Mammoth Lunar?

[Brandy Cole]

With all this talk about carpals lately, I decided to take a second look at this un-ID'd carpal I found a while back.

 

Of all the larger fauna I've looked at, it seems to best resemble the mammoth lunar, but it's not nearly as robust as my other mammoth carpals or several of the examples I've seen online.  Maybe juvenile?

 

Just checking to see if there are other possibilities I may be missing. Thanks!

@Meganeura

@Harry Pristis @JohnJ @Shellseeker

[Meganeura]

It certainly seems to fit with the lunar shape you showed me in my thread - it’s got that “L” shape and what looks like the proper sides. Would you be able to take a video just of all the sides? I feel like a quick video helps to really show how the sides are oriented for things like this.

[Brandy Cole]

Yeah I can work on it after work.  It does have several of the hallmarks.  Just smaller and flatter than expected.

[Meganeura]

1 minute ago, Brandy Cole said:

Yeah I can work on it after work.  It does have several of the hallmarks.  Just smaller and flatter than expected.

Juvenile seems like a fair assessment then to me.
 

[Brandy Cole]

Here are a few pictures for size comparison to my mammoth magnum bone.

[JohnJ]

Have you completely ruled out an Ectocuneiform or Cuneiform?  Your specimen seems fairly eroded, but it's hard for me to see a lunar.

[Brandy Cole]

Thanks @JohnJ. I hadn't considered those.

 

I compared to the examples on the university of Michigan site.  I was trying to keep notes while flipping back and forth between examples, so I may have mixed a few of these up, but I'll try to summarize.

 

It doesn't look like mastodon cuneiform to me. The example I saw lacks the bottom right articulation depicted in my example below.

 

The mastodon ectocuneiform shape is spot on, but it looks like it has zero articulations on the sides, so it lacks the two clear articulations below.

 

It doesn't look like mastodon lunar because it lacks the distinctive T-shape. Also the mastodon lunar has two articulations on the side, but they're parallel to each other and on both sides instead of offset on just one side like mine.

 

Maybe mammoth left cuneiform because the side articulation is more pronounced, but the top and bottom shapes (overall shape of the piece) don't appear very similar.

 

Mammoth lunar appears to have two semi-offset side articulations on one side   That's what drew me to it.  But examples I've seen look far more robust than my piece and look to have more dimension and curve at top and bottom.

 

I'll compare to my Olsen book examples at well.  But at this point I'm starting to wonder if it may not be proboscidean at all. 

 

From what I've read, aphelops and teleoceras fossils have been found in the gulf coast plains region before, and if I remember right, maybe not far upriver from where I found this.  

 

Other than bison or sloth, I can't figure out any other likely suspects with carpals or tarsals that size.  But I haven't found any analogous examples from either of those yet.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Brandy Cole
Added picture

[Meganeura]

3 minutes ago, Brandy Cole said:

Thanks @JohnJ. I hadn't considered those.

 

I compared to the examples on the university of Michigan site.  I was trying to keep notes while flipping back and forth between examples, so I may have mixed a few of these up, but I'll try to summarize.

 

It doesn't look like mastodon cuneiform to me. The example I saw lacks the bottom right articulation depicted in my example below.

 

The mastodon ectocuneiform shape is spot on, but it looks like it has zero articulations on the sides, so it lacks the two clear articulations below.

 

It doesn't look like mastodon lunar because it lacks the distinctive T-shape. Also the mastodon lunar has two articulations on the side, but they're parallel to each other and on both sides instead of offset on just one side like mine.

 

Maybe mammoth left cuneiform because the side articulation is more pronounced, but the top and bottom shapes (overall shape of the piece) don't appear very similar.

 

Mammoth lunar appears to have two semi-offset side articulations on one side   That's what drew me to it.  But examples I've seen look far more robust than my piece and look to have more dimension and curve at top and bottom.

 

I'll compare to my Olsen book examples at well.  But at this point I'm starting to wonder if it may not be proboscidean at all. 

 

From what I've read, aphelops and teleoceras fossils have been found in the gulf coast plains region before, and if I remember right, maybe not far upriver from where I found this.  

