Post-Mortem Dental Profile in Animal Forensic Investigations: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Joan Viciano and Version 1 by Joan Viciano.

Veterinary forensics is becoming more important in our society as a result of the growing demand for investigations related to crimes against animals or investigations of criminal deaths caused by animals. A veterinarian may participate as an expert witness or may be required to give forensic assistance, by providing knowledge of the specialty to establish a complete picture of the involvement of an animal and allowing the Courts to reach a verdict. By applying diverse dental profiling techniques, not only can species, sex, age-at-death, and body size of an animal be estimated, but also data about their geographical origin (provenance) and the post-mortem interval.

  • forensic sciences
  • veterinary forensics
  • carcasses
  • teeth
  • biological profile
  • bite marks
  • animal scavenging
  • animal attack

1. Animals in Forensic Sciences

In a broader sense, veterinary forensics can be defined as the application of veterinary science in resolving legal disputes involving animals (i.e., livestock, wild, exotic, and household animals) and animal derivatives[1]. Animals may be involved in two diverse ways: they may either be the victim of an assault or illegal act (i.e., maliciously or accidentally ‘human-induced’ injuries and/or insults to animals), or the perpetrator when the animal causes the incident (i.e., injuries caused to humans)[2]. This discipline is becoming more important in our society, increasing its frequency worldwide as a result of the growing demand for investigations related to crimes against animals or investigations of criminal deaths caused by animals[3].

The work of the forensic medical pathologist and the forensic veterinary pathologist is similar; however, there is an enormous difference: while the work of the former focuses on a single species (the human being), the work of the latter encompasses multiple species, with cases involving household animals (including exotic species), farm animals, and wild animals. In this way, multispecies forensic pathology makes it a complex and difficult discipline to manage[4]. The forensic veterinary pathologist is not only specifically concerned with the post-mortem examination of a deceased animal and documents the findings of the examination but is also involved in the collection of evidence and court proceedings.

In veterinary forensics, the identification of carcasses is of less importance compared to its counterpart in human forensic medicine, although the reliable identification of live animals can be crucial (e.g., in the resolution of criminal investigations where the animal is the causative agent of the injuries or death of a human being). However, when it is necessary to identify dead animals or their remains, the following methods can be used[2]: (i) external markings, colour patterns, etc.; (ii) external morphological features (e.g., shape of antlers, abnormal coloration, or wear of hooves); (iii) presence of external collars, chains, ear tags, and other human-introduced devices (e.g., transponders); (iv) surgical evidence (e.g., docked tail, prosthesis); and (v) osteological characteristics. In the latter case, the ultimate goal of analysing a set of skeletal remains is to estimate the biological profile (i.e., to establish a set of characteristics that an animal specimen possessed during their life), which can be used to determine identity after death. In veterinary science, the biological profile would include the taxonomic classification (i.e., class, order, family, genus, and species identification), sex, age-at-death, body size, health/disease status, and individualising characteristics[5].

2. Teeth as a Biological Source for Forensic Identification in Animal Remains

The distinct anatomy of the dentition and its resistance to decomposition makes it an invaluable source for biological studies and enables us to understand ancient and modern animal communities. Examination of the dentition is widely used by zooarchaeologists to identify animal skeletal remains[6][7], but it is also important in post-mortem forensic work. It is reported that the nineteenth-century French naturalist and zoologist Georges Cuvier, who established the sciences of comparative anatomy and palaeontology, said: ‘Show me your teeth and I will tell you who you are’ (translated from French[8]). Animals’ teeth are so varied and distinctive that they can be used to identify animal remains by veterinary forensics based on a single tooth. Figure 1 illustrates the integration of veterinary medicine within the forensic sciences, summarizing the main applications of dental profile in veterinary forensics.
Figure 1. Diagram of the integration of veterinary medicine within the forensic sciences summarizing the main applications of dental profile in veterinary forensics.Figure 1. Diagram of the integration of veterinary medicine within the forensic sciences summarizing the main applications of dental profile in veterinary forensics (Figure from: Viciano, J.; López-Lázaro, S.; Tanga, C. Post-Mortem Dental Profile as a Powerful Tool in Animal Forensic Investigations—A Review. Animals 2022, 12, 2038. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162038)

3. Concluding Remarks

2.1. Biological Profile

2.1.1. Species Identification

The comparative dental anatomy analysis is a classical technique for species identification, and it also correlates to the inter-species relationship among members of the same family (e.g., family of Felidae: includes cheetah, leopard, tiger, domestic cat, lynx, among others)[9][10]. The number and types of teeth present in the oral cavity is useful in genus identification.

