Rugger said:Looks to rounded for a canine. Bear maybe?.
Puck said:I vote coyote or a dog.
Why is it on the tree trunk? Is there some kind of occult activity in that area?
Puck said:Why is it on the tree trunk? Is there some kind of occult activity in that area?
I agree. I wonder why skulls don't rot or get eaten like the rest of the animal.forestnome said:I assumed this was a bear skull when I found it on the southern slope of Mt Carrigan.
They are recycled by natural processes including dissolving by acids and chewing by rodents. Otheriwise, the woods would be paved with bones.Chip said:I agree. I wonder why skulls don't rot or get eaten like the rest of the animal.
DougPaul said:. Otheriwise, the woods would be paved with bones.
Doug
I understand. My question was why more skulls in the woods as opposed to finding nothing or the entire animal. I guess skulls are harder.DougPaul said:They are recycled by natural processes including dissolving by acids and chewing by rodents. Otheriwise, the woods would be paved with bones.
Doug
OK. Perhaps more bone mass in one chunk. Also leg bones contain marrow and are worth breaking to get at it. Teeth (much harder than bone) are the real long-term survivors--consider how many fossils are teeth.Chip said:I understand. My question was why more skulls in the woods as opposed to finding nothing or the entire animal. I guess skulls are harder.
Enter your email address to join: