Geology is an important component of any taphonomic investigation. This helps to 'set the scene' when considering potential taphonomic pathways: what environment did these ancient creatures live in? What happened to their bodies after they died? What environment were they buried in, and how quickly were they buried?

To this end, my colleagues and I have just published a paper about the ancient environment of the Winton Formation at Isisford to better understand the taphonomic history of crocodyliforms, osteichthyan fish, and dinosaur fossils uncovered there. We propose that around 100 million years ago, Isisford lay in the middle of a river delta that flowed into the nearby Eromanga Sea. 

We came to this conclusion by studying the sandstone concretions that encase each of the fossils found at Isisford. These concretions formed when sand grains were cemented together with calcium carbonate (calcite) from calcium-rich groundwater. The majority of fossils appear not to be distorted or warped in any way, and as fossilisation occurs under high temperature and high pressure, it seems the concretions surrounding the buried bones and afforded them some protection. If this calcite cement, and therefore the concretions formed before fossilisation, then information about groundwater quality where the bones were buried would be locked away in the calcite minerals themselves - specifically, isotopes of carbon and oxygen. 

​We tested the carbon and oxygen stable isotopic values of the calcite cement, and by comparing our results to what is ‘typical’ for fresh water and sea water, found that it formed in a brackish water environment. This wasn’t terribly surprising: the regional geology indicates that the Eromanga Sea was nearby Isisford at this time, but until now we hadn't known whether it affected the environment at Isisford or not. When we examined geological core logs from near Isisford, and compared it to the types of rocks we found at the site, we concluded that these animals were buried in a river delta that flowed into the sea, with fresh river water mixing with salty ocean water. Unfortunately, there aren’t large exposures of Winton Formation at the site that would allow for typical facies analysis, but we worked with the material we had and came up with some pretty solid conclusions.

Our next question is: if these animal's carcasses were buried in a river delta, did they die there or were their bodies washed in from far away? Did they even live nearby at all? That is the subject of future papers that we will be publishing mid to late next year.

References
Syme, C., Welsh, K., Roberts, E., and Salisbury, S. 2016. Depositional environment of the Lower Cretaceous (upper Albian) Winton Formation at Isisford, central-western Queensland, inferred from sandstone concretions. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 86: 1067-1082. DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2016.67

Let's compare the sizes of these two dinosaurs: a hummingbird versus a Tyrannosaurus rex tooth. T. rex was only, oh, about 2 million times heavier than a hummingbird! Just look at the variation the vertebrate bauplan can achieve, just within theropoda! Brilliant!

​The powerful bite of a crocodile can cut through flesh and bone. Their teeth puncture, scratch, scrape and crush the skeletons of their prey. They leave behind tooth marks etched into bone, taphonomic traces which have been identified in the fossil record, and can tell us about the feeding behaviours and morphologies of ancient crocodylians. Or so we thought.

A new study by Drumheller et al. (2016) found that crocodile bite marks on bones do not seem to differ between crocodiles young and old, or male and female, or long-snouted and short-snouted. They collected bones bitten by 21 species of modern crocodylians and studied the types of bite marks left on bones surfaces – whether they were pits, punctures, scores, or furrows, and whether these marks were bisected (with extra notches or scoring from serrated teeth) or hooked (marks that changed direction). They compared the types and shapes of these bite marks to the snout shape, size, sex, age, feeding behaviour (the famous ‘death roll’), and captive or wild status of each individual crocodylian that created them. They found no significant difference between the shape of the bite marks and the individual who made them – even for crocodylians of different ages, with different snout shapes, or different feeding behaviours!

However, they did determine that bisected bite marks – those showing extra notches or scoring – were indicative of the teeth of crown Crocodylia. And as bisected bite marks have been found on fossil bones, the culprits can be successfully identified as a crocodylian (or perhaps a non-crocodylian crocodyliform – that is, animals not related to modern crocodylians, but instead an ancient offshoot of crocodyliforms that are now extinct). But not every individual crocodylian creates bisected bite-marks every time they feed, depending on whether their teeth are freshly erupted and sharply serrated, or old and worn down.
​
So, it seems you might be able to identify a crown Crocodylian as the culprit of a bone bite-mark, but cannot predict its age, sex, snout shape, or which method it chose to dispatch of its prey.  

References
​
Drumheller, Stephanie K., and Brochu, Chris A. 2016. Phylogenetic taphonomy: a statistical and phylogenetic approach for exploring taphonomic patterns in the fossil record using crocodylians. PALAIOS, 31: 463-478. [Paywalled]