Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Palaeoecological deductions are vital for understanding the evolution and diversification of species within prehistoric environments. This review highlights the multitude of ways in which the microanatomy and microscopic structure of bones enables palaeoecological deductions. The occurrence of growth marks in bones is discussed, and their usefulness in deducing the ontogenetic status and age of individuals is considered, as well as how such marks in bones permit the assessment of the growth dynamics of individuals and species. Here osteohistology is shown to provide insight into the structure of past populations, as well as ecological relationships between individuals. In addition, the response of bones to trauma, disease and moulting is considered. Finally, I explore how osteohistology can give insight into ecomorphological adaptations, such as filter feeding, probe feeding and saltatorial locomotion. Methodological advances in three-dimensional microtomography and synchrotron scanning bodes well for future studies in osteohistology and despite some compromises in terms of tissue identity, circumvents the crucial issue of destructive analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anusuya Chinsamy (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: