ИСКОПАЕМЫЕ МЕДВЕДИ (CARNIVORA, URSIDAE) ИЗ МЕСТОНАХОЖДЕНИЯ КРАСНЫЙ ЯР (КРИВОШЕИНСКИЙ РАЙОН, ТОМСКАЯ ОБЛАСТЬ). 2. ПОСТКРАНИАЛЬНЫЕ ОСТАТКИ И ВОПРОСЫ ПАЛЕОЭКОЛОГИИ

• Main Authors: Шпанский, Андрей, Черноус, Алина
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: Федеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего профессионального образования "Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет" 2012
• Subjects: ИСКОПАЕМЫЕ МЕДВЕДИ; МОРФОЛОГИЯ; НЕОПЛЕЙСТОЦЕН; ПАЛЕОЭКОЛОГИЯ; КРАСНЫЙ ЯР; ТОМСКАЯ ОБЛАСТЬ; Yar; Ursus arctos; Siberia
• Online Access: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/iskopaemye-medvedi-carnivora-ursidae-iz-mestonahozhdeniya-krasnyy-yar-krivosheinskiy-rayon-tomskaya-oblast-2-postkranialnye-ostatki-i; http://cyberleninka.ru/article_covers/13998983.png

Приводятся результаты исследования костного материала по ископаемым медведям из местонахождения Красный Яр (Кривошеинский район, Томская область), включающего как краниальные (описаны в первой части работы), так и посткраниальные остатки. В результате изучения было выяснено, что остатки из Красного Яра принадлежат двум видам медведей малого пещерного (Ursus savini rossicus Borissiak) и бурого (Ursus arctos L.). Кости посткраниального скелета из-за трудностей в определении видовой принадлежности описаны и обмерены в совокупности с предположительным отнесением их к тому или другому виду. Приводятся сведения о стратиграфическом распространении медведей в Западной Сибири. Предложены некоторые аспекты палеоэкологии малого пещерного и бурого медведей в перигляциальных условиях. This paper presents the second part of bone material research on fossil bears from the locality of Krasny Yar (Krivosheinsky area, Tomsk region), including postcranial remains. The bones of postcranial skeleton are described and measured in assemblage, without reference to this or that species, because of the difficulties in definition of a specific belonging. The comparison of tubular bones with materials was made on a brown bear from Pamyatnaya cave (Kuznetsky Alatau) [Vasiliev, Grebnev, 2009] and Ursus savini rossicus from Ural [Kuzmina, 2002]. Besides the morphological analysis of bone material, the paper includes brief research history of the fossil bears on the territory of the West Siberian Plain. It is marked that the oldest cave and brown bear remains are from Tobolsk horizon, Middle Neopleistocene. By the end of Karginian time (Late Neopleistocene) the small cave bear disappears all over the territory of Western Siberia (the latest date is 31870±190 years) and in localities of Sartanian age its remains are already absent [Kosintsev, Vasiliev, 2009]. It is quite possible, that Ursus savini rossicus remains from Krasny Yar are one of the latest the age of the middle bone bed stratum with remains of mammuthus fauna representatives lies in the interval of 18505-25650 years [Shpansky, Chernous, 2012], covering the end of Karginian the beginning of Sartanian time. The joint finding of the remains of two species of bears in the same locality means their joint habitation in close conditions or periodic visiting of the same landscape sites (for example, watering places). The structure of teeth and limb bones of small cave bear means its habitation mainly in open landscapes, and brown bear in lowland sites. The assumption of possible feeding of brown and cave bears not only by vegetative food, but also by easily accessible corpses of the lost animals in the conditions of a longterm frozen ground is made. Besides, grassy food and food of animal origin was available all-year-round and could satisfy constant requirement for meal and reduce or even exclude hibernation of bears. In present time brown bear hibernation is connected with strategy of food searching and is a compulsory measure for overcoming the adverse (without food) period. In modern forest conditions (representing landscape refuges) with the thick snow cover carrying out thermal protection function, winter hibernation is good behavioural and physiological adaptation. The landscape-climate situation of Late Neopleistocene was absolutely the opposite: open landscapes with the poorest snow cover [Shpansky, 2003] were extremely improper for the arrangement of the dens.