Jawbone

[username]

How old was this deer?

 

[AlanP]

3.5

 

[username]

Alan, I'd be very shocked if this deer was only 3.5. Is there anything lacking by the photos? I can take more pics if you need something particular.

 

[easy45]

I would say 3.5 too

 

[megalomaniac]

I think there's enough wear on the 2nd molar to call it 4.5...

Why are you shocked when people thought 3.5? Was it from a really big doe?

 

[BigGameGuy]

It would go down in our data as a 3.5 but I wouldn't be surprised if that deer was actually 4.5.

 

[username]

I think there's enough wear on the 2nd molar to call it 4.5...

Why are you shocked when people thought 3.5? Was it from a really big doe?

No but it was chasin' one!

 

[AlanP]

Like I said before, I am usually more conservative. Some might say 4.5, but the dentine on the back two teeth are not as wide, or wider, than the enamel, so I'll stick with 3.5.

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

I'd say 3.5

 

[pass-thru]

4.5, based on the severe slant/cupping of the back cusp of m3. Gotta use the smaller clues to on jaws like that. It appears the teeth were broken when the jawbone was removed.

 

[username]

4.5, based on the severe slant/cupping of the back cusp of m3. Gotta use the smaller clues to on jaws like that. It appears the teeth were broken when the jawbone was removed.

They're not broken.

I'm going to post pics of the other side later.

 

[username]

Heres the left side views

 

[cuppedup50]

i'd go 3.5

 

[BSK]

It would go down in our data as a 3.5 but I wouldn't be surprised if that deer was actually 4.5.

I agree. Per the "rules" of aging toothwear, that's a classic 3 1/2 year-old on the right side. But there is wear on the 5th tooth (2nd molar).

However, the left side looks more 4 1/2. If shown only the left side I might say 4 1/2 first.

 

[BSK]

4.5, based on the severe slant/cupping of the back cusp of m3. Gotta use the smaller clues to on jaws like that. It appears the teeth were broken when the jawbone was removed.

I find the back cusp of the 3rd molar to be the most "iffy" aspect of toothwear aging. I see an awful lot of variation in that parameter per age-class. In essence, too wide of a range of wear patterns per age-class. Now that's not to say I don't use it; I just put very low "value" on that characteristic.

 

[username]

Thanks alot guys. Here is the dude it came out of.

I wouldnt have guessed him at 3 1/2 on the hoof as he looked fully mature, but it's possible.

 

[BigGameGuy]

Yep...2.5 for sure!

Great deer!

 

[CopperHead77]

Yep...2.5 for sure!

Great deer!

HA!


Super buck username! That things got some awesome brows!!

 

[CopperHead77]

Or is he missing his G1's,awww who cares,great buck regaurdless.

 

[username]

Thats his brows. They averaged 12"! I wish it were mine but thats actually my cousin. We were hunting together and tracked and found him. I tell you, that was one awesome experience to walk up on that thing. Those pictures dont even begin to do it justice. Especially the mass & beam length. Don't see many 8pts that almost hit 170, anywhere!

 

[CopperHead77]

That a Tn buck?

 

[strutandrut]

Wow!

 

[Mathews Hunter]

Very nice buck!

 

[username]

That a Tn buck?

Nope. Illinois

 

[pass-thru]

4.5, based on the severe slant/cupping of the back cusp of m3. Gotta use the smaller clues to on jaws like that. It appears the teeth were broken when the jawbone was removed.

I find the back cusp of the 3rd molar to be the most "iffy" aspect of toothwear aging. I see an awful lot of variation in that parameter per age-class. In essence, too wide of a range of wear patterns per age-class. Now that's not to say I don't use it; I just put very low "value" on that characteristic.

On a very small percentage of teeth, that back cusp is underformed, in which case it is not terribly helpful. That is rare. However, I personally believe it is one of the most helpful indicators. We already know that tooth wear method tends to underage deer, and this underaging tends to be more drastic as the deer grows older. There are diet and genentic variables. Given this tendancy to underage, I believe that as soon as you have one solid clue indicating the next age class, that you can then safely determine the deer to be at least as old as that next age class.

You say that there is a lot of variation in that back cusp. Excluding instances when it is undersized in proportion to the the rest of the jawbone (which I have only seen in a couple of jawbones, and in those cases it did not have a service capable of displaying any normal wear pattern), have you ever seen that tending to indicate that the deer was younger than the other wear patterns on the jawbone would tend to indicate? Because I have never seen such an instance, and I have seen a lot of jawbones. In fact, it seems to me that it is often the first clue to manifest indicating that a deer is the next age class. In those instances, I do not believe it presents a contradiction, rather a more accurate indication of the actual age of the deer.

What good does it do to constistantly underage deer when there is evidence available to suggest a more accurate age?

Awesome deer BTW!!

 

[BSK]

4.5, based on the severe slant/cupping of the back cusp of m3. Gotta use the smaller clues to on jaws like that. It appears the teeth were broken when the jawbone was removed.

I find the back cusp of the 3rd molar to be the most "iffy" aspect of toothwear aging. I see an awful lot of variation in that parameter per age-class. In essence, too wide of a range of wear patterns per age-class. Now that's not to say I don't use it; I just put very low "value" on that characteristic.

You say that there is a lot of variation in that back cusp. Excluding instances when it is undersized in proportion to the the rest of the jawbone (which I have only seen in a couple of jawbones, and in those cases it did not have a service capable of displaying any normal wear pattern), have you ever seen that tending to indicate that the deer was younger than the other wear patterns on the jawbone would tend to indicate?

Not anywhere near as often as wear indicating much older than other wear patterns indicate. But once an indicator has presented innaccurate information a high number of times, I tend to give it low value.

 

[pass-thru]

4.5, based on the severe slant/cupping of the back cusp of m3. Gotta use the smaller clues to on jaws like that. It appears the teeth were broken when the jawbone was removed.

I find the back cusp of the 3rd molar to be the most "iffy" aspect of toothwear aging. I see an awful lot of variation in that parameter per age-class. In essence, too wide of a range of wear patterns per age-class. Now that's not to say I don't use it; I just put very low "value" on that characteristic.

You say that there is a lot of variation in that back cusp. Excluding instances when it is undersized in proportion to the the rest of the jawbone (which I have only seen in a couple of jawbones, and in those cases it did not have a service capable of displaying any normal wear pattern), have you ever seen that tending to indicate that the deer was younger than the other wear patterns on the jawbone would tend to indicate?

Not anywhere near as often as wear indicating much older than other wear patterns indicate. But once an indicator has presented innaccurate information a high number of times, I tend to give it low value.

Please post an example of this if you have one.

 

[BSK]

Please post an example of this if you have one.

I'll look and see if I have one around.