Well, you have the advantage of having the specimen in front of you.
Putting to one side the nature of the substance, what is its physical
relation to the surface of the bone?
In some views, particularly the lateral, there are areas of bone from
which it appears that the substance has flaked off.
This could be a critical distinction between the pathological and
In the case of human bone, I can't recall cases where pathologically
reactive bone separates cleanly from the original unaffected bone.
However, maybe I am misreading the photos.
On 9/03/2012 06:38, Peter Popkin wrote:
> I wondered about that myself when I first saw the bone Richard, but on
> closer inspection I was convinced of its (pathological) bony nature.
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Richard
> Wright<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Acting devil's advocate, why should we consider the bubbly, greyer
>> to be bone at all?
>> I wonder whether it is a postmortem precipitate of mineral on the
>> surface of
>> the bone.
>> It looks like that in the cross section.
>> On 9/03/2012 02:34, Peter Popkin wrote:
>>> Hi ZOOARCH,
>>> A colleague is looking for some help figuring out (as far as possible)
>>> what might have caused an extensive pathology on a large canid ulna.
>>> Not my bag, but I'm sure someone out there knows... I've uploaded six
>>> photos onto BoneCommons that can be found here:
>>> Replies can be sent directly to me and I'll pass on the info.
>>> Any help is greatly appreciated!
>>> many thanks,
>>> Peter Popkin