Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T16:31:34.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyses of Coprolites Produced by Carnivorous Vertebrates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

Karen Chin
Karen Chin*
Affiliation:
Museum of Natural History/Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, UCB 265, Boulder, Colorado 80309 USA
Get access

Abstract

The fossil record contains far more coprolites produced by carnivorous animals than by herbivores. This inequity reflects the fact that feces generated by diets of flesh and bone (and other skeletal materials) contain chemical constituents that may precipitate out under certain conditions as permineralizing phosphates. Thus, although coprolites are usually less common than fossil bones, they provide a significant source of information about ancient patterns of predation. The identity of a coprolite producer often remains unresolved, but fossil feces can provide new perspectives on prey selection patterns, digestive efficiency, and the occurrence of previously unknown taxa in a paleoecosystem. Dietary residues are often embedded in the interior of coprolites, but much can be learned from analyses of intact specimens. When ample material is available, however, destructive analyses such as petrography or coprolite dissolution may be used to extract additional paleobiological information.

Type
Section I: Methods
Information
The Paleontological Society Papers , Volume 8: The Fossil Record of Predation , October 2002 , pp. 43 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bishop, G. A. 1977. Pierre feces: a scatological study of the Dakoticancer assemblage, Pierre Shale (Upper Cretaceous) of South Dakota. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 47(1):129–136.Google Scholar
Bradley, W. H. 1946. Coprolites from the Bridger Formation of Wyoming: their composition and microorganisms. American Journal of Science, 244:215–239.Google Scholar
Burmeister, K. C., Flynn, J. J., Parrish, J. M., and Wyss, A. R. 1999. New fossil vertebrates from the northern Morondava Basin, Madagascar, and the recovery of microvertebrates from coprolites. PaleoBios, 1999 California Paleontology Conference Abstracts, 19(supplement to Number 1):3.Google Scholar
Chin, K., Eberth, D. A., and Sloboda, W. J. 1999. Exceptional soft-tissue preservation in a theropod coprolite from the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Abstracts of Papers, 19(Supplement to 3):37–38.Google Scholar
Chin, K., Tokaryk, T. T., Erickson, G. M., and Calk, L. C. 1998. A king-sized theropod coprolite. Nature, 393:680–682.Google Scholar
Coy, C. E. 1995. The first record of spiral coprolites from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Judith River Group, Upper Cretaceous) southern Alberta, Canada. Journal of Paleontology, 69(6):1191–1194.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. D., and Yatkola, D. 1974. Coprolites of White River (Oligocene) carnivorous mammals: origin and paleoecological significance. Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, 13:67–73.Google Scholar
Gilmore, B. G. 1992. Scroll coprolites from the Silurian of Ireland and the feeding of early vertebrates. Palaeontology, 35(2):319–333.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. B., and Chaney, D. S. 1994. Molding, casting, and painting, p. 235–284. In Leiggi, P. and May, P. (eds.), Vertebrate Paleontological Techniques, Volume One. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hantzschel, W., El-Baz, F., and Amstutz, G. C. 1968. Coprolites: an annotated bibliography. Geological Society of America Memoir, 108:1–132.Google Scholar
Hollocher, T. C., Chin, K., Hollocher, K. T., and Kruge, M. A. 2001. Bacterial residues in herbivorous dinosaur coprolites and a role for these bacteria in its mineralization. Palaios, 16:547–565.Google Scholar
Martin, J. E. 1981. Contents of coprolites from Hemphillian sediments in northern Oregon, and their significance in paleoecological interpretations. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, 60:105–115.Google Scholar
Meng, J., and Wyss, A. R. 1997. Multituberculate and other mammal hair recovered from Palaeogene excreta. Nature, 385:712–714.Google Scholar
Meng, J., Zhai, R., and Wyss, A. R. 1998. The late Paleocene Bayan Ulan fauna of Inner Mongolia, China, p. 148–185. In Beard, K. C. and Dawson, M. R. (eds.), Dawn of the Age of Mammals in Asia. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, No. 34, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Neumayer, L. 1904. Die Koprolithen des Perms von Texas. Palaeontographica, 51:121–128.Google Scholar
Northwood, C. 1997. Coprolites from the early Triassic Arcadia Formation, Queensland, Australia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Abstracts of Papers, 17(Supplement to 3):67A.Google Scholar
Parris, D. C., and Holman, J. A. 1978. An Oligocene snake from a coprolite. Herpetologica, 34(3):258–264.Google Scholar
Price, P. 1927. The coprolite limestone horizon of the Conemaugh Series in and around Morgantown, West Virginia. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 17:211–254 Google Scholar
Rutzky, I. S., Elvers, W. B., Maisey, J. G., and Kellner, A. W. A. 1994. Chemical preparation techniques, p. 155–186. In Leiggi, P. and May, P. (eds.), Vertebrate Paleontological Techniques, Volume One. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sawyer, G. T. 1981. A study of crocodilian coprolites from Wannagan Creek Quarry (Paleocene—North Dakota). Scientific Publications of the Science Museum of Minnesota, New Series, 5(2):1–29.Google Scholar
Sohn, E. G., and Chatterjee, S. 1979. Freshwater ostracodes from Late Triassic coprolites in Central India. Journal of Paleontology, 53(3):578–586.Google Scholar
Speden, I. G. 1969. Predation on New Zealand Cretaceous species of Inoceramus (Bivalvia). New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 14(1):56–70.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. D., and Carpenter, K. 1990. Examples of vertebrate predation on cephalopods in the Late Cretaceous of the Western Interior, p. 205–207. In Boucot, A. J. (ed.), Evolutionary Paleobiology of Behavior and Coevolution. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 750 p.Google Scholar
Waldman, M. 1970. Comments on a Cretaceous coprolite from Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 7:1008–1012.Google Scholar
Weimore, A. 1943. The occurrence of feather impressions in the Miocene deposits of Maryland. The Auk, 60:440–441.Google Scholar
Williams, M. E. 1972. The origin of “spiral coprolites.” The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 59:1–19.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. W. 1994. Histological techniques, p. 205–234. In Leiggi, P. and May, P. (eds.), Vertebrate Paleontological Techniques, Volume One. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Zidek, J. 1980. Acanthodes lundi, new species (Acanthodii) and associated coprolites from uppermost Mississippian Heath Formation of central Montana. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 49:49–78.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R., and Richardson, E. S. Jr. 1963. The Paleoecological History of Two Pennsylvanian Black Shales. Fieldiana: Geological Memoirs, Volume 4. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, 352 p.Google Scholar