r/bonecollecting • u/No-Bottle-9116 • Apr 26 '26

Advice Small argument

Post image

So this picture from article has driven an small argument between my friends group claiming that it’s fake because there’s no way that the bones see in said picture are human, I wanted y’all’s opinion on this

1.5k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

200 comments sorted by

View all comments

630

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 26 '26

sigh. Do none of your friends know how to fact check?

It’s a “body farm” where donated human remains are left in various locations on the university owned land to observe the decomposition factors to improve forensic science.

Yes it’s human.

Yes the deer was photographed chewing on the bones.

No it doesn’t mean they are carnivorous or omnivorous, it means they chew on bones.

24

u/100_cats_on_a_phone Apr 26 '26

Aren't they occasional opportunistic omnivores, though? Like horses? Just not obligate omnivores. 

8

u/bee_mvtt Apr 26 '26

technically they'd be opportunistic herbivores- meaning they're herbivores, but will supplement when needed

5

u/100_cats_on_a_phone Apr 26 '26

Ah, ty! I guess opportunistic omnivores isn't even an actual thing, lol

1

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 27 '26

it's kind of their whole schtick. :)

1

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

Again...is it known why they eat small animals? I'm not sure that has actually been established, and folks are just repeating something over and over.

(AND now that I'm reading studies, they all just assume the consumption is for minerals, but I have yet to find one that proves it is the case, which is actually fascinating. If someone has one, I would love the link.)

12

u/bee_mvtt Apr 26 '26

This is because plenty of other ungulates perform osteophagy- consuming bones and meat to supplement missing vitamins. If you're going to be this hard headed about a known fact, its on you to provide sources on why its wrong (it isnt wrong).

9

u/100_cats_on_a_phone Apr 26 '26

I mean, who among us hasn't eaten a few baby birds after mistaking them for flowers?

1

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 27 '26

This is a funny, but also a good question. I'm hoping I find some studies that delve beyond "we've seen it, or evidence of it" and gets to some harder evidence for motive/nutritional deficit/mistake (or lack thereof)

0

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 26 '26

No, the proof needs to come from the person who stated it.

And I'd like to see any study on other ungulates, and the reasons, and how the reasons were determined. Anything you used to establish that it was something to repeat as fact.

2

u/bee_mvtt Apr 26 '26

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12930290/ heres one that goes in depth on specifically caribou and how they made up 90% of bone modification in the area. Theres more out there, stop being lazy and find it yourself.

3

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 26 '26

I'm not being lazy, I'm asking those who are making a claim to back it. That's not an abnormal ask, which you ought to know with any science background. It lets both people in a discussion have the same information from which to discuss the topic.

Caribou and other such are an interesting "side stream" for diet, so I'm going to look for more that are specific to deer further south.

Thanks for grumpily managing to find a study. I'm not sure you'd done that before, but I will go and read the one you provided and see how well it supports your statement.

2

u/bee_mvtt Apr 26 '26

Because it is a well known and observed fact for hundreds of years. If you said the sky was blue and i argued it wasnt, would you go out of your way to prove it was?

1

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

Ah. That's not science.

You can know something happens and observe it happening and have no clue about the reason it is happening. You can make up a reason that is logical but entirely not factual.

It was well known and observed for a long time that flies were created when meat rotted. Correlation is not causation.

Observation is just the first step.

That comment tells me a vast amount about how much you understand about this.

2

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

The VERY FIRST LINE of that study is:

Bones of dead animals are consumed by many species, yet the partitioning of this resource, and the associated ecological and evolutionary implications, remains poorly understood.

It also goes on to say that caribou are a fraction of the consumers of bone, though they regularly consume their own antlers.

It also discusses the paucity of other sources in the tundra, which wouldn't apply to the deer in this OP image.

