Is this a Bison Antiquus or a more recent Bison skull?

[apharm49]

I found this on the Yellowstone River after high water, it had washed onto an island on the river and gotten caught in an old tree that was also beached on the island. It is 22" from tip to tip and heavier than I would have expected as if it has begun mineralization. The base of the horn cones are 3 1/8" at their largest dimension. Could this be a Bison Antiquus? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

[apharm49]

file:///Users/katelynwalton/Downloads/20190911_111912.jpg

[apharm49]

[apharm49]

Possible Tool Marks?

 

[El_Hueso]

3 hours ago, apharm49 said:

Possible Tool Marks?

 

While it does look "new"ish, I wouldn't discredit it to being totally modern.

When you say 22" tip to tip, do you mean horn tip to horn tip? that MAY place it into the modern bison category. Bison antiquus was about 25%  larger than American Bison. ( https://prehistoric-fauna.com/Bison-antiquus)

 

[El_Hueso]

Forgot to mention. Great find either way! I've been hoping to come across any sort of skullcap like this for some time.

 

Also wanted to mention that IMHO, the horns looks more like those of that of antiquus. Modern bison tend to have a more pronounced curve in their horns. 

[Carboniferouspat]

I would say that is modern, it is not fossilized.  The tool marks are actually from a rodent.you can see the paired incisors. Most likely culprit would be a beaver. Although porcupines also would naw on bones, if they are found at that elevation.   

[Creek - Don]

I agree with El_Hueso.  This is an ancient Bison Antiquus.   Most Pleistocene bones that I've found here in Texas yet to fossilize.   It depends on the right soil acidity, mineral contents, etc.   It may take 10,000 years or more to fossilize depends on the condition.   Most bones above the Pleistocene layer here in Texas tends to dissolve right after buried due to high acidic contents in the soil,  but the bones found right above the limestone layer has lower level which preserves the bones better. 

[hemipristis]

7 hours ago, apharm49 said:

Possible Tool Marks?

 

more likely rodent feeding damage

 

 

oops, sorry @Carboniferouspat, just saw your reply

[hemipristis]

4 hours ago, El_Hueso said:

Bison antiquus was about 25%  larger than American Bison. ( https://prehistoric-fauna.com/Bison-antiquus)

 

Making it larger than the average Fiat 

 

 

 

OP--great find!

[Harry Pristis]

 

Do some comparisons:

 

[apharm49]

15 hours ago, Carboniferouspat said:

I would say that is modern, it is not fossilized.  The tool marks are actually from a rodent.you can see the paired incisors. Most likely culprit would be a beaver. Although porcupines also would naw on bones, if they are found at that elevation.   

That makes sense, it is on the otherside as well. Thanks

[Uncle Siphuncle]

16 hours ago, El_Hueso said:

While it does look "new"ish, I wouldn't discredit it to being totally modern.

When you say 22" tip to tip, do you mean horn tip to horn tip? that MAY place it into the modern bison category. Bison antiquus was about 25%  larger than American Bison. ( https://prehistoric-fauna.com/Bison-antiquus)

 

 

16 hours ago, El_Hueso said:

Forgot to mention. Great find either way! I've been hoping to come across any sort of skullcap like this for some time.

 

Also wanted to mention that IMHO, the horns looks more like those of that of antiquus. Modern bison tend to have a more pronounced curve in their horns. 

Interestingly, the photos of these skulls seem to contradict the illustration shown of B. antiquus and B. bison on the hoof with regard to horn curvature.  The illustrated B. antiquus on the hoof is shown to have the more upswept horns, while the modern skull pic shows B. bison to have the more upswept horns.  Is there a chance that the B. antiquus skull should instead be labeled B.bison?  And is there a chance that the modern B. bison skull has atypical horn core curvature?  Most of the bison skulls I've found look most like the stubbier, straighter horned variety labeled as B. antiquus above.  I've always assumed these to be B. bison, which one might surmise would be more common due to preservational bias owing to more recent existence.  But I've not batted 1000 on all bison problems in the past, and don't mind being corrected.