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