Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-18T19:03:48.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using striated tooth marks on bone to predict body size in theropod dinosaurs: a model based on feeding observations of Varanus komodoensis, the Komodo monitor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Domenic C. D'Amore  and
Robert J. Blumenschine
Domenic C. D'Amore
Affiliation:
Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1414. E-mail: ddamore@daemen.edu
Robert J. Blumenschine
Affiliation:
Center for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 131 George Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1414, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mesozoic tooth marks on bone surfaces directly link consumers to fossil assemblage formation. Striated tooth marks are believed to form by theropod denticle contact, and attempts have been made to identify theropod consumers by comparing these striations with denticle widths of contemporaneous taxa. The purpose of this study is to test whether ziphodont theropod consumer characteristics can be accurately identified from striated tooth marks on fossil surfaces. We had three major objectives (1) to experimentally produce striated tooth marks and explain how they form; (2) to determine whether body size characteristics are reflected in denticle widths; and (3) to determine whether denticle characters are accurately transcribed onto bone surfaces in the form of striated tooth marks. We conducted controlled feeding trials with the dental analogue Varanus komodoensis (the Komodo monitor). Goat (Capra hircus) carcasses were introduced to captive, isolated individuals. Striated tooth marks were then identified, and striation width, number, and degree of convergence were recorded for each. Denticle widths and tooth/body size characters were taken from photographs and published accounts of both theropod and V. komodoensis skeletal material, and regressions were compared among and between the two groups. Striated marks tend to be regularly striated with a variable degree of branching, and may co-occur with scores. Striation morphology directly reflects contact between the mesial carina and bone surfaces during the rostral reorientation when defleshing. Denticle width is influenced primarily by tooth size, and correlates well with body size, displaying negative allometry in both groups regardless of taxon or position. When compared, striation widths fall within or below the range of denticle widths extrapolated for similar-sized V. komodoensis individuals. Striation width is directly influenced by the orientation of the carina during feeding, and may underestimate but cannot overestimate denticle width. Although body size can theoretically be estimated solely by a striated tooth mark under ideal circumstances, many caveats should be considered. These include the influence of negative allometry across taxa and throughout ontogeny, the existence of theropods with extreme denticle widths, and the potential for striations to underestimate denticle widths. This method may be useful under specific circumstances, especially for establishing a lower limit body size for potential consumers.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , Winter 2012 , pp. 79 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

∗

Present address: Department of Natural Sciences, Daemen College, 4380 Main Street, Amherst, New York 14226-3592, U.S.A.

