Diagnostic Criteria for the Comparison of Human and American Black

Bear Skeletal Elements

Jackie L. Orcholl, McNair Scholar and
Dr. Jean Hudson
Introduction:
In the field, forensic anthropologists and archaeologists often encounter
unidentified skeletal remains. A trained eye is required for a scientist to be able to
identify all varieties of vertebrate animals by their bones and distinguish between
species of the same classes. Many species and sub-species of different families have
skeletal elements with a similar morphology. One of the most imposing problems that
these similarities can cause is in the identification of human-like remains. The skeletal
remains of several species of the family Ursidae (American black bear, brown bear and
Grizzly bear) resemble the remains of the human skeleton. Elements such as the femur
and the humerus are difficult to distinguish. It is important to have a concise guide to
follow in such instances as confusing the origins of such remains can have devastating
consequences like the improper disposal of human remains or the failure to detect
either poaching or murder.
Methodology:
This study is designed to create a guide to the diagnostic criteria involved in the
identification and differentiation of human and American black bear skeletal elements by
rendering illustrations of each of the elements that are most likely to be confused.
The illustrations for this study are based on two specimens. The human is represented
by an adult male, medical supply human skeleton, which is part of the comparative
collection of the zooarchaeology lab at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. The
bear is represented by a female American black bear from the collections of the Zoology
Museum of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The bear specimen number is 15239
and it is a wild, adult female specimen originally collected from Wisconsin in 1958.
The exact age at death for either specimen is unknown. Observations indicate that the
human male was of a senior adult age as all epiphyses are fused, osteoarthritis is
evident and the cranial sutures have begun to close. Epiphyseal lines are still slightly
visible on the skeletal elements of the bear.
For each element that I have drawn, there are different views to help with positive
identification in the event of fragmentation. Specific diagnostic criteria are highlighted in
the text when applicable. The drawings were originally done on Bienfang 8x8 to the
inch cross section graph paper on varying sized sheets with standard drawing pencils of
H and 2H hardness. They were then scanned into Adobe PageMaker for further use in
presentations.
An additional bear skeleton from the Field Museum in Chicago, Illinois has been used
for osteometric measurements to determine if they could be incorporated into the
illustrated diagnostic criteria for which an average bear and human may compare. This
specimen is number 44725 and it is listed as an adult male from North America that was
raised in a zoo.
Equipment for the measurements included digital calipers and a bone box. Osteometric
data were collected according to standard human measurements as described in Bass
(1995) to facilitate comparisons. These data were entered into Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet program to create standard tables to aid in the identification process.
Literature Review:
Creating a guide to the differential diagnostic criteria of human and American
black bear skeletal elements involves both art and science. Throughout the past 20
years, the sciences of archaeology and forensic anthropology have grown in both
expertise and number of persons involved. The literature written about these subjects,
including works on human osteology has also grown. In the works published in the art of
skeletal illustration, however, it holds that the classics are still the best.
Published in 1972, Elisabeth Schmid’s work Atlas of Animal Bones is one of the
most important comparative studies used in the identification of human and animal
skeletal anatomy to date. Schmid’s book includes side-by-side illustrations of 22
different animal species, including human. The drawings are well organized and with
each element represented, Schmid has compiled a list of diagnostic criteria. Schmid
also includes species-specific information and an excellent chapter on animal dentition,
horns and antlers.
Originally published just a year after Schmid, Mammalian Osteo-archaeology by
B. Miles Gilbert is an even more extensive and detailed compilation of non-human,
mammalian skeletal illustrations. Adding to the overall usefulness, each of Gilbert’s
illustrations is represented in a larger format than Schmid, with correlating metrics.
Gilbert has taken the important step of placing examples of similar species of the same
genus together. An example that is important to this study is the successive placement
of the grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis) and the American black bear (Ursus americanus).
He also includes distribution maps for each species illustrated. Distribution maps or
range maps are helpful to archaeologists and forensic anthropologists in determining a
list of taxa that would be present at the location of a case or site.
More recently, Glen Searfoss (1995) has published a book, which consists of a
significant number of line drawings for several different species of animals. Skulls and
Bones is limited to North American animals but also includes helpful insight into bone
collection, preparation and preservation. An important feature in Searfoss is a section
dedicated to the identification and illustration of animal skulls. The detailed text
differentiates between omnivore, herbivore and carnivore dentition. It also explains
jaws, nasal cavities and muscle attachments for each of the species of animal
represented.
In the area of human osteological identification, there is a plethora of high quality
research that has been published. Several individuals are considered expert in this field

