Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:49 pm
It has been suggested that the short-leg Dexter may appear more beefy because it has "normal" muscle attached to abnormally short bones.
As a preliminary test of this hypothesis, I have applied the factors used to estimate the height of archaeological cattle from their bones to a short-leg Dexter bull skeleton. In life, the animal was c. 36 inches or c. 94 cm tall.
The humerus, upper fore limb, gave a result estimating height at 1.12m. The femur and tibia of the hindlimb both suggested a height c. 1.03m. Only the metapodials, or cannon bones, both suggested a height of 0.94m.
This strongly suggests that the upper limb bones of the short leg Dexter do not exhibit an extreme reduction in length, this is seen only in the non meat-bearing metapodials.
It also suggests that we might not identify the presence of "short-leg" cattle archaeologically, if we do not have complete metapodials.
Lots more bones to measure but just thought I'd share the fun.
As a preliminary test of this hypothesis, I have applied the factors used to estimate the height of archaeological cattle from their bones to a short-leg Dexter bull skeleton. In life, the animal was c. 36 inches or c. 94 cm tall.
The humerus, upper fore limb, gave a result estimating height at 1.12m. The femur and tibia of the hindlimb both suggested a height c. 1.03m. Only the metapodials, or cannon bones, both suggested a height of 0.94m.
This strongly suggests that the upper limb bones of the short leg Dexter do not exhibit an extreme reduction in length, this is seen only in the non meat-bearing metapodials.
It also suggests that we might not identify the presence of "short-leg" cattle archaeologically, if we do not have complete metapodials.
Lots more bones to measure but just thought I'd share the fun.