References

Literature Cited

Abler, W. L. 1992. The serrated teeth of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs, and biting structures in other animals. Paleobiology 18:161–183.Google Scholar
Auffenberg, W. 1981. The behavioral ecology of the Komodo monitor. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Bakker, R. T. 1997. Raptor family values: allosaur parents brought giant carcasses into their lair to feed their young. Pp. 51–63 in Wolberg, D. L., Stump, E., and Rosenberg, G. D., eds. Dinofest International. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information on bone weathering. Paleobiology 4:150–162.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones: ancient men and modern myths. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Blumenschine, R. J., Marean, C. W., and Capaldo, S. D. 1996. Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cat marks, percussion marks, and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces. Journal of Archeological Science 23:493–507.Google Scholar
Brain, C. K. 1981. The hunters or the hunted? An introduction to African cave taphonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brochu, C. A. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insight from a nearly complete skeleton and high resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoir 7:1–138.Google Scholar
Burden, W. D. 1928. Observations on the habits and distributions of Varanus komodoensis Ouwens. American Museum Novitates 316:1–10.Google Scholar
Chandler, C. L. 1990. Taxonomic and functional significance of serrated tooth morphology in theropod dinosaurs. Master's thesis. Yale University, New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Chaplin, R. E. 1971. The study of animal bones from archaeological sites. Seminar, London.Google Scholar
Charig, A. J., and Milner, A. C. 1997. Baryonyx walkeri, a fish eating dinosaur from the Wealden of Surrey. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Geology) 53:11–70.Google Scholar
Chure, D. J., Fiorillo, A. R., and Jacobsen, A. R. 1998. Prey bone utilization by predatory dinosaurs in the Late Jurassic of North America, with comments on prey bone use by dinosaurs throughout the Mesozoic. Gaia 15:227–232.Google Scholar
Currie, P. J., and Carpenter, K. 2000. A new specimen of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (Theropoda, Dinosauria) from the Lower Cretaceous Antlers Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Aptian) of Oklahoma, USA. Geodiversitas 22:207–246.Google Scholar
Currie, P. J., and Jacobsen, A. R. 1995. An azhdarchid pterosaur eaten by a velociraptorine theropod. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 32:922–925.Google Scholar
Currie, P. J., Rigby, J. K. Jr., and Sloan, R. E. 1990. Theropod teeth from the Judith River Formation of southern Alberta, Canada. Pp. 107–125 in Carpenter, K.and Currie, P. J., eds. Dinosaur systematics: perspectives and approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
D'Amore, D. C., and Blumenschine, R. J. 2009. Komodo monitor (Varanus komodoensis) feeding behavior and dental function reflected through tooth marks on bone surfaces, and the application to ziphodont paleobiology. Paleobiology 35:525–552.Google Scholar
Drumheller, S. 2007. Experimental taphonomy and microanalysis of crocodylian bite marks. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27(Suppl. to No. 3):70A.Google Scholar
Edmund, A. G. 1969. Dentition. Pp. 117–200 in Gans, C., Bellairs, A. d'A., and Parsons, T. S., eds. Biology of the Reptilia. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Engqvist, L. 2005. The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Animal Behaviour 70:967–971.Google Scholar
Erickson, G. M. 1996a. Daily deposition of dentine in juvenile Alligator and assessment of tooth replacement rates using incremental line counts. Journal of Morphology 228:189–194.Google Scholar
Erickson, G. M. 1996b. Incremental lines of von Ebner in dinosaurs and the assessment of tooth replacement rates using growth line counts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 93:14623–14627.Google Scholar
Erickson, G. M., and Olson, K. H. 1996. Bite marks attributable to Tyrannosaurus rex: preliminary description and implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16:175–178.Google Scholar
Erickson, G. M., Van Kirk, S. D., Su, J., Levenston, M. E., Caler, W. E., and Carter, D. R. 1996. Bite-force estimation for Tyrannosaurus rex from tooth-marked bones. Science 382:706–708.Google Scholar
Erickson, G. M., Makovicky, P. J., Currie, P. J., Norell, M. A., Yerby, S. A., and Brochu, C. A. 2004. Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature 430:772–775.Google Scholar
Farlow, J. O., Brinkman, D. L., Abler, W. L., and Currie, P. J. 1991. Size, shape and serration density of theropod dinosaur lateral teeth. Modern Geology 16:161–198.Google Scholar
Fiorillo, A. R. 1991. Prey bone utilization by predatory dinosaurs. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 88:157–166.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. W., and Sullivan, R. M. 2006. Aceratopsid pelvis with toothmarks from the Upper Cretaceous Kirtland Formation, New Mexico: evidence of Late Campanian tyrannosaurids feeding behavior. In Lucas, S. G.and Sullivan, R. M., eds. Late Cretaceous vertebrates from the Western Interior. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 35:127–130.Google Scholar
Gifford, D. P. 1981. Taphonomy and paleoecology: a critical review of archeology's sister disciplines. Pp. 365–438 in Schiffer, M. B., ed. Advances in archeological method and theory, Vol. 4. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Haynes, G. 1980. Evidence of carnivore gnawing on Pleistocene and Recent mammalian bones. Paleobiology 6:31–351.Google Scholar
Holtz, T. R. Jr. 1998. Spinosaurs as crocodile mimics. Science 282:1276–1277.Google Scholar