Species identification or the distinction of closely related species can also be done using the metric and morphological characteristics of the teeth, applying statistically robust techniques and using advanced tools (e.g., geometric morphometrics)[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Furthermore, the variation of simple metric characteristics such as tooth size or jaw length can be key in resolving debates about whether a sample comprises a single species or includes more than one morphologically similar species[18].

Non-metric dental traits (e.g., presence and size of cusps, form of fissures on occlusal surfaces of premolars and molars, form of ridges, presence of pits) also play a significant role in species identification. The variation of these non-metric traits is used to distinguish between species[14].

Thus, species identification is based primarily on macroscopic inspection of dental form (size + shape) (e.g.,[19]) and, in recent years, more complex tools (e.g., geometric morphometrics) and statistical procedures (e.g., machine learning algorithms, artificial intelligence) have allowed to analyse teeth and tooth marks with a higher precision[20][21][22]. However, when teeth are in a poor state of preservation, these traditional or advanced methods could be severely limited due to the difficulty or impossibility of observing species-specific dental anatomical characteristics. In this situation, histomorphometry of dental tissues (i.e., evaluating the organisation, composition, and structural components of enamel, dentine, and cementum)[23], immunological procedures[24], stable isotopes[25], genetic tools (such as DNA sequencing, Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, Polymerase Chain Reaction–Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism, and microsatellite analysis)[26], and spectroscopy techniques (X-ray fluorescence[27][28] and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy[29][30]) have become particularly useful and relatively applicative.

2.1.2. Sex Estimation

Sexual dimorphism is the term that refers to differences between males and females of the same species[31]. Sex is easily indicated by the presence/absence of the baculum/baubellum[32], but most frequently sexual dimorphism is identified by body measurements, particularly visible in body mass and size[33].

Size-related sexual dimorphism is a common phenomenon in carnivores, particularly in the size of the skull, mandible, and teeth, with males on average being significantly larger than females (e.g.,[34][35][36]), except in some animal species such as the spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta), where a reverse sexual dimorphism is observed[37]. In this order of mammals, sexual dimorphism in the size of the skull, canines, carnassial teeth, and molars is widespread, being more pronounced in the families of Felidae (e.g.,[38]), Canidae (e.g.,[33]), and Ursidae (e.g.,[39]). In general, dental sexual dimorphism of Primates centres on the canines[40][41][42] and, combined with the rest of the teeth in a discriminant analysis, can be used to assign a sex correctly in skeletal remains. Dental sexual dimorphism is also marked in tusks, including marine mammals such as narwhals, walruses, and dugongs, and herbivorous terrestrial mammals such as elephants and hippopotami[23].

2.1.3. Age-at-Death Estimation

Age-at-death estimation can be applied to living animals or skeletonised remains[43]. The examination of bones, horns, and dentition has been proposed in ageing of carcasses, as well as the length or height of animal and the colour of the pelage[44]. However, the study of animal dentition is one of the most practical and accurate methods for estimating their age-at-death[45]. Several methods have been proposed for the estimation of dental age-at-death in animal forensic investigations, such as those based on (i) dental development and eruption, (ii) occlusal tooth wear, (iii) dental cementum annuli, and (iv) secondary dentine deposition.

Since dental growth and mineralisation follow a consistent sequence and clear-cut changes occur over a brief period, age-at-death can be estimated with reasonable reliability from the state of development[23]. In veterinary practice, age-at-death can be estimated by visual examination evaluating dental eruption, since the sequence and timing of the eruption of teeth provides a reference scale for age-at-death estimation; it can be studied since the tooth begins the process when the crown emerges from the crypt until it reaches the occlusal plane[46].

After the dentition is fully erupted, several researchers have proposed age-at-death estimation methods based on dental wear[46]. Once a tooth emerges from the gingivae, dental wear initiates as a consequence of the grinding of teeth against one another, and the contact with food, cheeks, and tongue[23]. Dental attrition of the permanent teeth has been extensively studied and is considered a classic method for age-at-death estimation in adult animals[47], visually assessing the loss of enamel and the amount of the dentine exposed[23].

Another age-at-death estimation method is based on the analysis of incremental structures in dental cementum[46]. The deposition of cementum is continuous throughout the life of the animal, providing a longitudinal record of factors affecting its growth, resulting in incremental bands correlated with seasonal growth in most species. When longitudinal tooth sections are observed under a light-transmitting microscope using polarised light, translucent and opaque bands alternate as a result of the growth pattern; so, these bands can be related to the age of the animal and used to conduct the estimation of the age-at-death[48].

The study of secondary dentine deposition inside the pulp chamber is also applied for age-at-death estimation in animals[23]. Secondary dentine is the dental tissue formed after root completion and its deposition is continuous inside the pulp cavity in the form of layers while the pulp remains vital. As a result, the pulp cavity reduces in volume with age[49]. The relationship between the pulp/tooth area ratio using dental radiographic images is the basis of this age-at-death estimation method and has been applied in several animal species such as cat[50], dog[51], coyote[52], and lion[53].

2.1.4. Body Size Estimation

Body size is described in terms of body length or mass, since these two variables provide the greatest predictive value for understanding the animal’s ecology[54]. Limb-based estimations of body mass are the most common methods using either lengths and/or midshaft cross-sectional dimensions of long bones[55]. They have the advantage that they are based on the relationship between body mass and the load borne by the limbs when they support the body on the ground[54]. However, because teeth are most frequently preserved in the skeletal record, their size is often used to estimate the body mass by biologists and palaeontologists[56][57]. While several studies use the post-canine tooth row length to infer allometric relationships with body mass (e.g.,[56][58][59]), other researchers have proven a strong relationship between body mass and the area of individual teeth, particularly the first molar (e.g.,[60][61][62][63]).

Numerous studies have performed regression equations based on post-canine tooth row length and/or mandibular first molar crown area (i.e., crown area = mesiodistal × buccolingual diameter) and have been developed for a variety of species of the class Mammalia, including ungulates (e.g.,[57][63]), marsupials (e.g.,[61]), carnivores (e.g.,[58][62][64]), rodents (e.g.,[59][65]), Primates (e.g.,[56][66][67]), and even sharks (e.g.,[68]). Although the first molar is considered the tooth that has the least variation in its adjustment to body mass and, therefore, would be the ideal tooth to estimate body mass from a single tooth, regression equations are available for the other tooth classes of the dentition (e.g.,[61][64][67]).

2.2. Geographical Origin (Provenance) Identification

Stable isotope ratios vary among biomes that animals inhabit and are incorporated into organism tissues from its diet. In this way, animals moving between isotopically different biomes can retain information of previous feeding locations for periods of time that depend on the turnover rates for the different organism tissues[69].

In the case of teeth, stable isotope analysis can be performed on either the organic or inorganic fraction. The organic fraction preserves proteins such as collagen, so the collagen contained in dentine can be used to assess short-term changes that occurred during puppyhood, as these tissues form in early life and undergo little remodelling[70]. The inorganic fraction is primarily formed by hydroxyapatite. The dense crystalline structure of enamel makes it the preferred tissue for isotopic analysis, as it is less susceptible to diagenetic alterations compared to bone tissue[71][72]. Furthermore, dental enamel, unlike bone, is not remodelled during life, and therefore the isotopic signature of dental enamel is directly related to the environment and diet during the period of tooth formation[72].

2.3. Post-Mortem Interval Estimation

The post-mortem interval is the time between the death of an animal and the discovery of the body[73]. In human forensic medicine, the study of the post-mortem interval is one of the most popular topics; however, in veterinary forensics, the number of studies is extremely limited[73][74][75][76]. Researchers must face a deficiency in the development of methodologies for a large number of species and, therefore, the obligation to apply methods developed in humans, lacking the appropriate validation to be applied in crimes against animals[74][75][77].

The most used methods of relevance to forensic veterinary pathology for estimating the post-mortem interval in animals’ dead bodies are mainly based on temperature changes, muscular stiffening (also called rigor mortis), ocular changes, cadaveric lividity (livor mortis), decomposition processes, and entomology[75][77]. In the case of studies conducted on animal dentition, there is a limited amount of research based on morphological, histological, or molecular analysis[78][79][80][81]. The small number and the results of the studies conducted on animal dentition for estimation of the post-mortem interval show the need to increase the analysis on this topic. All the studies point out the potential of their methods but emphasise the need for further research to give greater solidity to the results[78][79][80][81].