 

Other than bison or sloth, I can't figure out any other likely suspects with carpals or tarsals that size.  But I haven't found any analogous examples from either of those yet.

Have you ruled out sloth completely?

[Brandy Cole]

Here are some additional pictures to try to give a better idea of the shape in hand. Didn't have a chance to try the video thing yesterday.

[Brandy Cole]

@Meganeura No, I haven't ruled out sloth completely.

 

I checked some of the examples of small bones at this great resource that @JohnJdrew my attention to, and couldn't see a fit.  https://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:paleoarc_210

 

I will say that often I associate sloth with a type of rough, chunky, asymmetrical look.  Based on that, my gut feeling was that this wasn't sloth.

 

But if anyone has more examples of sloth carpals and tarsals, I'd love to check them.

[Meganeura]

24 minutes ago, Brandy Cole said:

@Meganeura No, I haven't ruled out sloth completely.

 

I checked some of the examples of small bones at this great resource that @JohnJdrew my attention to, and couldn't see a fit.  https://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:paleoarc_210

 

I will say that often I associate sloth with a type of rough, chunky, asymmetrical look.  Based on that, my gut feeling was that this wasn't sloth.

 

But if anyone has more examples of sloth carpals and tarsals, I'd love to check them.

Yeah I’d agree with you there - this just looks like it would be Probiscidean. Blocky, flat. Not chunky or rough like sloth, not rounded and flat like bison or horse. That’s all just a feeling though.

[Brandy Cole]

Well I compared to my Olsen book, and I think @JohnJ was right.  I'm now leaning toward mammoth external cuneiform.

[Meganeura]

2 minutes ago, Brandy Cole said:

Well I compared to my Olsen book, and I think @JohnJ was right.  I'm now leaning toward mammoth external cuneiform.

I’d agree that matches! Perhaps it’s the opposite foot, but the shape matches like perfectly. Awesome find!

[JohnJ]

Well done, Brandy!  I need to get a copy of Olsen's book.  

[old bones]

Great detective work! @Brandy Cole

[Brandy Cole]

@JohnJ Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

 

Olsen's books have really been helpful to me on all the animals they cover, but I think I've used the mammoth one more than any.

[Shellseeker]

On 3/29/2023 at 12:52 PM, Brandy Cole said:

@JohnJ Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

 

Olsen's books have really been helpful to me on all the animals they cover, but I think I've used the mammoth one more than any.

I missed this posting at the end of March... I was going to spring training games with my brother and nephew.  I do not think I could have helped,  but maybe you can help identify a bone I found yesterday...

 

I am thinking it is a lunate of a Mammoth/Mastodon,  but like your bone here,  somewhat too small.

The triangle is 65 x 50 x 45 mm and 35 mm wide...  The only photos I could find were a Mammoth lunate,

about 3 inches length..

 

 

 

[Meganeura]

5 minutes ago, Shellseeker said:

I missed this posting at the end of March... I was going to spring training games with my brother and nephew.  I do not think I could have helped,  but maybe you can help identify a bone I found yesterday...

 

I am thinking it is a lunate of a Mammoth/Mastodon,  but like your bone here,  somewhat too small.

The triangle is 65 x 50 x 45 mm and 35 mm wide...  The only photos I could find were a Mammoth lunate,

about 3 inches length..

 

 

 

Just to help you cross it off - here’s my Mastodon lunar:

Im wondering if your find might be a Probiscidean toe that’s been broken, though? The third and fourth pics give me that vibe.

[Shellseeker]

So, it is a triangle.  There are 5 surfaces and I missed one...  What is circled in red are articulation surfaces.  That would seem to indicate that it is not broken badly enough to be much larger.

 

I like this photo from Brandy,  As you quickly settled on Mastodon, I realize that , if anything , this is Mammoth.   The triangles in lower right and left of the page are differentiators. 

 

But I still remain with the same difficulty...  the SIZE...

Here is an excellent thread where I posted this Mammoth Lunar from the UF Vertebrate Database,

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/132406-mammoth-lunar/

 

I guess that I will have to accept that like milk teeth versus adult teeth,  if the Mammoth dies in the 1st 6 months, the bones may be smaller..

It just seems that this triangle shaped bone is so close to a Mammoth lunar,  that chances that it is something else are remote.