?
Best wishes,
Julia
Julia Cussans (Project Officer - Osteoarchaeology) Archaeological Solutions
Archaeological Solutions 98 - 100 Fore Street 6 Brunel Business Court
Hertford Eastern Way Hertfordshire Bury St Edmunds SG14 1AB Suffolk IP32 7AJ
T: 01992 558 170
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wright" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 7:28 AM
Subject: [ZOOARCH] ID distal end of a femur
>I have been sent this image of the distal end of a femur by a
>non-osteologist. It was found on the surface in a remote part of coastal NW
>Australia.
>
> http://www.box.com/shared/static/736pu8zic6khl935yc0d.jpg
>
> The bone in question is on the left of the image.
>
> It is obviously not the best preserved of bones.
>
> The assumption was that it is human (my speciality).
>
> Two things seriously worry me about that identification.
>
> 1) The narrowness of the intercondylar notch.
>
> 2) The antero-posterior dimension being too great in relation to the
> transverse diameter.
>
> For comparison, the sender included in the image the distal end of the
> femur of what appears to be a grey kangaroo. It seems the eroded bone is
> not to be identified as kangaroo - in terms of morphology and size. Note
> the curved, anterior projection of the intercondylar notch.
>
> What you can't see in the image is that the eroded bone is an epiphysis
> that was never fused to its metaphysis. Given the changes in the shape of
> the human femur during growth, this property makes objection 2 above even
> more severe.
>
> If not human, and given its size and geographical origin, then I suppose
> we must consider juvenile cow, horse and camel (possibly a very large
> pig?). I have some illustrations of these taxa, but the specimen is too
> eroded for me to come up with anything conclusive.
>
> Does anybody have any suggestions, or want to correct my tentative
> conclusion that it is not human?
>
> Richard Wright
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4845 - Release Date: 03/01/12
>
|