1992
DOI: 10.1016/0305-4403(92)90058-b
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Small mammal taphonomy of Gran Dolina, Atapuerca (Burgos), Spain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
171
0
74

Year Published

1997
1997
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 274 publications
(250 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
5
171
0
74
Order By: Relevance
“…However, at least in the Iberian Peninsula, predators that occa sionally catch amphibians and/or squamates are considered opportunistic, and their accumulations are qualitatively and quantitatively representative of the immediate environment surrounding the cave. At Gran Dolina, it has been shown that the primary agents of small-mammal deposition are owls; secondary agents are mammalian carnivores, self-entries, water flows, mudflows, and other agents (Fernandez-Jalvo and Andrews, 1992;Fernandez-Jalvo, 1996). In the case of amphibians, previous study by Pinto L10na and Andrews (1999) have suggested that remains of 1D3/4 and TD5 come from predation by small carnivores; however, of the material studied here, only a few elements show such strong evidence of digestion similar to that made by carnivores (Blain, 2005;Blain et aI., 2008a).…”
Section: Factors That May Influence Accumulation Of Remainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, at least in the Iberian Peninsula, predators that occa sionally catch amphibians and/or squamates are considered opportunistic, and their accumulations are qualitatively and quantitatively representative of the immediate environment surrounding the cave. At Gran Dolina, it has been shown that the primary agents of small-mammal deposition are owls; secondary agents are mammalian carnivores, self-entries, water flows, mudflows, and other agents (Fernandez-Jalvo and Andrews, 1992;Fernandez-Jalvo, 1996). In the case of amphibians, previous study by Pinto L10na and Andrews (1999) have suggested that remains of 1D3/4 and TD5 come from predation by small carnivores; however, of the material studied here, only a few elements show such strong evidence of digestion similar to that made by carnivores (Blain, 2005;Blain et aI., 2008a).…”
Section: Factors That May Influence Accumulation Of Remainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the same paper, Andrews (1990) applied those categories to the Late Pleistocene small-mammal assemblage of Westbury sub-Mendip (England), to understand the taphonomy of this fossil accumulation. This method has been successfully used in some other localities (Fernández-Jalvo, 1995Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews, 1992;Fernández-Jalvo et al, 1998), with detailed taphonomical analyses carried out in order to improve the palaeoecological reconstruction. In fact the palaeoecological inferences obtained from fossil predators are not as precise as the ecological studies on living species (Andrews, 1992).…”
Section: Taphonomical Importance Of T Mourerchauvireae Nov Spmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The large accumulations of small mammals in the different levels of the locality of Gran Dolina stem mostly from fossil pellets which enter the cave with sediment and are allochthonous in origin (Fernandez Jalvo and Andrews, 1992). Recent taphonomic obser vations of the collections of small vertebrates at Gran Dolina corroborate this hypothesis.…”
Section: Taphonomymentioning
confidence: 83%