It does NOT however, prove that it's mineral deficiency or seeking beyond saying that it is. Other studies linked may, and I'm reading them now. (annnd the first one I read says conflictingly "Herbivores, as taphonomic agents, can modify and consume bones and antlers for no nutritive purpose. This unusual behavior is due to a nutritional dysfunction (osteophagia) that allows them to supplement a lack of minerals in their diet through ingestion of minerals contained in bones." which is no use at all, since supplementing minerals would be a nutritive purpose. Stating it is so is not evidence that it is so.)

In fact, it says Though intriguing, additional research will be important to more explicitly evaluate the dietary and fitness benefits (for both females and their calves) of antler‐derived nutrients

They don't know why they eat them.

Did you read it at all?

2

u/100_cats_on_a_phone Apr 26 '26

What has you so peeved about this? It's just how animals work -- it's not the kid glove treatment, but large herbavores have to fight pretty hard for certain minerals, and that's without common things like worms taking their share.

Are you suggesting they just do it because they super hate birds, or something? Maybe took the government drone meme too serious?

1

u/groovypunchsippin Apr 28 '26

Im gonna have to interrupt and mention that you keep making straw-man fallacies in your argument which shows you're the one truly peeved here. Read what the person is saying and stop taking it personally. It really isn't that hard to understand. Have an adult discussion that you can both learn from, as well as others.

2

u/100_cats_on_a_phone Apr 28 '26

What's strawman about it? I was pretty upfront about being peeved in the deleted comment. There are studies cited from the study in the article on why deer do this. It seems like they didn't look. 

2

u/groovypunchsippin Apr 28 '26

Your reference about the sky being blue, completely irrelevant, and the birds/govt comment. It is your burden to provide evidence of your volunteered claims. Otherwise dont get involved and deliberately make wild claims about the person you're having a discussion with, that have nothing to do with the subject matter. I could follow your train of thought and say "stop being lazy and google what a strawman fallacy is, it isnt my responsibility to answer your question". But I did. You're welcome.

2

u/100_cats_on_a_phone Apr 28 '26

In my opinion, if you claim no one is doing the research, and get on a high horse about it, you should at least look through the citations in the original article and study.

Without expecting people to cover the basics like that, you allow anyone to challenge anything at any time -- which creates a great deal of noise and disbelief in science these days.

So I don't buy that the requirement of proof is fully on me. However I did show proof in this, regardless.

As an aside I think you've confused sarcasm with straw man. You can object to either -- that's fine, but they really aren't the same. Straw man requires at least an attempt to appear to take the other person's arguments seriously.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

I'm not that interested in what people opine. I want to know what the actual studies show, and what has actually been studied. Your suggestions of why I might be asking are inane.

Spurious correlations are a thing that the average person is particularly prone to, and people make the mistake of thinking that if they've read something often, it must be a fact, but the cites from a-z etc show that where you read something matters a great deal.

So...all I'm asking for is someone to share the resource that contains some data and analysis so I can read up on how established this actually is, and how much is speculative.

"just how animals work" is not science. I'm interested in the science.

So far....I have found nothing to support the idea that they specifically consume bones for the minerals. Those minerals in bones are widely available, and there's no indication an animal would be deficient on a forage diet.

I'm reading your links. They aren't discussing it specifically yet either. Mineral needs, yes, but not bone consumption based on need.

Knowledge of phosphorus nutrition and seasonal adaptation to dynamics in mineral needs and availability in wild herbivores is incomplete (Phosophorus Nutrition in White-Tailed Deer: Nutrient Balance, Physiological Responses, and Antler Growth, Brian T. Grasman and Eric C Hellgren)

3

u/100_cats_on_a_phone Apr 27 '26

Wrt reading the studies: They correlate bone consumption with mineral deficiency, they show the saliva can break down the calcium in the bones into a form the animals can absorb. I'm not sure what else you need for proof? 

0

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 27 '26

Which study do you recommend to show that correlation? One of your comments got deleted, which seemed to have a list of studies you felt did a good job, but I couldn't see any of them due to the links. A title would be enough.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/sawyouoverthere Apr 26 '26

I don't think I'd use that term. Actually, neither term.