[NatureNS] beaver size new gnawledge

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:58:23 -0300
From: David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1 (CPQCA3C01)
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
References: <48DA75A0.6040703@glinx.com> <f4cfdd21350e16c92f9f086886e6c41d@dal.ca> <4e465e820809241823i713c4795mcfba31a6e68be7cc@mail.gmail.com> <48DD6680.3020600@glinx.com> <4e465e820809261713i11a11489obabd87f04c26f9a3@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

&gt;&
Hi,            Sept 27, 2008
    I get 3.56" and there is a good (probably full) complement of 
readily visible sutures, which would indicate 2-year old.
DW

Ronald Arsenault wrote:

> David,
>
>  
>
> I have no information on skull length for beavers. However, I did find 
> the following on zygomatic breadth:
>
>  
>
> Kits:                       2.50 - 3.00  inches
>
> Yearlings:                3.20 - 3.40  inches
>
> Two-year olds:        3.50 - 3.60  inches
> Adults:                   3.65-up 
>
>  
>
> (After Patric and Webb 1960 as reported on page 378 in Wildlife 
> Management Techniques 1971)
>
>  
>
> My apologies for not offering metric conversions (calculator not handy).
>
>  
>
> I have no information whether or not Nova Scotia beavers are likely to 
> differ in size from the size range indicated above.  In addition, 
> there is also no indication of the geographical origin of the beavers 
> used to determine the above measurements.
>
>  
>
> As I recall, one can also use the suture lines as an indication of age 
> on mammalian skulls.  Easily visible suture lines suggest a young 
> animal.  These sutures gradually disappear, with the bones fusing as 
> the animal ages.  Dave, are the cranial sutures readily apparent?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Ron
>
>
>  
>
> 2008/9/26 David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com 
> <mailto:dwebster@glinx.com> >
>
>     Hi All,                    Sept 26, 2008
>       The skull, measured from the bulge that is dorsad of the upper
>     incisors to the posterior extremity of the part that articulates
>     with the neck, is 129 mm long. I suspect , sheer guess by
>     picturing beaver, this is about 3/4 adult size.
>
>       The right lower jawbone was missing but, in the left jawbone (in
>     looking at this more carefully, I see that the lower jawbone was
>     from a different and smaller beaver; both bones were within feet
>     of each other near the small dumbell-shaped pond on Little River),
>     the curved incisor pulls out readily and is essentially the same
>     width (6.2 mm) from one end to the other. This I think follows
>     from, if I understand correctly, the teeth growing from the base
>     as use wears the cutting edge away. Thus incisor tooth width would
>     not increase with age (unless nursing beaver have baby teeth ?).
>     Perhaps Randy or Andrew can comment on this. This left lower
>     incisor, measured along the curved anterior face is 98 mm in
>     length (~80 mm from end to end).
>
>       My estimate of 2/3 width, if it applies at all, would apply
>     especially to initial cuts where there is no opportunity for
>     sideways motion of the chips. Once there is a gap, into which
>     chips can by pried, they likely do cut to full width and rather
>     than make shavings make fairly thick chips (again by sublimital
>     memory) chip size being dependent somewhat on the wood being cut.
>
>     Yt, DW
>
>
>
>     Ronald Arsenault wrote:
>
>         Hello Steve, Dave and others,
>
>          
>         As everybody seems to be in a confession mode....
>
>          
>         I made an assumption that may be erroneous should Dave's
>         suggestion be correct.  It is actually the gnaw marks of an
>         adult beaver which measure approximately 6 mm in width.  I
>         assumed a this represented the width of the teeth of an adult
>         beaver.  If Dave's suggestion that the width of the gnaw marks
>         represent 2/3 of the width of the incisor teeth is correct,
>         then an adult beaver would have incisors 9 mm wide.  Dave, is
>         the skull you have that of an adult beaver?
>
>          
>         However, the above does not change my initial conclusions that
>         the evidence still strongly points to a beaver (the presence
>         of muskrats does not exclude beaver) and that the beaver
>         responsible for the cutting was likely a sub adult.
>
>          
>         Ron
>
>         2008/9/24 Steve Shaw < srshaw@dal.ca <mailto:srshaw@dal.ca>
>         <mailto:srshaw@dal.ca <mailto:srshaw@dal.ca> > >
>
>
>            Hi Dave and others,
>            No Dave, your note didn't come through on NNS, only the
>         recent one
>            direct to me.  One of my earlier 2 posts came through in
>         the wrong
>            order, though, and NNS has seemed erratic or slow sometimes,
>            recently, as others have noted.
>
>            Yes, you caught me with an inexcusable error when I
>         converted 3.75
>            mm to 5/64 inch (thinking that some out there may not like
>            millimeters) when it should have read approximately 5/32 inch.
>             Actually I missed this error because I didn't convert it
>            arithmetically but stuck a ruler next to two lines I'd
>         drawn, and
>            mis-read 32ths as 64ths on the ruler.  ( No, I'm not the
>         guy who
>            designed the lens in Imperial for the Hubble telescope
>         which was
>            then made in metric units, or was it the other way round?).
>              However and in consequence, I'm VERY glad to find that
>         you made
>            complimentary (admittedly smaller) error:  3.75 mm is
>         actually IS
>            a little bit larger  than 1/8 inch, not smaller -- I make
>         it 1.181
>            eighths-of-an-inch if you want to get fancy.
>
>            To be serious, your reply is useful because it helps to
>         clarify my
>            original short post on this beaver size thing, which may
>         have been
>            well-intended but was a really ill-conceived as written, I've
>            realized since.   The round alder branches were gnawed at a
>            shallow angle, so the en face view of the cut was roughly
>            elliptical, with the long axis of the ellipse in line with the
>            branch.  The branch and the long axis of the cut would actually
>            have been parallel to the axis of the beaver's body as it
>         stood up
>