2
and often collaborate when publishing. The works of William M. Bass have been
fundamental to this study. Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual (1995)
consists of line drawings for each skeletal element and diagnostic criteria for
differentiating between confusing components of the human skeleton. Also important to
this study is the chapter on differentiating between human and non-human bones as
well as the instructions on human osteometrics for each element that Bass has
included.
Tim D. White has published a second edition of Human Osteology (2000), which
is more expansive and detailed than the Bass book. However, White does not include
the osteometric guidelines. What White does contribute is a complete photographic
record of human specimens, with different views of each skeletal element and
differential and diagnostic criteria. White also details forensic anthropological
techniques of sexing a skeleton, estimating stature in an individual, and identifying
ancestry of skeletal remains. This information is important to both archaeologists and
forensic anthropologists when trying to identify an individual skeleton or collection of
human remains.
When it comes to the initial identification of skeletal remains as human or animal,
several forensic anthropology books have included chapters with helpful information.
Some of these books included Ubelaker (1992), Hunter (1996), Fairgrieve (1999) and
Goldberg (1982). Most of these works, however, call upon the long-standing expertise
of Douglas W. Owsley, currently of the Smithsonian Institution and T.D. Stewart, also of
the Smithsonian Institution.
Of particular interest to this study is a letter written by Owsley in November 1990,
to the editor of the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association detailing the
facts of a 1990 Rockville, Maryland case in which a partially skeletonized foot was
brought to the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution. The foot was
originally taken to three different podiatrists in the area (Owsley, 1990) and though they
had determined it was not human, further investigation was needed. Owsley determined
that it was the hind foot of an American black bear. He also goes on to describe the
most notable differences between human and bear feet, such as the proportionate
narrowness of the bear’s calcanei (heel bones) and the reversal of size in the
metatarsals in a bear’s hands and feet when compared to human’s (Owsley, 1990).
Owsley has contributed to the forensic and osteologic sciences in other books and
articles as well.
Another important article was written in 1959, and published in the FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin by Stewart. In the article, Stewart meticulously describes the
significant and less notable differences in the morphology, function and size of bear
hands and feet (paws) bones in comparison to human. Dr. Stewart advises, “Watch
your identification technique this year or your colleagues will be calling you ‘Barefoot’!”
and indicates that especially after bear-hunting season, “hands and feet without skin
and fingers or toes, but looking suspiciously human in shape, will turn up at a number of
police headquarters and laboratories,”(Stewart, 1959: 623).

3
 Stewart has contributed a multitude of scholarly articles and books. Twenty
years after the FBI article, Stewart published, “Essentials of Forensic Anthropology:
Especially” as developed in the United States. He includes a chapter on the “Human vs.
Animal Remains” question (Stewart, 1979). He also includes a detailed discussion on
the relevance of microscopic analysis and radiography when a bone is not identifiable
by other means. This is important in the event that morphological diagnostic criteria are
absent due to fragmentation.
Key Findings:
The Scapula
The bear scapula is rectangular with rounded edges (fig.1-2). Measurements of
maximum length and maximum breadth support that, with a more triangular shape, the
human scapula (139.1mm and 106.2mm) (fig.1-1) is smaller than the bear scapula
(162.8mm and 164.5mm). The length of the spine of the human scapula is also shorter
than the length of the spine of the bear scapula.
Figure 1: The human scapula (left) and the American black bear scapula (right)

Fig.1-1: anterior Fig.1-2: anterior

Table 1: Human scapula (Scapular Index = 76.3mm)

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 139mm 139.3mm 139mm 139.1mm

Length (A-B)

Maximum 106.4mm 106.1mm 106.1mm 106.2mm

Breadth (C-D)

Length of Spine 141.5mm 142mm 141mm 141.5mm

(D-E)

4
Table 2: American black bear scapula #15239 (Scapular Index = 101mm)

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 163mm 162.5mm 163mm 162.8mm

Length (A-B)

Maximum 164mm 165mm 164.5mm 164.5mm

Breadth (C-D)

Length of Spine 183.4mm 183mm 183.6mm 183.3mm

(D-E)

The Humerus
The head of the bear humerus (fig.2-5 and fig.2-6) differs from the head human
humerus (fig.2-2 and fig. 2-4) in that it is located on what would be the anterior surface
of the human humerus. The shaft of the bear humerus appears to have a 900 twist
counter-clockwise from its anterior surface as compared to the human humerus, which
has its head on the medial surface. The maximum length of the human humerus is
longer than the maximum length of the bear humerus, 317mm compared to 248.2mm.
The Radiohumeral Index, which expresses the relative length of the forearm to the
upper arm shows that the human humerus is longer relative to the lower portion of the
arm, where as the bear humerus is relatively similar in length to the elements of the
lower arm. The Robusticity Index refers to the circumference size of the bone shaft and
shows that though the bear humerus is shorter, it is thicker or more robust. The human
humerus is significantly slimmer. The deltoid tuberosity of the bear humerus is in a more
proximal position to the head than it is on the human humerus. The shapes of the
proximal and distal ends of each humerus are very similar. The bear humerus (fig.2-5),
however, has a much larger and deeper olecranon fossa above the trochlea and
capitulum of the anterior surface than the human humerus (fig.2-1). The proximal end of
the bear humerus also has a less distinct neck before the lesser tubercle and greater
lipping at the inferior edge of the head.
Overall, the bear humerus is shorter and more robust than the human humerus, with an
inward twist in the shaft that would suggest the animal’s front feet angle inward to wards
each other.

5
Table 3: Human humerus (Robusticity Index = 20mm)

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 317mm 316.8mm 317mm 316.9mm

Length (A-B)

Maximum 48.2mm 48.6mm 47.8mm 48.2mm

Diameter of
Head (C-D)

Maximum 21.5mm 21.7mm 21.6mm 21.6mm

Diameter Mid-
shaft (M-N)

18.8mm 18.2mm 18.5mm 18.5mm

Minimum
Diameter Mid-
shaft (S-T)

Table 4: American black bear humerus #15239 (Robusticity Index = 37.5mm)

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 248mm 248.2mm 248.6mm 248.2mm

Length (A-B)

Maximum 45.6mm 46.6mm 44.7mm 45.6mm

Diameter of
Head (C-D)

Maximum 28.1mm 28.2mm 28.1mm 28.1mm

Diameter Mid-
shaft (M-N)

Minimum 26.6mm 26.5mm 26.5mm 26.5mm

Diameter Mid-
shaft (S-T)

Least 93mm 93mm 93mm 93mm

Circumference
(Z)

6
Figure 2: The human humerus (top) and the American black bear humerus
(bottom)

Fig.2-1: dist/ant Fig. 2-2: prox/ant Fig.2-3: dist/post Fig.2-4: prox/post

Fig.2-5: anterior Fig.2-6: posterior Fig.2-7: proximal and distal

(Left: human, Right: bear)
The Radius
The bear radius is shorter and more robust than the human radius. Maximum
length of the bear radius is 222.2mm and the maximum length of human radius is
245.9mm. The position of the radial tuberosity on the bear humerus is on the anterior
surface of the shaft as opposed to the posterior positioning on the human radius. The
head of the human radius is circular while the head of the bear radius is oblong and
irregular. The distal end of the bear radius has a more prominent, sharply angled

7
styloid process than that of the human radius. However, the interosseous crest of the
human radius is more pronounced than the interosseous crest of the bear radius.
Table 5: Human radius (Radiohumeral Index = 77.5mm)

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 246mm 245.8mm 246.1mm 245.9mm

Length (A-B)

Table 6: American black bear radius #15239 (Radiohumeral Index = 89.5mm)

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 222mm 222.3mm 222.3mm 222.2mm

Length (A-B)

