5<3J 
RECORDS OF W.A. MUSEUM. 
lakes and soaks, and if we regard it also as in the habit of forming 
its lair in caves, and dragging thither the more or less mutilated 
bodies of its victims, we could understand the discovery of gnawed 
bones and bone-bearing coprolites in cave breccias as recorded from 
Queensland and New South Wales. 
Geological Surveyor Anderson 1 described the tooth-marked 
bones in the following terms: “Occurring in the ossiferous portions 
of the clays were numerous small fragments of bones, generally a 
few inches in length, and chiefly pieces of the longer limb bones, 
which had been broken into fragments prior to their deposition in 
the clays. In almost every case the sharp fractured edges and angles 
of these fragments had been slightly rounded by attrition, but they 
were by no means so well water-worn as the pebbles which occurred 
along with them. The fragments of the thicker bones rarely 
showed an entire transverse section of the bone, which had not 
only been fractured transversely, but also longitudinally. In the 
case of fragments of the thinner bones, the transverse section is 
generally complete, the bone not having been fractured longitudin- 
ally. The large majority of the broken fragments show 
unmistakably the teeth-marks of some carnivorous animal, or 
animals. Most of these marks are, however, too fine to have been 
produced by the carnassial teeth of Thylacoleo, although there are 
some of them which seem large enough and coarse enough to have 
been so produced. The fragments of bones which show evidences 
of having been gnawed, are chiefly pieces of the shafts of the longer 
Umb-bones and ribs. The teeth-marks occur singly along the 
surface of the fragments, corresponding marks being often present 
on the opposite surface, indicating the action of the teeth of both 
jaws on the bones. Generally, however, the marks are confined to 
one or both ends of the fragments, which often bears evidence of 
having been bitten sharp off, while close to the sharply bitten end 
the surface is furrowed with teeth-marks, showing that whatever the 
animal was, by the action of whose teeth the marks were produced, 
it had a similar habit to that of a dog, and other carnivora possess, 
of holding one end of the bone on the ground between the forepaws 
while it gnawed the opposite free end.” 
i Loc. cit., p. 122. 
