Fossil Id?

[sava85-23]

Bone of my Visit today in the gravel pit

DO YOU HELP ME FRIEND:)?

[painshill]

Well, the first piece is half of the os coxae (pelvis) from something sizeable. Bison? Some precise dimensions will help pin it down. Lots of bone experts here.

[sava85-23]

hm....wolly rhino pelvis?

how do you think?

[painshill]

This reply should take your post back up to the top of the list.

I know how big a woolly rhino was... but we still don't know how big your bone is. If you look again at the "battle scene" picture (from taylormadefossils) that pelvic bone on the left-hand animal is more than 0.8 metres in length. That's a biiiig bone. Does your approach that length?

[sava85-23]

but now they are really getting at large can anyone have any ideas?

[Auspex]

We need sizes.

[sava85-23]

please:)my friend

[painshill]

Assuming the length is about 0.5 metres (the scale is not too clear) then I think the dimensions are way too small for a mature woolly rhino and rather more consistent with a European bison or wisent (Bison bonasus) or perhaps an aurochs (Bos primigenius).

[RichW9090]

Relatively speaking, the acetabulum seems very large in relation to the rest of the bone, but that might be a matter of foreshortening in the photograph.

[sava85-23]

that is certainly not a Rhino

[painshill]

Here’s a drawing of the os coxae (pelvis) taken from Kobrynczuk’s 1976 paper “Joints and Ligaments of Hind-Limbs of the European Bison in Its Postnatal Development.” I’ve coloured one half in red for clarity, since the bone is partially obscured by the sacrum and some ligaments in the drawing:

You can’t see it in that drawing (because it sits in a different plane) but the elliptical hole in your bone is the obturator foramen. In European bison it measures around 98cm x 65 cm in females and around 110 x 75 cm in males, reaching those approximate maxima in 4-5 year old animals. Yours looks about right.

Rich is correct that the acetabulum (the cup-shaped socket) looks uncharacteristically large relative to the bone itself. It’s very difficult to judge how the perspective in the photographs has affected that impression, but for European Bison it should be around 5.8 x 6.4 cm in females and around 6.5 x 7 cm in males. Again, those are mature measurements, achieved as maxima in 4-5 year olds.

One of the diagnostics for European bison is that the outside rim of the acetabulum has some undulations. There are two small notches and one large notch - the acetabular notch proper.

I only see one notch – arrowed in your picture below. It wouldn’t normally exceed about 1.8 cm in width:

If it’s bigger than that, check to see if there is any sign of breakage that may have enlarged it… and also if there are any signs of the two smaller notches which might also have been broken away.

Overall aurochs bone measurements wouldn’t be too different from bison but I don’t know about the relative size of the acetabulum or how it may be notched… or what other possibilities there may be.

Edited June 12, 2013 by painshill

[sava85-23]

new foto

[sava85-23]

maybe it's better now you can see, a friend said paleontologist with this Rhinoceros with so large pans bison or aurochs mial.teraz not have a dilemma because even professional sometimes mistaken

[sava85-23]

photo I found on the internet shows a fragment of my pelvis rhinoceros species is similar to that in August you think?

aorry my eanglisch.

[sava85-23]

I also found a photo

[painshill]

I just have to sound a note of caution here about the dangers of looking at bone shapes on the internet (or anywhere else) if they are not accompanied by dimensions, and particularly if they are fragmentary bones. It’s the dimensions, along with diagnostic features that are characteristic of the animal concerned that lead to proper identification. And we always have to consider the possible effects of gender differences and juveniles. Here’s a male, female and juvenile woolly rhinoceros (all to the same scale), adapted from Cajus G. Diedrich’s study of hyena scavenging on the woolly rhino Coelodonta antiquitatis published in the Journal of Taphonomy in 2006. (Ignore the black areas on the bones – they just indicate which elements Diedrich had for study.)

You see the problem? Nevertheless, now that we have dimensions and better pictures (thanks), I would say the following:

- The overall bone length and shape are consistent with adult European bison or aurochs but the overall length is short for an adult woolly rhinoceros.

- The diameter of the acetabulum is too large for bison. The largest dimension would normally average about 7cm and occasionally up to 9cm as an absolute maximum. But it exceeds that significantly and is consistent with woolly rhinoceros.

- The rim of the acetabulum doesn’t undulate, definitely has only a large single notch and no evidence that smaller notches have been lost by breakage. That rules out bison. I don’t know about acetabulur notches for aurochs.

- The general morphology for aurochs pelvis would be similar to bison and – although I don’t have detailed measurements to quote – I would assume that the acetabulum has similar proportionality to bison. I think you can rule out aurochs.

So given, that the size of the acetabulum is suggestive of an animal with stout legs and the overall bone length suggests a large animal (but is shorter than expected for woolly rhino) I would assume that you have a juvenile rhino bone (or perhaps a small female) and that congratulations are in order! I can’t think of anything else it could be.

[sava85-23]

thanks friend:) identification of the bones is really interesting Occupation.

Painshill

So it goes with the Rhino was a young women's gender?

sorry my eanglisch.

[painshill]

thanks friend:) identification of the bones is really interesting Occupation.

Painshill

So it goes with the Rhino was a young women's gender?

sorry my eanglisch.

Not 100%

Small = young (always)

... for most mammals, small = female (women's gender)

... or small = young and female (sometimes)

No problem with your English. Big problem with my Polish!

[sava85-23]

Today came home mighty mammoth shoulder blade

going back to the bones which showed earlier nosorozca.moge be sure you are 100% Rhino?

Painshill my friend Polish right is really a hard language

[sava85-23]

MY COLLECTION IS GROWING

[painshill]

.....be sure you are 100% Rhino?

I meant not 100% sure female. Just 100% sure about "small".

It must be rhino. Can't think of anything else with those features and measurements. For 100% sure you should take it to a museum. Large intact rhino bones are not common. Normally broken or chewed!

Very impressive bones you are finding. I hope you have a big house!

[sava85-23]

yes a have a big house:)