The number of pores per area of eggshells is not always a reliable indicator of Rheidae species

IF 0.7 4区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY
J. L. Navarro, K. A. Garcia, G. Gonzalez, M. Martella
{"title":"The number of pores per area of eggshells is not always a reliable indicator of Rheidae species","authors":"J. L. Navarro, K. A. Garcia, G. Gonzalez, M. Martella","doi":"10.15366/archaeofauna2020.29.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the end of the Pleistocene and up until the late Holocene, bones and abun- dant eggshell fragments testify to the hunting by the indigenous people of Rheidae in the Pampas and Chaco regions (greater rhea, Rhea americana), and in the Argentinian Patagonia (lesser/ Darwin´s rhea, R.pennata). The traditional method to set apart eggshell fragments from these two species consisted in counting the number pores on a given area to estimate their density. In this paper we evaluate the validity of this method with a new protocol to facilitate counting and assess its reliability on a large eggshell sample. As has been repeatedly proved, the greater rhea has a larger pore density than the lesser rhea. However, the variability of this density within each species, and even within the same egg, needs to be considered as this may lead to erroneous identification. More so when the number of pores per cm2 falls in the lowest range of the greater rhea or the highest range of the lesser rhea. In general, it is easier to misidentify a greater rheaeggshell fragment for that of the lesser rhea than the other way around. The possibility of misidentification also depends on the area of the shell that is being analyzed, since the original method did not apparently assess the density of pores in different areas of the same egg for each species. Although our results indicate that identification based on the original method is not as reliable as the one we propose here, a reappraisal of it with larger samples deriving from a larger specter of populations from both species would be recommendable.","PeriodicalId":44490,"journal":{"name":"ARCHAEOFAUNA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHAEOFAUNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15366/archaeofauna2020.29.012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From the end of the Pleistocene and up until the late Holocene, bones and abun- dant eggshell fragments testify to the hunting by the indigenous people of Rheidae in the Pampas and Chaco regions (greater rhea, Rhea americana), and in the Argentinian Patagonia (lesser/ Darwin´s rhea, R.pennata). The traditional method to set apart eggshell fragments from these two species consisted in counting the number pores on a given area to estimate their density. In this paper we evaluate the validity of this method with a new protocol to facilitate counting and assess its reliability on a large eggshell sample. As has been repeatedly proved, the greater rhea has a larger pore density than the lesser rhea. However, the variability of this density within each species, and even within the same egg, needs to be considered as this may lead to erroneous identification. More so when the number of pores per cm2 falls in the lowest range of the greater rhea or the highest range of the lesser rhea. In general, it is easier to misidentify a greater rheaeggshell fragment for that of the lesser rhea than the other way around. The possibility of misidentification also depends on the area of the shell that is being analyzed, since the original method did not apparently assess the density of pores in different areas of the same egg for each species. Although our results indicate that identification based on the original method is not as reliable as the one we propose here, a reappraisal of it with larger samples deriving from a larger specter of populations from both species would be recommendable.
蛋壳每面积上的孔数并不总是一个可靠的指标
从更新世末到全新世晚期,骨头和丰富的蛋壳碎片证明了潘帕斯和查科地区(大瑞亚、美洲瑞亚)的Rheidae土著人的狩猎,以及在阿根廷的巴塔哥尼亚(小/达尔文的利亚,R.pennata)。从这两个物种中分离蛋壳碎片的传统方法是计算给定区域上的孔隙数量,以估计它们的密度。在本文中,我们用一种新的方案来评估这种方法的有效性,以便于计数,并在大蛋壳样本上评估其可靠性。正如已经被反复证明的那样,大漏比小漏具有更大的孔密度。然而,需要考虑每个物种,甚至同一个卵子内这种密度的可变性,因为这可能会导致错误的识别。当每cm2的孔隙数量落在较大渗漏的最低范围或较小渗漏的最高范围时更是如此。总的来说,与其他方式相比,更容易将较大的rhehegl碎片误认为较小的rheahell碎片。误认的可能性也取决于正在分析的蛋壳面积,因为最初的方法并没有明显评估每个物种同一卵子不同区域的孔隙密度。尽管我们的结果表明,基于原始方法的鉴定不如我们在这里提出的方法可靠,但建议用来自两个物种的更大种群的更大样本对其进行重新评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ARCHAEOFAUNA
ARCHAEOFAUNA ARCHAEOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: ARCHAEOFAUNA publica trabajos originales relacionados con cualquier aspecto del estudio de restos animales recuperados en yacimientos arqueológicos.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信