Holtz, T. R. Jr, Brinkman, D. L., and Chandler, C. L. 1998. Denticle morphometrics and a possible omnivorous feeding habit for the theropod dinosaur Troodon. Gaia 15:159–166.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, A. R. 1995. Predatory behaviour of carnivorous dinosaurs: ecological interpretation based on tooth marked dinosaur bones and wear patterns of theropod teeth. M.S. thesis. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, A. R. 1998. Feeding behaviour of carnivorous dinosaurs as determined by tooth marks on dinosaur bones. Historical Biology 13:17–26.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, A. R. 2001. Tooth-marked small theropod bone: an extremely rare trace. Pp. 58–63 in Tanke, D. H.and Carpenter, K., eds. Mesozoic vertebrate life: new research inspired by the research of Philip J. Currie. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, A. R., and Bromley, R. G. 2009. New ichnotaxa based on tooth impressions on dinosaur and whale bones. Geological Quarterly 53:373–382.Google Scholar
Langston, W. 1975. Ziphodont crocodiles: Pristichampsus vorax (Troxell), new combination, from the Eocene of North America. Fieldiana (Geology) 33:291–314.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. H. Jr. 1976. Allosaurus fragilis: a revised osteology. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 109.Google Scholar
Marean, C. W. 1991. Measuring post-depositional destruction of bone in archaeological assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:677–694.Google Scholar
Matthew, W. D. 1908. Allosaurus, a carnivorous dinosaur, and its prey. American Museum Journal 8:2–5.Google Scholar
Mertens, R. 1942. Die familie der warane (Varanidae). Teil 2, Schadel. Senckenbergische naturforschende Gesellschaft, Abhandlungen 462:1–391.Google Scholar
Molnar, R. E. 1978. A new theropod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of Central Montana. Journal of Paleontology 52:73–82.Google Scholar
Molnar, R. E. 2004. Dragons in the dust: the paleobiology of the giant monitor lizard Megalania. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Molnar, R. E., and Farlow, J. O. 1990. Carnosaur paleobiology. Pp. 210–224 in Weishampel, D. B., Dodson, P., and Osmólska, H., eds. The Dinosauria. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Paul, G. S. 1988. Predatory dinosaurs of the world. Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
Pobiner, B. L., and Blumenschine, R. J. 2003. A taphonomic perspective on Oldowan hominid encroachment on the carnivore paleoguild. Journal of Taphonomy 1:115–141.Google Scholar
Prasad, G. V. R., and Lapparent de Broin, F. 2002. Late Cretaceous crocodile remains from Naskal (India): comparisons and biogeographic affinities. Annales de Paléontologie 88:19–71.Google Scholar
Prieto-Márquez, A., Gignac, P., and Joshi, S. 2007. Neontological evaluation of pelvic skeletal attributes purported to reflect sex in extinct non-avian archosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27:603–609.Google Scholar
Rayfield, E. J., Milner, A. C., Xuan, V. B., and Young, P. 2007. Functional morphology of spinosaur “crocodile-mimic” dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27:892–901.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 1979. A functional interpretation of varanid dentition (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Varanidae). Gegenbaurs Morphologisches Jahrbuch, Leipzig 125:797–817.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. R., Krause, D. W., and Rogers, K. C. 2003. Cannibalism in the Madagascan dinosaur Majungatholus atopus. Nature 422:515–518.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. 2006. TPSDIG, Version 2.10. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. 1970. Tyrannosaurus from the Late Cretaceous of Western Canada. National Museum of Canada, Publications in Paleontology 1.Google Scholar
Sankey, J. T., Brinkman, D. B., Guenther, M., and Currie, P. J. 2002. Small theropod and bird teeth from the Late Cretaceous (Late Campanian) Judith River Group, Alberta. Journal of Paleontology 76:751–763.Google Scholar
Seebacher, F. 2001. A new method to calculate allometric length-mass relationships of dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21:51–60.Google Scholar
Senter, P. E. 2003. New information on cranial and dental features of the Triassic archosauriform reptile Euparkeria capensis. Palaeontology 46:613–621.Google Scholar
Sereno, P., and Novas, F. 1993. The skull and neck of the basal theropod Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 13: 451–47.Google Scholar
Shimada, K. 2002. On the concept of heterodonty. Journal of Fossil Research 34:52–54.Google Scholar
Shimada, K. 2004. The relationship between the tooth size and total body length in the sandtiger shark, Carcharius Taurus (Lamniformes: Odontaspididae). Journal of Fossil Research 37:76–81.Google Scholar
Shimada, K., and Seigel, J. A. 2005. The relationship between tooth size and total body length in the goblin shark, Mitsukurina owstoni (Lamniformes: Mitsukurinidae). Journal of Fossil Research 38:49–56.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B. 2005. Heterodonty in Tyrannosaurus rex: implications for the taxonomic and systematic utility of theropod dentitions. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25:865–887.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B. 2007. Dental morphology and variation in Majungasaurus crenatissimus (Theropoda: Abelisauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoir 8:103–128.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B., and Dodson, P. 2003. A proposal for a standard terminology of anatomical notation and orientation in fossil vertebrate dentition. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23:1–12.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B., Vann, D. R., and Dodson, P. 2005. Dental morphology and variation in theropod dinosaurs: implications for the taxonomic identification of isolated teeth. Anatomical Record A 285:699–736.Google Scholar
Sweetman, S. C. 2004. The first record of velociraptorine dinosaurs (Saurischia, Theropoda) from the Wealden (Early Cretaceous, Barremian) of southern England. Cretaceous Research 25:353–364.Google Scholar
Tanke, D. H., and Currie, P. J. 1998. Head-biting behavior in theropod dinosaurs: paleopathological evidence. Gaia 15:167–184.Google Scholar
Therrien, F., and Henderson, D. M. 2007. My theropod is bigger than yours… or not: estimating body size from skull length in theropods. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27:108–115.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. G., and Withers, P. C. 1997. Comparative morphology of Western Australian varanid lizards (Squamata: Varanidae). Journal of Morphology 233:127–152.Google Scholar