The Ulna
The ulna of the human is longer than the ulna of the bear in maximum length,
237.5mm compared to 216.9mm. The bear ulna is more robust in the circumference of
the shaft and in the relative sizes of the distal and proximal ends. The articular surface,
the semi-lunar notch of the human ulna is significantly wider and has a straight, smooth
surface when compared to the semi-lunar notch of the bear ulna. The bear ulna,
however, has a larger radial grove for the articulation of the radius. As with the radius,
the interosseous crest of the human ulna is more pronounced than the interosseous
crest of the bear ulna.
Table 7: Human ulna

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 238mm 236.9mm 237.6mm 237.5mm

Length (A-B)

Physiological 262.2mm 262.1mm 262mm 262.1mm

Length (C-D)

Table 8: American black bear ulna #15239

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 217mm 216.8mm 217mm 216.9mm

Length (A-B)

Physiological 260mm 261mm 260.8mm 260.6mm

Length (C-D)

8
The Carpals
A bone in the proximal row of the bear fore paw, what is two separate bones in
the human hand are fused to form the naviculo-lunar. Also, the pisiform of the bear fore
paw is approximately three times as large as the human pisiform (Stewart, 1959).
The Metacarpals
When articulated, the first metacarpal in the bear fore paw, which would be
known as the thumb of a man, is not separated from the rest and does not have the
same range of motion (Stewart, 1959). The size of the bear metacarpals increases from
medial to lateral and the human metacarpals increase from lateral to medial, except the
thumb. The same can be said for the phalanges along with a more deeply grooved
distal end in the bear. The bear fore paw contains pairs of small sesimoid bones at the
distal ends of the metacarpals (Stewart, 1959). While human hands are known to
contain sesimoid bones on occasion, in is not common nor does it occur in the amount
per person as it does in the bear. The metacarpals of the bear fore paw also have a
more bulbous distal end with a raised ridge in the center, than that of the human
metacarpals. The longest finger in the bear is IV, while the longest finger in the human
is III (Stewart, 1959).
Figure 2: The human finger (III) (Fig.2-1) and the American black bear finger
(comparable)(Fig.2-2)

Fig.2-1: anterior Fig.2-2: anterior

9
The Sacrum
The human sacrum (fig.5-1 and fig.5-2) is longer than the bear sacrum (fig.5-3
and fig.5-4) in height and breadth. The Sacral Index (maximum anterior breadth x 100 /
maximum anterior height) of the human sacrum is 89.65mm, while the Sacral Index of
the bear sacrum is only 59.9mm. The human sacrum normally consists of five fused
vertebrae with four sets of sacral foramen and the bear sacrum has four fused vertebrae
with three sets of sacral foramen. Also, the wings or ali of the bear sacrum are more
pronounced due to the relatively gracile appearance of the entire element.
Table 9: Human sacrum (Sacral Index = 89.65mm)

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 116.9mm 117.7mm 116.4mm 117mm

Anterior Height
(A-B)

Maximum 105.8mm 105.2mm 103.7mm 104.9mm

Anterior
Breadth (C-D)

Table 10: American black bear sacrum #15239 (Sacral Index = 59.9mm)

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 105.4mm 106.5mm 105.1mm 105.6mm

Anterior Height
(A-B)

Maximum 63.6mm 64.4mm 61.9mm 63.3mm

Anterior
Breadth (C-D)

10
Figure 5: The human sacrum (5-1, 5-2 and top) and the American black bear
sacrum (5-3, 5-4 and bottom)

Fig.5-1: posterior Fig.5-2: anterior Fig.5-3: posterior Fig.5-4: anterior

Fig.5-6: proximal
The Femur
The maximum length of the human femur (409.6mm) is significantly longer than
the maximum length of the bear femur (290.5mm). The bear femur, however, is
significantly more robust. The head of the bear femur is less ball-like and has more of a
lip at the inferior edge than the head of the human femur. The greater and lesser
trochanters of the human femur are more prominent than those of the bear femur. Also,
the proximal and distal ends of the human femur are larger with the distal end being
wider with more articular surface area. Yet, the articular surface for the patella of the
bear femur is deeper and longer than the articular surface for the patella of the human
femur.

