Bone Identification From Central Ky

[romatti]

This bone was found in central Kentucky. I've been researching in an attempt to identify this bone. It appears to closely resemble a tarsal bone, perhaps a talus?

I was hoping someone here could offer some insight as to the identificaton of this bone.

The attached pictures show different angles and sizes.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks for your time and assistance.

[Tracer Jr.]

very interesting bone and good pics. i'm not sure what it is as i'm still learning myself, but i'm sure someone on here will help you out. welcome to the forum!

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Its an artiodactyl astragalus, but I'm not good at telling the cows/bison from camels as they look similar to me. Is it light or heavy? Mineralized or not? What was the burial context, if known? (found in stream float vs. dug up, etc.)

[romatti]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm new to vertebrate fossils/bones, so I will try to answer the questions.

It is moderately heavy. (I'm unsure what to compare the weight to.)

I'm sorry. I do not know how to determine if the bone is mineralized?

It was found very slightly protruding from the ground, and the remainder had to be dug out. It was found in an area close to natural springs.

[tracer]

ok, first, a side note to tj - there are a plethora of astralagi (astralagusses', astralags - why was latin so freakin' hard and why is it still used?!)(p.s. -whaddaya mean it's all greek to you?) very near you as we type (well, i type [actually keyboard] and you sleep).

you know, it's quite possible that i'm so parenthetical and endlessly loopingly redundant in my synapses this morning that i'll never get to my point. must be from some "rebound effect" from having laid off the lunacy for three days.

anyway, i'd better behave, because the astragalus' position in the skeleton pretty much guarantees that any jokes i make about it will be considered lame.

for those who are inexplicably not yet familiar with the fact that what would just be your foot/ankle for some reason goes halfway up the leg of the hoofed critters, here - linkipoo for you

now, because scientists can't speak clearly , what you want to click on is the "appendicular" and "hindlimb", and wally! - there, resting comfortably halfway up the bison's leg, is his ankle, with the astragulus doing it's thing, whatever that is. actually from my reading, apparently those bones were just put there so that meat-eaters could use what was left over to gamble with. but gambling is bad, and frequently illegal, especially when people aren't shouting "baby needs a new pair of shoes!" but rather are shouting, "you bet your bones!"

this post is beginning to get off track, so i'll finish briefly. seems like most of kentucky is what we like to refer to as freaking old, way older than mamlals, which would include hoofed and unhoofed ungulates. so unless that bone came from a cave, or a river cut or something with more recent pleistocene material deposition, it isn't too likely to be a b-word talus bone. (for those who have only recently discovered me, i'm substituting b-word for the cow's older cousin because it seems i'm getting a reputation for misidentifying everything as that particular pterorisstodactyl.)

as far as what fossil bone (not from a cave) feels like, it frequently feel heavy like a rock. subfossil bone feels much lighter normally, more like a piece of fairly dense wood. but some bones start out with more dense cortical material than usual due to their need to have a strong structure for their function, so they're a bit heavier to start with, like those "ankle" and "heel" bones on the b-words and moo-friends.

bye. sorry. hey, gpa! i may be obtuse, but you're the reason austin's motto is "keep austin weird". well, actually a couple of ya'll on here... <big smooch>

[Traviscounty]

I think you'd fit right in.

[MikeD]

mr. buffalo man, uh... I mean tracer, there is a well known Pleistocene site in Kentucky where some things are not quite as old as most of the others. Get ready for it...... Big Bone Lick. See http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/lewisandclark/bbo.htm My parents took us there for a family outing when I was a kid, but I did not find and big bones and believe me I was looking. Plus they didn't have all the cool dioramas and stuff that they do now. We were taught in Kentucky History that there were these things called salt licks, sometimes at or near a spring, where the animals would congregate and they earlier settlers would take advantage of that fact when hunting. So, it is quite possible that it could be a recent buffalo (a few hundred years) or something older.

[romatti]

Thanks again for the replies. They're very helpful.

To answer more questions, the area of central Kentucky that this bone was found in had a lot going on:

- It was actually near several very large road cuts. (I meant to mention that in my original post. Sorry. I was rushing when I posted that, since I had to get up very early the next morning.)

- The area also had other construction going on, with parts of the hill being "cut into" to make trails on a somewhat steep hillside.

- There are also caves in the area, though I didn't find it in a cave, it could have rolled out of one since the incline is steep in that area.

- It was near several natural springs, a river, and a large, swift creek, though it wasn't "in" them.

