A Histometrical Study on the Long Bones of Raccoon Dogs, Nyctereutes procyonoides and Badgers, Meles meles.

Abstract

ABSTRACT. To obtain the data required for identification of skeletal remains excavated from archaeological sites, histometrical observations were made in the cross sections of the mid-shaft of humerus, radius, femur and tibia of raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and badgers (Meles meles) captured in Kagoshima Prefecture. There were interspecific differences between both animals in the breadth, the depth and the area of medullary cavity at the mid-shaft of the bones. In badgers, all measurements were greater in male than in female bones. The thickness and the area of compact bones in male raccoon dogs were larger than those of female. No differences in histological structure could be detected among the bones, but an interspecific difference was found in the shape of osteons; round and constant-sized osteons consisting of 3 to 5 lamellae in raccoon dogs, while round or elliptic osteons varying in size from 3 to 8 lamellae in badgers. The ratios, the osteon areas per unit compact bone areas, were higher in all the bones of raccoon dogs. The short diameters of osteons and the ratios were greater in males in both animals. In females, the short diameter of osteons was smaller, and the number of osteons was larger. The results revealed interspecific differences between both animals and sexual dimorphism in each species. -KEY WORDS: badger, bone histometry, interspecific difference, raccoon dog, sexual dimorphism.J. Vet. Med. Sci. 60(3): 323-326, 1998 in the present study. The animal with the closed epiphyseal lines of long bones was regarded as adult. Two cross sections (1 mm thick) were obtained from each mid-shaft of the bone. The specimens were dehydrated in a graded ethanol series and embedded in Rigorac, a polyester resin to prepare undecalcified ground sections (30 to 40 µm thick). After the ground sections were observed with a light microscope, 9 items shown in Table 1 with their abbreviations were measured with an image analyzer (Nikon COSMOZONE Is) in each section. NO, DO and RO were measured at the anterior, posterior, medial and lateral regions (1 mm 2 each) of the section of each bone. These data were compared between species, sexes or kinds of bones using Student's t-test. RESULTS Morphometrical observations in cross sections:The values obtained in cross sections of the mid-shaft of each Recently, a number of skeletal remains of animals including those belonging to the canid and mustelid species were excavated from archaeological sites in Kyushu [13]. Only a few complete skeletons were found, however, and most discoveries were bone fragments. In such cases, it is difficult to identify species with bones similar in size. This is particularly true for bones of the limbs of raccoon dogs and badgers. Because the mid-shaft is less characteristic in form as compared with the proximal and distal extremities of the limb bones, macroscopic identification of raccoon dogs and badgers is extremely difficult.A large number of histometrical studies were made on the bones of human [2,3,6,17,18], which described...

Histological identification of bone fragments in archaeology: telling humans apart from horses and cattle

“…Attempts have been made to use histology as a determination tool, including in forensic science (Owsley et al, 1985) and archaeozoology (Hidaka et al, 1998). Past histological research has been descriptive and comparative (Demeter & Matyas, 1928), although some has been based on measurements (Harsányi, 1993).…”

Are Distributions of Secondary Osteon Variants Useful for Interpreting Load History in Mammalian Bones?

“…Variations in the crosssectional area of individual secondary osteons has also been shown to be an unreliable characteristic for interpreting load history in the contexts of habitual bending and torsion, and in other general biomechanical contexts [Skedros et al, 1994b;Mason et al, 1995;Skedros et al, 1996;Skedros, 2001;Pfeiffer et al, 2006]. In some cases the population densities of secondary osteons and/ or differences in the mean cross-sectional area or shape of individual osteons have been reported as useful for distinguishing interspecies differences, and age-, behavior-, and/or gender-related differences between individuals within the same species [Schaffler and Burr, 1984;Abbott et al, 1996;Mulhern and Van Gerven, 1997;Hidaka et al, 1998;Dittmann, 2003;Mulhern and Ubelaker, 2003;Havill, 2004;Urbanová and Novotný, 2005;Martiniaková et al, 2006]. In the perspective of these studies, we speculated that correlations between osteonal morphology with local load history could have been consistently detected in these previous studies if regional variations in the osteon variants examined in the present study (and described below) had been considered as possible adaptations for regional 'toughening' in the 'tension', 'compression', and 'shear' regions of bones habitually loaded in bending or torsion.…”

“Men, Women, and Children Starving”: Archaeology of the Donner Family Camp

“…Osteon and Haversian Canal Diameters from Published Sources (Cattaneo et al 1999 andDittman 2003) and from this Study (Robbins and Hanks 2006). Cattaneo et al 1999 Human Cuijpers 2006;Dittmann 2003;Hidaka et al 1998;Skedros et al 1997), we compared histomorphometric values from 10 adult human femora (n = 200 osteons measured) (Robbins and Hanks 2006). We also processed unburned bone samples from several modern fauna: elk, bear, deer, cow, antelope, pig, and coyote.…”

“…Using measurements of the minimum and maximum diameters of osteons and their central canals, human long bone fragments can be discriminated from nonhuman fragments with a high level of precision (Cattaneo et al 1999). The major qualitative difference distinguishing human from nonhuman mammalian long bone fragments is a predominance of large, densely packed, overlapping, Haversian systems (Dix et al 1991;Enlow 1962;Enlow and Brown 1956, 1957, 1958Foote 1916;Frank et al 2002;Hidaka et al 1998;Locke 2004;Martin and Burr 1989;Mori et al 2003;Mulhern and Ubelaker 2001;Owsley et al 1985;Skedros et al 1997;Ubelaker 1989;Whyte 2001). Primary lamellar bone is only commonly found as new bone apposition at the periosteal surface (or outer circumference) (Enlow and Brown 1958), although occasionally there are pockets of lamellar bone at the endosteal surface or in regions of the crosssection that have yet to be remodeled.…”

“…Histomorphometry 14 can easily and accurately discriminate human long bone fragments from other large-bodied mammals (Cattaneo et al 1999;Dittmann 2003;Owsley et al 1985), but these techniques are less useful for discriminating between nonhuman mammals. Qualitative examination of bone tissue types and distribution can also be used to identify human bone (Mulhern and Ubelaker 2001;Owsley et al 1985;Whyte 2001) and to sort the nonhuman component into family-level categories, albeit with greater margin for error (Enlow 1962;Enlow and Brown 1956, 1957, 1958Foote 1916;Frank et al 2002;Hidaka et al 1998; Locke 2004; Martin and Burr 1989;Mori et al 2003;Skedros et al 1997). Qualitative methods are based on phylogenetic differences in the histological structure of bone-the morphometry, arrangement, and life history of an animal's bony tissue-rather than novel or unique types of bone (Martin and Burr 1989).…”