11
Table 11: Human femur (Platymetric Index = 81.8mm)
Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 410mm 409mm 409.8mm 409.6mm

Length (A-B)

Maximum 43.8mm 43.7mm 43.6mm 43.7mm

Diameter of
Head (E-F)

Mediolateral 26.1mm 25.9mm 25.9mm 25.9mm

Diameter (M-N)

Anterior- 25.2mm 25.6mm 25.7mm 25.5mm

posterior
Diameter (S-T)

Subtrochanteric 29.2mm 29.3mm 29.3mm 29.2mm

Mediolateral
Diameter (W-X)

Subtrochanteric 23.6mm 24.1mm 24.0mm 23.9mm

Anterior-
posterior
Diameter (Y-Z)

Table 12: American black bear femur #15239

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum Length 290mm 291mm 290.5mm 290.5mm

Maximum 34.8mm 34.2mm 34.0mm 34.3mm

Diameter of Head
(E-F)

Mediolateral 26.3mm 26.4mm 26.3mm 26.3mm

Diameter (M-N)

Anterior-posterior 21.8mm 21.9mm 21.8mm 21.8mm

Diameter (S-T)

Subtrochanteric 31.3mm 33.4mm 33.5mm 32.7mm

Mediolateral
Diameter (W-X)

Subtrochanteric 22.3mm 22.5mm 23.1mm 22.6mm

Anterior-posterior
Diameter (Y-Z)

12
The Tibia
The circumferences of the shafts of the bear and human tibia are comparable.
The human tibia (359.6mm) is, however, significantly longer than the bear tibia
(230mm). The human tibia also has a more defined anterior crest and popliteal line.
The medial malleolus of the human tibia is larger than that of the bear.
Table 13: Human tibia

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 359.9mm 359mm 360mm 359.6mm

Length (A-B)

Mediolateral 20.4mm 20.3mm 20.5mm 20.4mm

Diameter (M-N)

Anterior- 29.8mm 30.0mm 30.1mm 29.9mm

posterior
Diameter (S-T)

Table 14: American black bear tibia #15239

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 230mm 230.2mm 230mm 230mm

Length (A-B)

Mediolateral 20.0mm 20.4mm 20.1mm 20.1mm

Diameter (M-N)

Anterior- 26.8mm 26.9mm 26.6mm 26.7mm

posterior
Diameter (S-T)

Figure 6: The human femur and the American black bear femur (Fig.6-3)

13
 Fig.6-1: proximal/posterior Fig.6-2: distal/posterior

Fig.6-3: posterior
The Fibula
The bear fibula is gracile compared to the human fibula. The human fibula is
more robust and longer (359.8mm) than the bear fibula (209.9mm). The distal and
proximal ends of the human fibula are more prominent and defined, with large articular
surfaces. The bear fibula, in contrast, has distal and proximal ends that are not much
greater in size than the rest of the bone.

14
Table 15: Human fibula

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 360mm 360mm 359.5mm 359.8mm

Length (M-N)

Table 16: American black bear fibula #15239

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 210mm 209.9mm 209.8mm 209.9mm

Length (M-N)

The Patella
The human patella is significantly larger and more triangular than the bear
patella. Almost the entire anterior of the bear patella is articular surface, while the
anterior of the human patella has a distinct distal process.
Figure 9: The human patella (left column) and the American black bear patella (right
column); posterior, anterior, medial and late

15
The Tarsals
The foot, in general, of the human is larger than the foot of the bear. The talus
of the human and the astragalus of the bear have the same position with little difference
in size. The calcaneus of the bear foot is significantly slimmer than the calcaneus of the
human foot. The bear calcaneus also has a laterally flared extension near the distal
end (Stewart, 1959).

Figure 10:The human calcaneus(10-1) and the American black bear calcaneus
(Fig.10-2)

Fig.10-1: Fig. 10-2:

The Metatarsals
The metatarsals of the bear foot and the human foot are similar to the
metacarpals of the fore paw and hand. The longest metatarsal of the bear foot is IV and
the longest metatarsal of the human foot is II (Stewart, 1959). The metatarsals of the
bear foot also have the sesamoid bone pairs similar to those of the metacarpals. The
human foot does not develop these bones with any frequency (Stewart, 1959). The
metatarsals of the bear foot increase in size from medial to lateral, while the metatarsals
of the human foot increase in size from lateral to medial.
Discussion:
When trying to identify skeletal elements as human or American black bear, it is
important to remember the primary locomotory patterns of each animal. Although the
bear is able to walk on its hind legs, in an upright, “human” position, its primary position
is on all four feet. This is represented in the morphology of many of the skeletal
elements.
When dealing with long or limb bones, it is best to remember that bear elements
are more robust in the shaft, but tend to have smaller distal and proximal ends and
articular surfaces. This is because the weight of a bear would be evenly distributed
over all of the long bones, allowing for less pressure on the joint surfaces than in the
upright human form. Also, when presented with a humerus or femur, examine the

16
proximal articular surfaces. The orientation and sizes of these aspects of each element
should assist in identification.
Primary locomotory practice is especially important when looking at the
elements of the hands and feet. Bears are not built for the upright posture they often
engage in; therefore, the elements of the feet, such as the calcaneus and the astragalus
(talus) are significantly smaller than that of an adult human. Humans spend most of
their lives on their feet, bearing the entire weight of the body on a small surface area
and it shows in the robusticity of those skeletal elements. The skeletal elements of both
human and bear hands are less distinguishable by size. However, if articulated, the
bear metacarpals increase in size from II-V rather than decrease, as do the human
metacarpals. The presence of many sesimoid bones in the bear will also be helpful in
identification.

Field Museum
American black bear
Adult Male
#44725
Humerus

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 270mm 270mm 270mm 270mm

Length (A-B)

Maximum 40.3mm 40.8mm 39.9mm 40.3mm

Diameter of
Head (C-D)

Maximum 29.4mm 28.6mm 28.6mm 28.8mm

Diameter of
Mid-shaft (M-N)

Minimum 27mm 26.9mm 26.8mm 26.9mm

Diameter of
Mid-shaft (S-T)

Ulna

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 233mm 233.2mm 233mm 233mm

Length (A-B)

Physiological 281mm 281mm 281mm 281mm

Length (C-D)

17
Femur

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 322mm 322mm 322mm 322mm

Length (A-B)

Maximum
Diameter of
Head (E-F)

Mediolateral 27.1mm 27.2mm 27mm 27.1mm

Diameter (M-N)

Anterior- 22.1mm 22mm 22.1mm 22mm

posterior
Diameter (S-T)

Subtrochanteric 34.9mm 35.3mm 35.2mm 35.1mm

Mediolateral
Diameter (W-X)

Subtrochanteric 22.8mm 22.7mm 22.9mm 22.8mm

Anterior-
posterior
Diameter (Y-Z)

Tibia

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 245mm 245mm 245mm 245mm

Length (A-B)

Mediolateral 27.7mm 27.8mm 27.7mm 27.7mm

Diameter (M-N)

Anterior- 20mm 20.2mm 20.3mm 20.1mm

posterior
Diameter (S-T)

Fibula

Procedure 1 2 3 Average

Maximum 223mm 223mm 223mm 223mm

Length

18
 References:
Bass. W.
1971 Human Osetology. Missouri Archaeology Society, Columbia.
Fairgrieve, S.
1999 Forensic Osetology. 1st ed. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield.
Gilbert, B. M.
1993 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeology Society, Columbia.
Owsley, D.W.
1990 Medicolegal Case Involving A Bear Paw. Journal of American Podiatric
Association vol. 80 (Number 11): pp326-625.
Schwartz, J. H.
1995 Skeleton Keys: An Introduction to Human Skeletal Morphology,
Development and Analysis. 1st ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
Schmid, E.
1972 Atlas of Animal Bones. American Elsevier Publishing Company, New
York.
Searfoss, G.
1995 Skulls and Bones: A Guide to Skeletal Structures and Behaviors of
North American Animals. 1st ed. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg.
Stewart, T. D.
1959 Bear Paw Remains Closely Resemble Human Bones. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin v.28(November 1959): pp18-22.
Stewart, T. D.
1979 Essentials of Forensic Anthropology: Especially as Developed in the
United States. Bannerstone House, Springfield.
Ubelaker, D.
1991 Bones: A Forensic Detectives Case Book. 1st ed. Haper Collins, New
York.
White, T.D.
2000 Human Osteology. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego.

19