Journal of the Geological Society of India

, Volume 91, Issue 3, pp 295–300 | Cite as

An Improvized Core-Drilling Technique and a New Device for Osteohistology of Fossil Bones: Implementation on a Jurassic Sauropod Dinosaur from India

  • Debarati Mukherjee
Research Articles


An improvized version of the conventional core drilling technique, based on a new device is introduced in the current work for extracting cores from fossil bones to understand their microanatomy. A powerful, low-speed electric drill with an autolubrication facility is used as the new device, and the bone specimen is placed on a permanently fixed platform beneath the drill bit. It avoids the vibration-induced wobbling of the conventional handheld drill machine and helps in precision sampling. Long drill bits of the new device result in extraction of long cores, reduce premature breakages of cores, and recovery of the entire bone microstructure for high resolution deduction of palaeobiological information. As this version of drilling technique is less destructive, it has better sampling coverage, where fossil bones can be restored to their original shapes and preserved with almost no loss in gross morphology. This is first time such a device for extraction of fossil drill cores has been installed. After test run on dummy samples, the new device has been successfully implemented for extraction of eleven cores from various long bones of the early Jurassic sauropod dinosaur Barapasaurus tagorei. The fossil bones are restored to their pre-coring shapes, the detail protocols of which are discussed here for the first time.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bandyopadhyay, S., Gillette, D.D., Ray, S. and Sengupta, D.P. (2010) Osteology of Barapasaurus tagorei (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Early Jurassic of India. Palaeontology, v.53, pp.533–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botha-Brink, J. and Smith, R.M.H. (2011) Osteohistology of the Triassic archosauromorphs Prolacerta, Proterosuchus, Euparkeria, and Erythrosuchus from the Karoo basin of South Africa. Jour. Vertebr. Paleontol., v.31, pp.1238–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chinsamy, A. and Raath, M.A. (1992) Preparation of fossil bone for histological study. Palaeontol. Afri., v.29, pp.39–44.Google Scholar
  4. Chinsamy, A., Cerda, I. and Powell, J. (2016) Vascularised endosteal bone tissue in armoured sauropod dinosaurs. Sci. Rep., v.6, 24858. doi: 10.1038/srep.4858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chinsamy-Turan, A. (2005) The microstructure of dinosaur bone: deciphering biology with fine-scale techniques. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp.1–195.Google Scholar
  6. de Ricqlès, A., Padian, K. and Horner, J.R. (2000) Palaeohistology of the bones of pterosaurs (Reptilia: Archosauria): anatomy, ontogeny and biomechanical implications. Zool. Jour. Linn. Soc.–Lond., v.129, pp.349–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Ricqlès A., Padian, K., Knoll, F. and Horner, J.R. (2008) On the origin of high growth rates in archosaurs and their ancient relatives: complementary histological studies on Triassic archosauriforms and the problem of a ‘phylogenetic signal’ in bone histology. Ann. Paléontol., v.94, pp.57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Enlow, D.H. (1969) The bones of reptiles in Gans, C., Ed., Biology of the Reptilia 1, Academic Press, New York, pp. 45–80.Google Scholar
  9. Francillon-Vieillot, H., de Buffrénil, V., Castanet, J., Gerandie, J., Meunier, F.J., Sire, J.Y., Zylberberg, L.L. and de Ricqlès, A. (1990) Microstructure and mineralization of vertebrate skeletal tissues in Carter, J.G., Ed., Skeletal biomineralization: patterns, process and evolutionary trends 1, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 471–530.Google Scholar
  10. Jain, S.L. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (1997) New titanosaurid (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of central India. Jour. Vertebr. Paleontol., v.17, pp.114–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jain, S.L., Robinson, P.L. and Roychowdhury, T.K. (1962) A new vertebrate fauna from the Early Jurassic of Deccan, India. Nature, v.194, pp.755–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jain, S.L., Kutty, T.S., Roychowdhury, T.K. and Chatterjee, S. (1975) The sauropod dinosaur from the Lower Jurassic Kota Formation of India. Proc. R. Soc. London, v.188A, pp.221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mukherjee, D. (2015) New insights from bone microanatomy of the Late Triassic Hyperodapedon (Archosauromorpha, Rhynchosauria): implications for archosauromorphs growth strategy. Palaeontology, v.58, pp.313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mukherjee, D., Ray, S. and Sengupta, D.P. (2010) Preliminary observations on the bone microstructure, growth patterns, and life habits of some Triassic temnospondyls from India. Jour. Vertebr. Paleontol., v.30, pp.78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pauliv, V.E., Dias, E.V., Sedor, F.A. and Ribeiro, A.M. (2014) A new Xenacanthiformes shark (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) from the Late Paleozoic Rio do Rasto Formation (Paraná Basin), Southern Brazil. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc., v.86, pp.135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ray, S. and Chinsamy, A. (2004) Diictodon feliceps (Therapsida, Dicynodontia): bone histology, growth and biomechanics. Jour. Vertebr. Paleontol., v.24, pp.180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ray, S., Botha, J. and Chinsamy, A. (2004) Bone histology and growth patterns of some non-mammalian therapsids. Jour. Vertebr. Palaeontol., v.24, pp.634–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ray, S., Bandyopadhyay, S. and Bhawal, D. (2009a) Growth patterns as deduced from bone microstructure of some selected neotherapsids with special emphasis on dicynodonts: phylogenetic implications. Palaeoworld, v.18, pp.53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ray, S., Mukherjee, D. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (2009b) Growth patterns of fossil vertebrates as deduced from bone microstructure: case studies from India. Jour. Biosci., v.34, pp.661–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sahni, A. (2003) Indian dinosaurs revisited. Curr. Sci., v.85, pp.904–910.Google Scholar
  21. Sanchez, S., Germain, D., Ricqlès, A., de Abourachid, A., Goussard, F. and Tafforeau, P. (2010) Limb-bone histology of temnospondyls: implications for understanding the diversification of palaeoecologies and patterns of locomotion of Permo-Triassic tetrapods. Jour. Evolution. Biol., v.23, pp.2076–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sander, P.M. (2000) Long bone histology of the Tendaguru sauropods: Implications for growth and biology. Paleobiology, v.26, pp.466–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sander, P.M., Mateus, O., Laven, T. and Knötschke, N. (2006) Bone histology indicates insular dwarfism in a new Late Jurassic sauropod dinosaur. Nature, v.441, pp.739–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stein, K. and Sander, P.M. (2009) Histological core drilling: a less destructive method for studying bone histology in Brown, M.A., Kane, J.F. and Parker, W.G., Eds., Methods In Fossil Preparation: Proceedings of the first Annual Fossil Preparation and Collections Symposium, pp.69–80.Google Scholar
  25. Wells, N.A. (1989) Making thin sections in Feldmann, R.M., Chapman, R.E. and Hannibal, J.T., Eds., Paleotechniques, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, pp. 120–129.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geological Society of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological Studies UnitIndian Statistical InstituteKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations