mammal gaits – Linda J. Spielman

Zig-Zags

In past posts I’ve used the term zig-zag to describe certain track patterns. In this article I’d like to delve more deeply into how zig-zags arise and what they can tell us about the animals that make them. When we humans walk in a relaxed, natural manner we place our feet in a zig-zag pattern because each foot falls to its own side of the line made by our moving center of gravity, the center line of the trail. It’s easy to verify this: Just walk naturally in snow or mud or on a dry surface with wet feet and then look at your tracks. The same logic applies to birds, so we often see patterns like the one in the next photo, made by a turkey walking from left to right. Each print angles inward, which helps to distinguish right from left. The sequence, starting at the left, is right, left, right, left, right.

Two legged zig-zags are pretty straightforward, but four-footed animals also create zig-zags, and it’s not as easy to understand how a four-footed animal can do that. Watching animals helps, but it’s hard to follow foot placement when animals are moving in real time. Fortunately for us twenty-first century trackers, there’s a tool that can bridge the gap–the internet. So let’s take a look at a video of a horse. If you click on this link: Bing Videos, then click on horses walking youtube and start the video, you’ll see a horse walking in slow motion. Notice that as each front foot leaves the ground the rear foot on the same side comes down in the spot just vacated by the front foot. The video doesn’t show the pattern on the ground, but it’s easy to see how the horse leaves a series of double impressions, each one a front track overlaid by a rear track. And since the feet on each side fall to their own side of the center line, the overall pattern is a zig-zag. The trail in the next photo, made by a deer walking from bottom to top, is a good example of a zig-zag made by a four-footed animal.

But all zig-zags aren’t the same. The physical characteristics of animals vary, and this affects the kinds of patterns they leave when they walk. There are also different types of walks, with differing relative placement of the front and rear tracks. In the photo above the walk is an almost perfect direct register gait, meaning that the rear feet fell almost exactly on top of the corresponding front tracks. The next photo shows tracks made by a woodchuck walking from lower left to upper right (and just below the second impression, tracks of a squirrel bounding toward the bottom). The trail is more variable but the tracks are mostly in indirect register, meaning that the rear tracks fell partly but not completely on top of the corresponding front tracks. Starting at the lower left the track sequence for the woodchuck is: right rear on right front, left rear on left front, right rear, right front, left rear on left front. Even in this more irregular trail the zig-zag is apparent.

The width of the zig-zag, known among trackers as trail width, varies from one species of animal to another. To measure trail width, find a relatively straight part of the trail and imagine or draw out two parallel straight lines that just touch the outsides of the alternate sets of tracks. Then measure the perpendicular distance between the lines. This is diagrammed in the next photo of the indirect register track pattern made by a walking opossum heading toward the upper right.

In the next photo you see a trail made by a gray fox walking from right to left. The trail has a different look from the opossum and woodchuck trails, both because of its narrower width and also because the fox’s step lengths are longer. But the zig-zag is still apparent. Trail widths, combined with step length, can be helpful in identification, since chunky animals like woodchucks and possums make wider trails and take shorter steps than slimmer, longer-legged animals do. And trail widths are especially important when you’re considering animals with similar step lengths. For example, trail widths for a walking coyote are generally between 4 and 5 inches while trail widths for deer moving at a walk range from 5 to 10 inches. Even when the tracks are degraded or obscured by collapsing snow it’s usually possible to differentiate between a coyote trail and a deer trail.

Animals find it harder to move in deep snow, but when they’re walking their trails still show the zig-zag pattern. In the photo below a red fox walked from bottom to top leaving a zig-zag arrangement of deep holes in the snow.

All of the gaits discussed above (and the one the horse was doing in the video) fit into what I call the regular walk–also called the diagonal walk in the tracking literature. But that’s not the only kind of walk animals can do. A common variant is the overstep walk. To see a dog doing the overstep walk click on this link: Bing Videos and then click on dog gaits youtube and start the video. The recording shows a dog walking at actual speed followed by the same sequence in slow motion. If you keep your eye on the spot just vacated by a front foot you’ll see the corresponding rear foot come down a little past it. (This video also does a nice job with the amble, equivalent to the pace-walk of the raccoon, and the trot.)

The interesting thing about the overstep walk is that the pattern of tracks on the ground also makes a zig-zag, but the points of the zig-zag consist of sets of two prints, front and rear from the same side, rather than the impressions of two superimposed tracks. In the next photo you see an overstep pattern made by a house cat moving from lower right to upper left. Because a cat’s front tracks are wider and shorter than the rear ones we can see that in each set the front track is behind the rear. The sequence, starting at the lower right, is: right front, right rear, left front, left rear, right front, right rear. Among animals that are habitual walkers, overstep walks are common.

Another variation you’ll come across is the understep walk. The next photo shows the trail of an opossum doing an understep walk, heading from the lower left to the upper right. Again, the prints are arranged in sets of two, each set the front and rear from the same side. In each pair the hand-like hind track, with its thumb pointing inward, lies behind the front track with its more evenly spread toes.

We sometimes find zig-zag walking patterns in the trails of animals that aren’t habitual walkers. Fishers move mostly in bounds or lopes, but they walk when extra caution is needed or when the footing isn’t secure. The trail in the photo below was made by a fisher walking, mostly in direct register, from lower right to upper left.

Walking trails are less common for minks than for fishers, and for minks it seems to be mostly about the animal’s dislike of unstable surfaces. In the next photo a mink walked from right to left through mud (looking pretty dry in the photo but probably much wetter and slipperier when the tracks were made), leaving sets of paired tracks. But which walk is this, overstep or understep? We can tell because the middle toe in the mink’s hind print usually angles a little to the outside. So the sequence, starting at the right, is: left rear, left front, right rear, right front, left rear, left front, right rear, right front, and this is an understep walk.

White-footed mice are even less likely to walk than minks, but the next image attests to the fact that they do it on rare occasions. A white-footed mouse walked from bottom to top, leaving sets of paired tracks. The four-toed front prints lie behind the five-toed rear prints in each set, so the mouse was doing an overstep walk. The trail both before and after the walking part was on drier footing with normal mouse bounding patterns, so it was the wet mud that made the mouse shift to a walk.

Many animals get around mostly at a walk, and zig-zags abound in the tracking world. The details of the patterns can tell us a lot about the nature of the track maker. But the sight of a zig-zag for an animal whose default gait is not the walk is an even more compelling call to investigate. In addition to their help in species identification, zig-zags can tell us how animals interact with each other and with their surroundings. In this post we’ve only made a start. There are other kinds of zig-zags, and even patterns that look like zig-zags but aren’t. I’ll keep these topics for a future article. In the meantime, follow the zig-zags wherever they lead.

A Family Resemblance

Rodents are the most common mammals on earth, in both number of individuals and number of species. They are also the most diverse, with lifestyles that range from semiaquatic through fossorial (adapted for digging and living mostly underground), terrestrial, arboreal, and even semi-aerial (gliding flight). But don’t let that mind-boggling profusion intimidate you. In our region many of the most common rodents are members of the squirrel family, a group that is remarkably uniform in physical features. Fortunately for the tracker this uniformity extends to track details and track patterns, and familiarity with the key features will aid in the recognition of any member of the group.

In the photo below you see tracks made by a gray squirrel bounding toward the top of the photo. The five-toed rear tracks lie in the upper part of the image, and the four-toed front tracks can be seen in the lower part. Claw marks show as tiny pricks ahead of the toes of both front and rear tracks. Notice that the toe pads of the three middle toes of each hind print are lined up close together, while the inner and outer toes lie farther back and angle to the sides. Behind the toes you can see a C-shaped grouping of middle pads. The front tracks have only four toes, but again the central two point more forward while the outer and inner ones point to the sides. C-shaped arrays of middle pads sit behind the toes of the front prints, and heel pads (there are two on each foot, but it’s hard to tell in this image) are situated behind the middle pads.

Bounding is the most common gait for most members of the squirrel family, and the resulting pattern is another recognizable trait of the group. In the photo above the two rear prints are almost even with each other and are set wider and well ahead of the front ones, which are also nearly even with each other. This positioning may seem odd, but there’s a logical explanation. At each bound the animal lands on its front feet and draws its rear feet forward so they pass outside of its front legs. As the front feet lift off the rear feet touch down–ahead of the spots the front feet just left–and propel the next leap.

The next photo shows a bounding pattern made by a red squirrel, again travelling from bottom to top. There’s a striking similarity to the first image of the gray squirrel tracks, in both overall arrangement and track details. Because the substrate was softer the rear feet of the red squirrel (in the upper part of the frame) sank in deeper–notice that the whole length of each of the three middle toes registered as a narrow groove. Nevertheless the three toes are closer together and oriented more forward than the outer toes, just as they were in the gray squirrel tracks. In the front tracks of the red squirrel (in the lower part of the photo below) the claws show as grooves rather than pricks, but the overall structure is similar to the front tracks in the preceding shot. If you look at the red squirrel’s right front print (at the lower right in the photo below) you can see clear impressions of the two heel pads.

The chipmunk tracks in the next photo (again bounding toward the top) are consistent with the features we saw in the red and gray squirrel prints. In the right rear print (in the upper right quadrant) you can see that the middle toes are closely grouped and the inner and outer toes are angled to the sides. The left front track (in the lower section a little below and to the left of the right front track) shows the four clawed toes, the C-shaped grouping of middle pads, and the two heel pads.

Mud is great, but winter is also fine for seeing squirrel family connections. In the photo below of red squirrel tracks in snow (bounding toward the top, of course) you see the same characteristic features you saw in the mud tracks. As sometimes happens, the heel area of the right rear foot (at the upper right of the photo) registered as a flattened area behind the middle pads. (If you look back at the first photo of the gray squirrel prints you’ll notice that the heel area of the left rear foot also made a slight impression.) There’s a variation in the arrangement of the front tracks, with the right front well behind but the left front farther forward. This kind of foot placement is often seen in squirrels, but is less common than the more four-square pattern.

Flying squirrels possess gliding membranes (the patagium) which extend between the front and rear legs, and because of this the rear feet can’t pass as far ahead of the front feet as they do in red or gray squirrels. In the next photo you see a bounding pattern made by a southern flying squirrel (oriented toward the top) in which the front prints are situated between rather than behind the rear prints. In northern flying squirrel trails the front prints often lie ahead of the rear ones. Another special flying squirrel trait is the thick covering of fur on the undersides of the feet. Because of this flying squirrel prints rarely show the crisp detail found in the tracks of other members of the squirrel family. But even with these differences, flying squirrel tracks will remind you of the tracks of other squirrels.

In the next image you see a bounding pattern made by a woodchuck. If you didn’t realize that woodchucks belong to the squirrel family, the familiar features of their tracks should make that clear. Woodchucks are more likely to walk than bound, and when a woodchuck does bound it usually places its front feet in a staggered pattern rather than even with each other, as in the photo. Nevertheless, the overall arrangement and the track details are consistent with those of its relatives.

To complete the picture for small rodents in the Northeast we need to add a few creatures that don’t strictly belong in the squirrel family but leave distinctly squirrel-like prints. These include white-footed mice, meadow voles, and their allies. I include mouse and vole allies because each one represents a group of closely related species which are difficult to distinguish from tracks alone.

First, let’s look at tracks of the white-footed mouse, shown below in a bounding pattern heading toward the upper right. In spite of its smaller size, the animal made tracks that are uncannily similar to the tracks in the first three photos. If I didn’t tell you that an individual rear print is just half an inch across you’d be hard pressed to tell these tracks from squirrel tracks.

Vole tracks also show striking similarities to the tracks we’ve already discussed–but with a few important differences. In the next photo you see tracks made by a meadow vole bounding from bottom to top. The track sequence, starting at the bottom, is: right rear, right front, left rear, left front. This staggered arrangement is common in vole trails and differs from the more consistent four-square bounding patterns usually seen in white-footed mice and tree squirrels. Voles can leave more regular bounding patterns, but they often move at something between a bound and a lope and their track patterns tend to be more variable. The toe impressions in vole tracks also tend to be more finger-like than the toes of mice. In spite of these differences the tracks of voles will remind you of mouse and squirrel tracks.

This is all well and good, you may say, but if these creatures are so similar to each other, how can I tell them apart? I’ve mentioned a few variations that can be helpful, but often the most useful trait is size. There’s a neat size progression, and although there’s some overlap between adjacent species it’s usually possible to make an identification with a few measurements combined with other clues. There are two dimensions to consider: track width (more reliable than track length) and bounding trail width (measured perpendicular to the direction of travel across the widest part of a bounding pattern). I’ll focus on the big picture rather than giving an exhaustive account of the numbers–detailed measurements can be found in any good tracking guide. White-footed mice and the smaller voles (woodland voles, for example) are the tiniest of the lot, and meadow voles are slightly larger. Chipmunks come next, and southern flying squirrels are slightly larger than chipmunks. Northern flying squirrels outweigh their southern kin, and red squirrels are larger yet. Gray squirrels beat out red squirrels, and woodchucks complete the series. These differences in body size are reflected in differences in track and trail dimensions, so a few measurements are usually sufficient to clinch an ID. Even when the tracks you’re dealing with are in the overlap zone there are usually other clues that can point toward an identification. And when all else fails, it’s okay to say you just can’t be certain. If you treat each situation as a learning experience, you’ll find yourself stumped less and less often.

Muskrats: Life in Two Worlds

Water and land: they pose very different challenges to the creatures that inhabit them. And yet some animals manage to live in both worlds. The muskrat is a semi-aquatic mammal, at home in the water and comfortable (although not as nimble) on land. The dome-shaped lodges made by muskrats (seen in the photo below) resemble beaver houses, but are smaller and are made with non-woody plants instead of the woody material used by beavers. When conditions are suitable muskrats make bank burrows with underwater entrances. Unlike beavers, they don’t build dams, and they prefer quiet or slowly moving water. Aquatic and semi-aquatic plants make up the largest part of a muskrat’s diet, but the animals also spend time on land harvesting non-woody terrestrial plants. They are also known to consume aquatic animals, including clams, mussels, crayfish, frogs, and fish.

A common sign of a resident muskrat is scat, usually found in small collections on rocks and logs that protrude above the water. These deposits announce a animal’s territorial claim to the pond, marsh, or stream where they’re found. The latrine shown in the next photo is on a large rock at the edge of a river, and it’s unusually large. The quantity and the combination of fresh and weathered scat indicate that a muskrat was actively patrolling its stretch of river.

On land muskrats generally move at a walk. In the next image the direction of travel is from left to right, and because of the snow the animal to placed its hind feet directly in the holes made by the front feet on the same side. A tail mark undulates between the tracks.

When the footing is more favorable muskrats use an overstep or indirect register walk. The trail in the next photo goes from upper right to lower left. Pairs of prints form an overall zig-zag pattern, and in each pair the rear track lies ahead of the front. The sequence, starting from the upper right, is right front, right rear, left front, left rear, right front, right rear. If you’ve noticed that the front prints seem smaller than the rear prints, you’re absolutely correct.

The difference in size is easy to see in the next photo. The right front track is on the left, and the right rear is on the right (direction of travel left to right). You can see all five toes in the front print–the tiny innermost toe is a little nub on the upper edge of the print just behind the full-size toe ahead of it. The four large toes of the front track are connected to the middle pad, and behind that there are two bumps that make up the heel pad. If these characteristics remind you of small rodent tracks you’re right on target. Muskrats are indeed rodents, although they have diverged from other rodents in many of their adaptations. In the rear track five toes can be seen, although the innermost toe impression is just the tip (above the other four rear toes and to the right of the third toe on the front print). The middle pad of the rear print made a partial impression at the bases of the toes, and–as is often the case–the heel pad did not touch down at all.

If danger threatens while a muskrat is on land, it hurries toward the safety of the water at a modified bound or lope. In the photo below you see a typical muskrat bounding pattern, with the smaller front tracks ahead of the larger and more widely set rear prints (direction of travel toward the top). The muskrat’s front feet slid forward into the soft mud, so the tips of the toes lie hidden in the muck. The larger rear feet didn’t sink as far and all five toes show clearly. Except for the relative positions of the front and rear tracks, this bounding arrangement is, again, reminiscent of the bounding patterns of many small rodents.

Muskrats possess a feature that is–as far as I know–unique among semi-aquatic animals: the toes of the hind feet are equipped with fringes of stiff hairs. In the next photo you see a left rear track, oriented toward the top. (There’s also part of a left front print to the lower right of the rear print.) The toes of the rear track are slender and finger-like, and the hair fringes make shelf-like impressions around them. These hair fringes add surface area and enhance the muskrat’s swimming ability. The smaller and un-fringed front feet are more suited to grasping and handling objects.

As you explore wetlands you’re likely to see swimming mammals, and you may find it difficult to know which creature you’re observing. There are clues that can help, starting with size. The smallest are water shrews and star-nosed moles. I’ve never seen shrews or moles swimming, so I’ll just point out that their size means they probably won’t be confused for anything but each other. Of the larger mammals, the ones whose tracks and sign we’re likely to find, the smallest is the mink. Minks swim with their entire body visible above the water, from head to furred tail. Their bodies are long and slim, their ears protrude from their heads, and their tails can usually be seen gently swaying from side to side on the surface. Muskrats are heavier than minks but their chunky bodies are about the same length. They swim with their heads and bodies showing above the water. The muskrat’s hairless tail is flattened vertically and can be seen undulating from side-to-side at the surface. The ears are small and don’t protrude from the head.

Next in the size progression (going by weight) is the river otter, with a body length of two to three feet and a powerful, furred tail that tapers from a muscular base to a small tip. Otters often swim with just their heads showing above water, but they may also undulate up and down or make short, playful swerves and dives. Their ears protrude noticeably from their heads. Our largest semi-aquatic mammal is the beaver, with a body length about the same as an otter but weighing up to twice as much. Beavers swim with most of the body and the tail below the water surface, and their ears protrude from their heads.

Muskrats are one of our most common semi-aquatic mammals. You may be fortunate enough to observe one in its watery habitat, or you may instead find evidence of the its presence. Either way, take time to contemplate the muskrat’s place in the panorama of living creatures and the adaptations that make it so successful.

Gray Fox Affairs

It’s been a strange winter. In my neck of the woods we had some significant snow early in the season, but no big storms since then. Temperatures have been up and down (more up than down), and with all the melting, the snow we do have has consolidated into a dense, icy layer. Much of the time the conditions have been terrible for tracking, but every once in a while something wonderful has happened: warmth and liquid precipitation have been followed by dropping temperatures and a change from rain to snow. When this happens, snow that falls while the air is still relatively warm becomes bonded to the crust. As the temperature drops and additional snow falls, it forms a soft layer on top. The result is a non-slip and easily navigable surface that is a perfect medium for recording tracks.

A few days ago I encountered just such conditions: an icy base covered by a thin layer of soft snow. I was in an extensive natural area, and both the forest road I was following and the surrounding landscape offered beautiful tracking conditions. Animals of all sorts had been moving easily over the snow, and there were tracks everywhere. I found myself following the trail of a gray fox. The animal went for quite a distance at an easy trot, but then it did something that was quite puzzling.

The photo below shows the fox trail as it goes from upper left to lower right. (You can also see a coyote trail to the right of the fox trail, and a mountain bike trail to the right of that.) As it entered the frame the fox was walking (the first three tracks at the upper left). In the next section (between the last walking step and the edge of the tree shadow) the pattern was very different, and following that the trail looks unlike either of the previous sections. I wanted to know what was going on and why the middle section looked so different.

In a situation like this the first thing to do is identify each track. The zig-zag of the walking section helps us to tell right and left, and the fact that the front foot is larger than the hind foot distinguishes front from rear. The next photo shows a gray fox front print on the left and a gray fox rear print on the right. You can see the difference in overall size and also the difference in the sizes of the middle pads.

The photo below shows just the puzzling middle section, and if you compare photos you’ll see that the front and rear in the photo above are actually the first two tracks in the middle section. It’s pretty clear that the first four prints in the photo below are left front, left rear, right front, right rear. After that it gets harder. The track just above the right rear is smaller than the one to its right, so those two prints must be left hind, left front. Three tracks from the right side come next, and it looks to me like the sequence is right rear, right front, right rear. The final two before the tree shadow are the left front and the left rear, and at the edge of the tree shadow there’s a right front with a right rear partially superimposed on it.

In the next photo I’ve added labels showing my take on right/left and front/rear. If we start at the beginning of the whole sequence, the animal was trotting (those tracks aren’t seen in the photos) and then slowed down to a walk (the first three tracks in the distance shot). The next section shows that the fox slowed even more to an overstep walk (the first four prints in the photo below), then slowed even more to an understep walk. There’s an extra right hind that’s puzzling, but I’m guessing the fox just repositioned its right hind foot. Then the overstep walk reappears after which the fox picked up the trot (the two impressions at the lower right in the first photo). Notice that the step lengths in the overstep part are shorter than the regular walk steps that preceeded them, and the step lengths in the understep part are shorter yet.

That analysis was rather involved, but it leads to a picture of what the fox actually did. As it trotted along something it detected made it slow down, first to a walk and then almost but not quite to a standstill. It was probably sniffing and listening intently as it moved very slowly. Once the animal concluded that it was okay to move on, it resumed its journey at a trot. It’s impossible, without more evidence, to know what caused the fox to react the way it did. It may have been a threat, but it could also have been something that interested it for a different reason. It is, after all, mating season for wild canines.

And the fox I was following was definitely tuned in to mating season. Farther on I found a spot (shown in the next photo) where the animal had detoured to urinate on a small spruce branch. If you look in the center of the frame you’ll see a squiggle of urine that runs horizontally from the upper edge of the spruce branch. Because the urine wasn’t squirted out the side of the tracks we know this was a female. She would have lifter one hind leg forward and supported herself on the other hind leg (plus two front legs) as she urinated. The relative depths of the tracks tell us that the supporting rear foot was the left. Its track is in the prominent double impression above and to the left of the urine.

I’ll never know what made the gray fox slow down and leave the pattern discussed in the beginning of this article. It could have been a threat–there was certainly a coyote in the neighborhood, or it could have been the mountain biker. A fisher (whose tracks I also found on that day) would have made the gray fox nervous. And there were red fox trails as well. But the trail shown in the photos above doesn’t suggest alarm so much as cautious interest. The fox didn’t change direction but just continued on. Was it another gray fox, one she was familiar with, or one she had mated with in a previous year? We have a small part of the whole story, and we can only speculate about the rest, but it’s fascinating just as it is.

Mouse Maneuvers

The mouse–not most people’s favorite creature, to put it mildly. Certainly the house mouse can be a serious pest, but wild mice are different creatures altogether. To start with, they are more attractive than the drab house mouse, as you can see from the portrait of a white-footed mouse which heads this post. The white-footed mouse is one of two species which inhabit the northeast, the other being the deer mouse. They are closely related (both belong in the genus Peromyscus) and are so similar they can’t be distinguished from tracks or sign. Habitat may indicate which one we’re dealing with, but from the tracker’s perspective it’s not really important, since they have similar characteristics and behaviors. White-footed mice prefer deciduous and mixed forests at low and moderate elevations. The trails shown below were most likely made by deer mice, which are more common in boreal and high elevation forests.

Both deer and white-footed mice are hunted by just about every predator in our region, so they stay hidden whenever they can. In warm months they find safety within woody debris, shrubs, blowdowns, rocks, log piles, and sometimes human structures. In winter, snow usually provides ample cover. Mice are able to tunnel through snow if it’s not too dense, and deep snow actually contributes to their survival. Within a deep snowpack the temperature is highest at ground level and decreases toward the surface. The temperature gradient causes ice crystals in the lower levels to sublimate and recrystallize at higher levels, leaving spaces where small animals can find safety and warmth. Hollows at tree bases, among rock outcrops, and under downed logs and branches allow mice to move between the surface and the lower regions (the subnivean zone). That’s why the trails in the photo above radiate from the base of the tree at the upper edge of the photo.

The next photo shows a steep, snow-covered embankment at the edge of a groomed snowmobile trail. A mouse (it could have been either a white-footed or a deer mouse) bounded from the lower left across the packed snowmobile trail toward the slope. The mouse turned to the right and then went under a slight overhang where it found (or dug) a tunnel leading to safety in the deeper snow bordering the snowmobile trail.

Look under the log in the next photo and you’ll see mouse trails. Notice how the mouse trails run into (or out of–or both) the cavity at the upper left, a mouse-sized hole at the lower right, and unseen openings under the lower part of the log. As long as these openings are maintained, mice can move easily between the snow surface and the subnivean realm. The log also provides protection from aerial predators.

In soft snow mouse trails on the surface often lead to holes that connect to tunnels deeper in the snow.

Both deer and white-footed mice store nuts and seeds in cavities in logs, standing trees, and rock piles. Once winter comes any space protected by deep snow makes a good feeding area. The midden of black cherry seeds in the next photo shows where a mouse fed beneath the snowpack at the base of a tree. The neat round holes are reliable indicators of mouse feeding.

Mice use logs as travel routes, but we only see evidence of this when a light covering of snow coats the log surfaces. In the photo below you see a jumble of mouse tracks, a few of which show toes clearly enough to reveal the direction of travel. There’s a rear print at the lower left that points toward the left, and you can see a few front tracks near the upper edge of the snow with toes pointing toward the right.

There are other small mammals, voles and shrews in particular, whose trails can be confusingly similar to those of deer and white-footed mice, especially when they are bounding. But the bounds of voles and shrews are less regular and have more variable foot placement than the bounds of mice. Voles and shrews also use a greater variety of gaits than mice, including walks, trots, bounds, and lopes. Voles especially are likely to make frequent gait transitions, and often use a perplexing gait sometimes described as a shuffle. Mice can walk but it’s rare, and I’ve never seen evidence of a mouse trotting, shuffling, or loping.

Deer and white-footed mice are relatively long-legged and athletic, and they sometimes make long leaps. Voles and shrews, with their chunkier bodies and shorter legs, can’t jump nearly as far. So if you find a trail with leaps like those in the photo below, you can confidently assign it to a mouse rather than a vole or shrew. The tail marks are another clue. Mice have tails as long or longer than their body length. Both the short-tailed shrew and the woodland vole, the two species most likely to be confused with deer and white-footed mice, have very short tails and wouldn’t leave long tail marks like the ones in the photo.

The white-footed mouse trails in the next photo show the typical consistency of pattern and leap length, but the one on the left demands a second look. It begins at the bottom, a little to the right of center, goes upward for a few leaps, and then takes a hard turn to the left. After a few more leaps the trail circles back to the right and proceeds toward the top of the photo where there’s a fallen branch sticking out of the snow (just outside the frame). Each time it turned the bounding mouse flung its tail to the outside for balance, leaving conspicuous tail marks. There’s a pile of snow that was kicked toward the rear where the mouse turned left, and where the trail curves back toward the right the landing/takeoff depressions are deeper. These observations suggest extreme bursts of energy.

We’ll never know for sure, but the most likely explanation is that a threat spooked the mouse. There’s no sign of an actual attack, so the mouse evidently survived, but it must have been alarmed by something. Deer and white-footed mice, along with other small rodents, are in constant danger of predation, and we sometimes find evidence of a successful hunt (see my post for March 1, 2022). But most of the time mouse trails tell us they survived to live another day.

Possum Puzzles

The opossum is a humble animal, slow moving, shy, and generally of a placid disposition. But opossums can present surprising challenges to the tracker, not the least of which is getting a handle on the tracks themselves. To understand opossum tracks it may be helpful to see the animal’s actual feet, so let’s take a look. The photo below shows the underside of the left rear foot of an opossum–it resembles a human hand with a large, widely angled thumb and four additional, finger-like toes. If you hold up your left hand with the palm facing you, you’ll see the resemblance. Try to imagine your hands as the rear feet of the animal.

In the next photo you see the opossum’s left front foot–very different from the rear. The five toes of the front foot are somewhat finger-like and similar to each other in shape, and the middle pads are quite bulbous. Both front and rear feet are adapted for climbing but are less ideal–especially the rear feet–for moving on the ground. This, combined with the animal’s heavy body and relatively short legs, means opossums are not very agile.

Now let’s look at opossum tracks. In the photo below the right front track lies on the left and the right rear track lies behind it on the right, both tracks oriented toward the left. The spreading toe indentations of the front track radiate from a compact grouping of middle pad impressions. In the rear track the thumb points to the side (downward in the photo), and the other four toes are closer together and angled to the opposite side (upward in the photo).

Because the opossum rarely moves faster than a walk (or sometimes a trot), front and rear prints are often partly superimposed, and that’s another source of confusion. (The animal whose tracks are pictured above was drinking at a puddle, so it left some nicely separated prints.) In the photo below you see a left rear and a left front track, oriented toward the right. The two tracks are so close together it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. If you look at the right side of the frame you’ll see five similar toe marks radiating outward from four closely set middle pad impressions. That’s the left front track. The hollow made by the thumb of the left rear track sits just behind the front middle pads, and above it you can see the middle pad and toe indentations of the left rear track.

The indirect register walk is the opossum’s preferred gait, so we often see sequences of front and hind prints like the ones shown above. In the photo below an opossum walked from the lower left to the upper right, leaving the zig-zag pattern typical of the walk. Each angle of the zig-zag is composed of front and rear prints from one side, and in each of these couplets the hind print lies just behind the front print. The sequence of tracks is right rear, right front, left rear, left front, right rear, right front, left rear, left front.

When tracks are less distinct, possum trails can be downright perplexing. The next photo shows another walking opossum trail, again proceeding from lower left to upper right. The rear feet fell farther behind the front feet at each step, but the zig-zag pattern can still be seen. A few of the prints are recognizable as possum tracks, and the rest are just weird looking.

If an opossum needs to move a little faster it shifts into a trot, leaving a trail like the one shown in the next photo (oriented from lower left to upper right). It’s harder to sort out front and rear tracks in this trail because the snow was dry and the faster gait created more disturbance. But if you look closely you’ll see that the rear tracks are consistently just behind the front tracks. The sequence of prints is right rear, right front, left rear, left front, right rear, right front, left rear, left front.

We know it’s a trot because the trail is straighter than the walking trails shown in the previous photos, and the distances between the sets of tracks are slightly greater. There must have been a slight hitch in the gait of the animal that made this trail, because the claws of one of the right feet (it’s hard to tell whether it was the front or the hind) seemed to brush the snow each time it moved forward to the next landing spot.

You may have noticed that none of the possum trails I’ve shown so far have tail drag marks. Opossums don’t drag their tails as often as people may think, but it does sometimes occur. Here’s a photo of a possum trail (oriented from upper left to lower right) with a nice tail drag mark. Don’t worry if the direction of travel isn’t obvious–it’s hard to tell from the photo because of the angle. A fox left a galloping trail on the left side of the frame, moving from bottom to top.

Much of the opossum’s winter diet comes from scavenging on carcasses, and the animals don’t generally move very far away while a food source lasts. So if you come across a possum trail it’s worth following–you may find a feeding site, or even a den like the one shown in the next photo. I had to climb through and around lots of tangles and thickets, but I eventually found the den the opossum was using while it fed on a deer carcass not far away.

Opossum tracks and signs give us a window into the lives of the animals. But I’m fond of them for an additional reason: the tracks are just so quirky. In fact, the consistent peculiarity of possum tracks is one of the clues to their identity. So be alert for weirdness, and when you find it, consider the opossum.

Knowing Coyote Tracks

Coyotes are one of our more common predators, but when we find a possible coyote track it can be difficult to identify it with certainty. Could it be a fox? Or maybe a bobcat? And there’s also the possibility of domestic dog. Dog tracks show up almost everywhere and are often mistaken for coyote. In this post I’ll share some thoughts on how to separate coyote prints from some confusing look-alike tracks.

First let’s deal with felines. The bobcat track below is a right front print, oriented toward the top of the frame. Like coyotes, bobcats have four toes and an undivided middle pad, but unlike coyotes (and other canines) bobcat tracks are asymmetrical. They have a leading toe (the second from the left in the photo) and a trailing toe (the right-most one), and the middle pad is canted to the outside. Try this simple test for symmetry: Imagine a vertical line which passes through the center of the track, and then imagine folding the right half of the track over onto the left half. You’ll see that they don’t match up. Now do the same thing with the track in the next photo, a coyote front print, again oriented toward the top of the photo. You’ll see that the right half matches almost perfectly when folded onto the left half.

Both the bobcat and the coyote prints pictured are clear and complete, but because of varying conditions some bobcat tracks–especially rear prints–appear more symmetrical, and canine tracks sometimes have an asymmetrical look. Fortunately, there are other features that can help to distinguish the two. An important feature is the shape of the ridges between the toes and the middle pad. In the coyote track the large ridges between the toes and the middle pad form an X, and at the central point of the X there’s a dome. The major ridges in the bobcat track don’t form an X–they could be described as a squashed H or a partly rotated C-shape with some kinks. Another characteristic to look at is the relative sizes of toes and pads. In bobcat tracks the toes are small in relation to the overall track size, and the middle pad is large. In coyote tracks it’s the reverse: the toes are larger and the middle pad is smaller in relation to the overall track size. In the coyote track there are some delicate claw marks, two close together ahead of the leading toes and a lighter one on the left outer toe. Claw marks are absent in the bobcat photo. If more grip is needed a cat may extend its claws, but claw impressions are much less common in bobcat tracks than they are in coyote (or other canine) tracks. Bobcat prints also tend to be rounder, and coyote prints are more oval or egg-shaped.

Then there’s red fox, whose tracks overlap with coyote tracks at the lower end of the coyote size range. The next photo shows a red fox front print, oriented toward the right side. It’s similar to the coyote track in being symmetrical, and in having the canine X and dome, but there are some features that separate it from coyote. The hair that covers the underside of the fox’s foot shows as striations in the toes and middle pad. This hair gets worn down as the season progresses so it may be less conspicuous in late summer and fall, but in early winter a new growth of thick hair develops. Red fox tracks in snow often have a blurry appearance because of the dense hair. The undersides of coyote toes and middle pads are bare of hair in all seasons, so the toe and pad impressions have smooth surfaces and crisp outlines.

In the middle pad of the red fox print there’s a curved indentation (vertically oriented in the photo) made by a ridge of tough skin that protrudes through the hair. This bar or chevron (present in the front foot and very rarely in the rear foot) is unique to the red fox and, when visible, separates it conclusively from the coyote. In the preceding photo of the coyote track you can see that the bar is absent.

Distinguishing coyotes from domestic dogs can be the toughest challenge. Dogs are so variable that there aren’t any absolute criteria, and many dog tracks are similar to coyote tracks in size. The photo below shows the rear (on the left) and front (on the right) prints of a coyote, oriented toward the right. As in most canines the rear track is smaller than the front. Note the absence of claw marks except for the delicate, closely set pricks ahead of the leading toes of the front foot. Both front and hind tracks are oval in overall outline, and their middle pads are small in relation to the overall track size.

Coyote rear (left) and front (right) tracks

Comparing those tracks with the dog tracks in the next photo, we see some clear differences. The front track of the dog (above) is more rounded and has a larger middle pad. The claw marks in the front print are more robust and are present ahead of all four toes. The rear print of the dog (below) is slimmer than the front but has a conspicuous middle pad, and there are claw marks ahead of all four toes.

Domestic dog front (above) and rear (below) tracks

Dog tracks like the front print below (oriented toward the top) are even easier to identify. The large middle pad and the thick claw marks are strong indicators, but the most striking feature is the spreading of the inner and outer toes. Many dogs have “floppy” feet. Because they are not as active their feet lack the muscle tone of wild canines, and their toes spread more. The inner and outer toes and claws may point to the sides rather than straight ahead. Dogs that get plenty of exercise, like the one that made the tracks in the preceding photo, may not show this spreading.

Varying conditions can affect the appearance of coyote tracks, and this is where things can get confusing. The coyote front track (facing to the right) in the next photo doesn’t look as neat and tight as the coyote tracks shown in previous photos. There are claw marks ahead of all four toes, the inner and outer toes aren’t as tightly tucked in behind the leading toes, and the claw marks are more divergent. This animal was trotting on soft, moist sand, so it allowed its toes to spread slightly for support. But the track still shows the small middle pad and the delicate claw marks that point toward coyote rather than dog.

Faster movement can have an even greater effect on tracks. The print shown below (a front, pointing toward the right) was made by a galloping coyote. The toes are spread, the claw marks are deep, and the middle pad looks asymmetrical. But even this track shows coyote rather than dog features. The claws are sharply pointed and the middle pad is small compared to the overall track size.

There will always be times when making a firm identification is difficult. The tracks may be distorted or degraded, or there may only be partial tracks. But even if we can only come to a tentative conclusion, we can still observe and learn as much as possible. And the more we struggle with challenging situations, the better we will be at knowing coyote tracks when we see them.

Streamside Discoveries

As the high water levels of late winter and early spring subside, stream and lake margins become interesting tracking locations. Water is a magnet for wildlife, and visiting creatures leave the evidence of their activities along the shoreline. A great blue heron left the collection of tracks shown in the photo below. The feet of herons resemble the feet of songbirds, with one backward-pointing toe and three forward-pointing toes. But unlike most songbirds, the toes of herons don’t all meet at one point. There’s a left print (facing toward the lower right) in the upper left corner of the photo that shows this nicely. The junction between the backward-pointing toe and the inner forward-pointing toe lies to the left of the intersection between the two outer toes. Another way of saying this is that the two outer forward-pointing toes join a little to the outside of the center of the foot. The same asymmetry shows in the right track in the lower right corner.

The spotted sandpiper is another bird that patrols stream and lake margins. These small birds–about the size of a starling–search for invertebrates on the edges of streams, ponds, marshes, and other bodies of fresh water. Their tracks (shown in the next photo) reflect their erratic and meandering movements. The three forward-pointing toes are relatively symmetrical and diverge at wide angles. On the back of the foot there’s short spur oriented to the inside that may or may not make an impression in tracks. The left print just below the stick in the upper right corner shows the spur nicely.

Raccoons prefer comfortable surfaces so it’s no accident that the animal that left the tracks shown in the photo below stepped along a soft deposit of sand left by a recent flood. The raccoon moved from the upper right to the lower left, leaving tracks in the sequence right rear, left front, left rear, right front. The difference between the wider but tighter rear track and the narrower, more spreading front track is easily seen in the set of prints at the upper right. Raccoons habitually work the edges of streams and ponds where they find tasty shellfish, frogs, crayfish and other invertebrates. The pattern of alternating sets of hind and front tracks from opposite sides tells us the animal was moving at a pace-walk.

Mink are also in the habit of travelling along the margins of water bodies. The animal that made the tracks in the next photo was moving from right to left at a lope, and the track sequence is right front, right rear, left front, left rear. Like raccoons, mink have five toes on both front and rear feet, but it’s not uncommon for the impression of the inner toe to be missing. In fact the only print in the photo that shows a clear inner toe is the left front. This track also shows the middle pad protuberances (just behind the toes) and the heel pad (the small indentation behind the middle pad). Mink share a taste for crayfish, frogs and invertebrates with raccoons, and occasionally catch small fish. They’re adaptable predators and may also hunt for small mammals on the surrounding land.

The mink’s larger relative, the river otter, also leaves its tracks along the edges of ponds and streams, but for this creature it’s mainly a matter of convenient travel between feeding areas. I found the tracks in the photo below on the inside of a bend in a stream where an otter had taken a short cut across a large sandbar. The sequence of tracks is the same as that of the mink tracks in the previous image, and the family resemblance–both mink and otters are mustelids–can be seen in spite of the different substrates. Otters are more aquatic than mink and capture most of their food in the water.

When they’re not foraging in the water otters spend their time on conveniently accessed sites near the water. They roll on soft surfaces like grass and forest duff to clean and dry their fur, and they socialize with other members of their family group. They also leave notices in the form of scat to non-resident otters that the territory is occupied. The otter scat in the photo below contains crayfish shell fragments, but it’s also common to find scats containing fish scales and bones, or the slimy remains of frogs. Otters often use latrines where scat of various ages and contents can be found.

The beaver is another very aquatic mammal. In the photo below you see two beaver tracks, a right front (above) and a right rear (below), both facing toward the right. In the front track the four toes show clearly and the two heel pads appear as elongated grooves because the foot slipped in the mud. In the bottom part of the frame the three outer toes of the hind print show clearly but the two inner toes are obscured by the front print. As is often the case, the webbing of the hind foot doesn’t show. The size difference between the front and rear tracks is striking and helps us to understand why beavers are such strong swimmers. Beavers feed on the leaves, bark, and stems of woody plants year-round, but during the growing season the diet also includes aquatic plants, cattails, sedges, and forbs. Their tracks usually lead between the water and foraging sites on land, and signs of branches being dragged into the water are common.

Smaller–but just as well adapted to life in water–is the muskrat. Like the beaver, the muskrat has rear feet that are much larger than the front. In the photo below, the track farthest to the left is the right rear, and just to its right you see the right front. On the right side of the frame the left rear lies below the left front. Notice that the small inside toes of the front feet made impressions in both of the front prints. The muskrat’s front feet, like those of the beaver, are adapted for handling food items and building materials rather than for swimming.

If you wander along shorelines you may find muskrat latrines. These sites are usually located on logs or rocks that lie in the water but protrude above water level. In the next photo you can see a rock decorated with scat of varying ages, deposited as an announcement that the territory is occupied. Although muskrats occasionally consume animal foods they are primarily plant eaters, and their scats usually contain fibrous material.

This is just a sampling of some of the wonders to be found along the margins of lakes, streams, and marshes. There’s always something to be discovered, so next time you’re out and about, take a detour to check a stream edge or a muddy shoreline. Better yet–if you don’t mind some wading–try a stream walk. It could be just the thing on a summer day.

Mud, Glorious Mud!

Unlike many people I know, I’m always sad to see the snow disappear for good. But as soon as I think of what comes next–mud season–I get excited all over again. The transition between the seasons is highlighted in the photo below. A gray fox had stepped in some mud and then left it’s muddy footprints on the snow as it walked from left to right. Each deposit of mud is made by first the front and then the rear feet from the same side, and the zig-zag pattern of the walk shows nicely.

Once the snow is gone, ordinary mud takes its place as a medium for recording tracks. In the next photo an opossum stepped in some mud at the edge of a puddle, leaving a collection of both complete and partially obscured prints oriented toward the left. At the upper left there’s a right front track with a right rear track just behind it. Farther to the right you can see part of another right front track. In the lower right corner there’s a nearly complete left front print and just the suggestion of a left rear behind it. The front prints show the five widely spread toes that are characteristic of the opossum. In the front print at the upper left the segments of the semicircular middle pad are especially clear. The rear track in the upper center shows the strikingly different form of the opossum’s rear foot: a thumb-like inner toe pointing inward and four additional toes close together and pointing outward.

One of the nice things about mud is that it can record the presence of animals that we don’t encounter during the cold season. A spotted salamander (or maybe two of them) walked through the mud in the next photo. These amphibians hibernate in winter and come out in early spring, so mud season is a good time to look for their tacks. There are two trips: one going from the left side toward the upper right and the other proceeding from left to right along the lower part of the frame. Each trail consists of a central drag mark made by the tail and a sequence of front and rear prints on each side. The patterns of the prints tell us that the animal(s) were moving at an understep walk, with each rear foot touching down just behind the front foot from the same side. In the lower trail you can see the difference between the smaller, four-toed front prints and the larger, five-toed hind ones.

The tracks in the preceding photos are pretty obvious, but it’s not always easy to spot tracks in mud. In the photo below there’s a patch of shiny mud in the center of the shot, and on the right side of that patch there are some tire tread marks. If you look on the left side of the same shiny mud toward the top you’ll see a red fox track. The animal was moving from top to bottom, and because there weren’t many muddy spots the print in the photo was the only one I could find.

The close-up below shows the same track, but in this view it’s oriented in the opposite direction, toward the top. The central mound typical of canine tracks can be seen, and the marks made by the hair on the underside of the foot show clearly. There’s even a partial impression of the bar in the middle pad.

Woodchucks, like salamanders, spend the winter below ground and often emerge just as mud season is beginning. The next photo shows the left rear track of a woodchuck at the upper left and a left front track at the lower right. The five clawed toes of the rear print show clearly–the middle three toes set close together and the inner and outer toes angled toward the sides. Behind the toes you can see the four segments that make up the middle pad. In the front track the four toes with their substantial claws can be seen. The subdivided middle pad of the front foot lies behind the toes, and the heel pads show as two depressions behind the middle pad. The front print has a curvature toward the inside, a trait typical of the woodchuck.

It takes a medium with a fine texture to show details of the tracks of very small animals, and what better medium than mud? In the photo below you see the tracks of a white-footed mouse bounding from lower left to upper right. The tracks are arranged in the typical rodent bounding pattern–two rear prints (in the upper right quadrant) that are widely set and almost even with each other. Behind the rear tracks, the front prints are set more narrowly and, in this case, slightly staggered rather than even with each other. Track details show beautifully, especially in the left rear (the topmost track) and the left front (farthest to the left). If we compare these tracks with the woodchuck tracks above we see the rodent family resemblance, especially in the rear prints. The symmetrical mouse front tracks are more typical of other small rodents than the curved front prints of the woodchuck.

You can’t ask for a better rendition of detail than the porcupine tracks in the next photo. Porcupines have unique foot anatomy: their tough, undivided soles have a pebble-like texture that gives the animals good grip when climbing. The photo shows a left front print and, just behind it and overlapping slightly, a left rear print. The tracks are heading toward the left, and the texture of the soles shows beautifully. Because the leading edge of the rear foot touches the trailing edge of the front track, the two tracks seem to be joined together. You may be able to pick out the claw marks of the hind print along the leading edge of the sole of the front print. The four claws of the front foot made indentations at the very left, and if you look closely there are marks made by the three outer phalanges of the front foot behind the claw marks.

Once the snow melts and the weather warms, mud may not last long. Puddles may dry up and wet areas may fill in with plant growth. But mud can also appear in new places, and abundant rainfall can bring on new mud seasons long after the early one is over. As a matter of fact, I found the porcupine tracks in the photo above in the month of July. So keep an eye on the conditions of the puddles in your neighborhood, and don’t be surprised if you come across some beautiful mud when you least expect it.

Cottontail Rabbits

Familiar animals can be just as interesting as less common ones, and the cottontail rabbit ranks as one of our most familiar–and interesting–creatures. In the photo below (direction of travel from right to left) we see it’s characteristic Y-shaped bounding pattern: two rear tracks even with each other and widely spaced, and two front tracks behind the rear ones, more narrowly spaced with one leading the other. The right front print (the first foot to come down) lies at the right side of the photo and the left front print (the second foot to come down) lies to its left. Farther to the left you see the rear prints which form the diverging branches of the Y. I found these tracks on a highly developed barrier island on the New Jersey coast, probably not a place you would expect to find cottontails. But these animals manage to survive and flourish not just in rural and undeveloped areas but also in city parks, suburban communities, and busy commercial zones.

Although the pattern shown above is very common, it’s not the only four-print arrangement you’ll see. Sometimes a rabbit’s front feet come down together, and when this happens the prints are even with each other and pressed tightly together. Bounding squirrels make groups similar to those of rabbits, but the spacing of the front tracks is different. Whether the front prints are even with each other (the most common arrangement) or whether one leads the other, there is almost always a gap between the two prints. In the photo below the rabbit tracks are in the lower left and the squirrel tracks are at the upper right.

The tracks in the photo below were made by a cottontail bounding in deep snow (direction of travel from bottom to top), and the toes are splayed out in both front and rear tracks. Tracks like these are sometimes mistaken for snowshoe hare tracks because of their larger size.

The feet of both cottontails and snowshoe hares can spread when increased support is needed, but there’s a drastic difference between the two animals. The maximum width of a cottontail’s hind print is about 2 1/2 inches, while a snowshoe hare’s rear track can reach a width of more than 5 inches. The photo below shows a rabbit’s rear foot (seen from the bottom) in a splayed position. Note that the rear foot has only four toes.

In the photo above you can see the thick fur which covers the bottom of the rear foot of the cottontail, and the front foot is just as furry. This is why the outlines of the toes in rabbit tracks are blurry, especially in snow. The next photo shows the right front print of a cottontail (facing to the right) in mud that had dried to a perfect consistency for recording fine details. The toes are visible but not sharply defined, and the texture of the fur can be seen in and around the toe impressions. This photo also shows all five toes clearly–yes, there are five toes on the front foot of the rabbit. But counting toes can be difficult because there are also some pads which look like toes.

To help sort this out I’ve marked the toes and two of the pads in the next photo. The innermost toe is marked Toe 1, following the convention of numbering from the inside of the foot. It’s smaller than the others and often fails to register in tracks. The other four toes are larger and tipped with substantial claws, and the toe arrangement as a whole is asymmetrical.

If you’ve ever had a run-in with a rabbit’s foot you know that, in spite of the furry covering, the sharp claws can dig in quite effectively. Sometimes the claws are the only parts of the foot that make impressions, as in this photo of the right and left rear tracks of a rabbit in a hurry (direction of travel toward the upper right).

In addition to tracks, rabbits leave many other signs of their presence. You may find stems bitten off at an angle like the multiflora rose in the photo below. These angled cuts are characteristic of rabbit browsing and they arise from the anatomy of the rabbit’s jaws.

In the next photo you see the lower jaw of a cottontail with an added line representing a stem or twig. As it takes the stem between its upper and lower incisors, the rabbit positions the stem so that one end passes through the gap between its incisors and its molars. This biting technique results in an angled cut. Deer don’t have upper incisors so instead of making a clean bite, a deer grasps the stem between its lower incisors and its horny upper palate and pulls or jerks to make a rough break.

Cottontails also feed on the bark of young trees and shrubs. Their chews have a rough appearance, with bites penetrating to varying depths, as in the staghorn sumac stem shown below. Chews made by other bark feeders (beavers, porcupines, voles, and occasionally squirrels) are much neater and more consistent in depth of penetration.

Whether it’s bark, twigs, or buds, a rabbit has to ingest a lot of fiber to get at the nutritious living cells in the cambium or in the tiny leaf initials inside buds. The animals boost the nutrition they get from their food by processing it twice. After passing through most of the digestive system, waste is diverted to the caecum where it is fermented to produce additional nutrients. This material is eliminated, usually at night, as clusters of soft globs called caecotropes. We seldom see this kind of fecal matter because the rabbit eats it immediately. After passing through the digestive system again, the waste is eliminated as pellets like the ones in the next photo.

These pellets are dry and fibrous, and are normally scattered irregularly where rabbits feed and move about. Unlike the rounded cylindrical pellets of deer, rabbit pellets are shaped like slightly flattened spheres. Cottontails are now shifting to their summer diet of grasses, forbs, and flowers, but the final result will be pellets similar to those produced from woody food.

The cottontail rabbit is a thoroughly interesting creature with some impressive tools for survival. By observing its tracks and trails as well as chews, scat, and other sign, we can appreciate a creature that is beautifully adapted to its environment.