Last weekend, I took the bone to local group that specializes in fossils, and their opinion was also that it appeared similar to a Pleistocene B- word talus bone. (This is what I had also thought from my own recent research, though this is definitely not my specialty! I'm more comfortable with crinoids, cephalopods, and brachiopods! I know nothing of vertebrates, except what I've read and been told recently. So please forgive me for any errors, as I'm just learning. And I appreciate the help!)

My husband has been joking me that it's just some farmer's cow who died last year! However, I'm not sure how it would have gotten halfway up the steep hill in a remote area not near farmland at all! I don't know if we'll ever know. I just find it interesting. And my 5 year old son is fascinated by the whole process. (He has a good eye, and has found my best coral to date!)

So this brings me to another question. (Yes, I know I'm rambling, too!) Does anyone know the size of the modern cow's astralagus as compared to that of the modern bison or Pleistocene bison? I'm having a difficult time finding accurate measurements.

I was recently in a museum and was looking at a case of bison talus, and they appeared smaller than what I have. (Mine looked about roughly twice as big as what was in their case.) I tried to locate the curator (or anyone there) to answer my questions about the specific age (both time period AND age of the actual age of bisons' bones (young, adult, etc) from the case), but as nice as the people were, I was mostly met with blank stares, and was told that "the paleontologists were there last week and are gone now..."

So I've been researching online, with mostly no luck. The local fossil group that I spoke to were very friendly and helpful, and said that a professor at a museum in Ohio would be interesed in seeing this bone, and that I should contact him. However, I haven't had a chance to do that (since it's quite a drive, I work full time, and I've been very ill.)

I did find this link, that shows a bison bone size as compared to a business card. (I know nothing about the reliability of this site.) The bone that I have appears similiar to that size.

http://www.universaltreasures.com/images/bisonbone1.jpg

Thanks again. I'm really enjoying myself browsing this forum. So many knowledgable minds here!

[romatti]

mr. buffalo man, uh... I mean tracer, there is a well known Pleistocene site in Kentucky where some things are not quite as old as most of the others. Get ready for it...... Big Bone Lick. See http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/lewisandclark/bbo.htm My parents took us there for a family outing when I was a kid, but I did not find and big bones and believe me I was looking. Plus they didn't have all the cool dioramas and stuff that they do now. We were taught in Kentucky History that there were these things called salt licks, sometimes at or near a spring, where the animals would congregate and they earlier settlers would take advantage of that fact when hunting. So, it is quite possible that it could be a recent buffalo (a few hundred years) or something older.

Yep, Big Bone Lick was the museum that I was referring to in my above post!

(I have plenty of photos and have heard and made all the jokes!)

[Auspex]

There are a couple low-tech ways to tell whether a bone is heavily mineralized or not (caveat: heavy mineralization, or the lack thereof, cannot prove antiquity, as the chemistry of the local ground water plays the biggest roll).

"Clink Test": Tap it against your front teeth; how does the clink compare to that of a stone?

"Stink Test": Poke it with a red-hot nail; does it smell strongly of burning hair?

If it does stink, and doesn't clink, it would have to be from an extinct species before great age would be safe to assume.

[romatti]

I've had a long day, and very little sleep.

Let me make sure I am accurately understanding these helpful low-tech methods! I understand that there are exceptions and caveats, etc. But generally speaking, this is the way I am understanding it:

The more it clinks - the older it is.

The more it smells - the younger it is.

Is that correct? Please be gentle with me! ;-)

[Harry Pristis]

I've had a long day, and very little sleep.

Let me make sure I am accurately understanding these helpful low-tech methods! I understand that there are exceptions and caveats, etc. But generally speaking, this is the way I am understanding it:

The more it clinks - the older it is.

The more it smells - the younger it is.

Is that correct? Please be gentle with me! ;-)

Welcome to the forum, 'romatti'.

The "clink test" is more or less a joke. The "match test" does have some usefulness in determining the degree of mineralization of bone. The match test does not distinguish between mineralized fossil and non-mineralized fossil. Do a search of this forum for discussion of these tests.

You have an artiodactyl astragalus (the term "talus" is usually reserved for the human astragalus - a bit of arrogance whose original value, I suspect, was to separate us from other animals). If your astragalus was twice the size of the museum bison astragali, then the museum label is wrong.

Here are some astragali to which you can compare your bone.

You can see more images of these and other astragali in MY "BONES" ALBUM

-----Harry Pristis

[JohnJ]

I've had a long day, and very little sleep.

...

The more it clinks - the older it is.

The more it smells - the younger it is.

Is that correct? Please be gentle with me! ;-)

If you're talking about tracer and tj, then that's apparently possible, but not true. Referring to the bone, roughly - yes.

[Auspex]

I've had a long day, and very little sleep.

Let me make sure I am accurately understanding these helpful low-tech methods! I understand that there are exceptions and caveats, etc. But generally speaking, this is the way I am understanding it:

The more it clinks - the older it is.

The more it smells - the younger it is.

Is that correct? Please be gentle with me! ;-)

These are two simple ways to assess the level of mineralization, which only loosely correlates to age.

The ground water in some areas can cause a 150 year old bone to "pass", and other conditions can cause a 10 million year old bone to "fail". If you can ID the bone as that of an extinct species, then you can call it a fossil with confidence.

[tracer]

one thing i do to test mineralization is if the bone has any worn or broken spots where the "spongy" inner bone is exposed, i attempt to push my fingernail in that area. if the bone crunches down under my fingernail, then it isn't mineralized enough to suit my fancy.

[romatti]

Thanks for the many replies! Each one is very helpful as I continue to examine this bone.

So far:

- The bone measures roughly 2 inches wide by 3 inches long.

- The spongy areas do not "crunch" under my fingernail.

- I'm having a hard time deciding if it clinks or not. (I'm sorry. I suppose this is not very helpful. My 5 year old was very curious, and asked me if I was "eating the bone....")

- There is no stink when I held a very hot nail to it. (I did it several times, but never noticed a smell, except for the earthy smell of the dirt where the bone was dug up from. The bone has always held a slight hint of the earthy dirt aroma.)

Thanks again. I really appreciate the help!

[Phoenixflood]

...- I'm having a hard time deciding if it clinks or not. (I'm sorry. I suppose this is not very helpful. My 5 year old was very curious, and asked me if I was "eating the bone....")

- There is no stink when I held a very hot nail to it. (I did it several times, but never noticed a smell, except for the earthy smell of the dirt where the bone was dug up from. The bone has always held a slight hint of the earthy dirt aroma.)

Thanks again. I really appreciate the help!

You can also use another stone to tap the item in question against so you don't always have to use your front teeth. Perhaps this method will confuse your 5 year old less

It seems like you have figured out that it is fossilized though

[tracer]

forget all that. you've probably got very little time left to enjoy due to the terminal cooties somebody talked you into getting by stating you should tap a flithy object from teh ground against your pristine pearly whites. <breaking into song - the "mack the knife" one>

the "stink test" is imprecise, as previously stated. bone starts out as around 70% mineral anyway. the hot needle is to test for the burn smell of the remaining 30%ish that is organic, like maybe a fibrous protein that some women inject into their lips or something. the needle is to test if the lip stuff is all gone, because it vamooses first through what mozart did after he composed - he decomposed.

but anyway, the fact that the lip stuff is all gone doesn't mean that took very long, or that the porousitinessissitudes have been infilled with mineralesque infiltrations. soooo...really, if you want to get to the truth of the matter - all fossils are suspect unless they're in my collection.

[tracer]

ok, well, see, the size of the thing isn't a good clue regarding which beast it inhabited, because beasts start out little and get big, as it were. but i have this book, called A Guide to the Identification of Postcranial Bones of Bos taurus and Bison bison, by Darlene McCuaig Balkwill and Stephen L. Cumbaa. I got this book from the Canadian Museum of Nature.

yes really.

anyway, this book has a plethora of very precise (imnsho) line drawings of what the differences are, statistically speaking, between the bones. the book also uses all those real bone jargon words in it like "tuberosity", so you know it's good.

this book is one of my most favorite possessions.

i mean, it holds the power of discernmentation, which i craved ere i it obtained.

so anyway, MOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

i'm kiddink! well, sort of. i'd need pictures straight on and close in of each surficial view, because i only really got one good point of comparison that more or less insinuated moo-ness. couldn't really see the other points good enough to compare. anyway. worth what you paid for this insight! but cool bone! hey, anybody who doesn't like astraguli can just kiss my grits!

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I'm more comfortable with crinoids, cephalopods, and brachiopods!

Welcome to the forum. I have collected Ord. inverts from Central Kentucky most of my life. Most of the people on the forum are vert nerds, but there are a few us invert geeks here, too. How about some pics of your finds???