2.4. Bite Marks

In forensic sciences, recognising and correctly identifying the actions of animals on human remains, but also on other faunal remains, is crucial, as this allows the collection of data about events that may have affected the body over a time, which may have ranged from the ante-mortem to post-mortem period[82]. In certain contexts or situations, animals can cause severe injuries that, on one hand, may lead to the death of the individual attacked and, on the other hand, can alter the corpse in the post-mortem period, either in relation to soft or hard tissues[83]. To reconstruct the forensic scene as reliably as possible and define how certain animal species acted on a human body, it is essential to correctly identify the nature of the injuries, the anatomical region affected, the circumstances in which they occurred and the agent that caused them, in order to avoid possible misjudgements with very disastrous implications in the forensic framework. At a macroscopic level, bite marks are among the signs most frequently found on the body of a victim, whether it is exposed in an open, outdoor, or enclosed environment. Bite marks can be defined as both superficial and deep marks left by teeth that affect, in diverse ways, both soft and hard tissues whose morphology varies depending on the size and shape of the maxillary/mandibular dental arches and the force exerted by the bite[84].

Determining which predator species is responsible for killing a human is important, especially when there is the possibility of overlapping bite marks, as is the case with many carnivore species[85]. For example, in bite mark comparisons of sympatric animals, measurements of the maxillary and mandibular intercanine distance are frequently used as an aid in identifying the different animal species responsible for a predatory or scavenging attack[86][87].

3. Concluding Remarks

There is no doubt that veterinary forensics is becoming increasingly important in our modern society, increasing the demand for investigations related to crimes against animals or investigations of criminal deaths of human beings involving animals. The potential of dentition in the identification process in forensic contexts emphasises the need for further research to give greater solidity to the results, helping the Courts in answering questions of interest to the legal system to reach a reliable verdict.

References

  1. Bailey, D. (Ed.) Introduction—What is the veterinary forensics? In Practical Veterinary Forensics; CAB International: Oxfordshire, UK, 2016; pp. 1–11.
  2. Cooper, J.E.; Cooper, M.E. Special features of veterinary and comparative forensic medicine. In Introduction to Veterinary and Comparative Forensic Medicine; Cooper, J.E., Cooper, M.E., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 168–224.
  3. A. De Siqueira; S. E. Campusano Cuevas; F. A. Salvagni; P. C. Maiorka; Forensic Veterinary Pathology. Veterinary Pathology 2016, 53, 979-987, 10.1177/0300985816655850.
  4. R. Munro; H.M.C. Munro; Some Challenges in Forensic Veterinary Pathology: A Review. Journal of Comparative Pathology 2013, 149, 57-73, 10.1016/j.jcpa.2012.10.001.
  5. Kles, M.; Sutton, L. Forensic veterinary osteology. In Veterinary Forensic Medicine and Forensic Sciences; Byrd, J.H., Norris, P., Bradley-Siemens, N., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 199–224.
  6. O’Connor, T. The Archaeology of Animal Bones; Texas A&M University Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2008.
  7. Gifford-Gonzalez, D. Bone’s intrinsic traits: Inferring species, sex, and age. In An Introduction to Zooarchaeology; Gifford-Gonzalez, D., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 103–123.
  8. Ungar, P.S. How teeth work. In Evolution’s Bite: A Story of Teeth, Diet, and Human Origins; Ungar, P.S., Ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 5–33.
  9. M.E. Sims; Cranial morphology of five felids: Acinonyx jubatus, Panthera onca, Panthera pardus, Puma concolor, Uncia uncia. Russian Journal of Theriology 2012, 11, 157-170, 10.15298/rusjtheriol.11.2.05.
  10. Jyotirmoy Roy; Abhishek Singh; M. M. Rohith; Lalit K. Sharma; Abraham Johnson; Hemant Joshi; Venkatraman Chinnadurai; Kailash Chandra; Mukesh Thakur; Cranio-dental signature of three big cats of India: implications in wildlife forensics. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 2021, 75, 57-64, 10.1007/s12595-021-00390-6.
  11. Paul Halstead; P. Collins; Valasia Isaakidou; Sorting the Sheep from the Goats: Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth of AdultOvis and Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 2002, 29, 545-553, 10.1006/jasc.2001.0777.
  12. Lisa B. Whitenack; Michael D. Gottfried; A morphometric approach for addressing tooth-based species delimitation in fossil mako sharks,Isurus(Elasmobranchii: Lamniformes). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010, 30, 17-25, 10.1080/02724630903409055.
  13. Natália Lima Boroni; Leonardo Souza Lobo; Pedro Seyferth R. Romano; Gisele Lessa; Taxonomic identification using geometric morphometric approach and limited data: an example using the upper molars of two sympatric species of Calomys (Cricetidae: Rodentia). Zoologia (Curitiba) 2017, 34, 1-11, 10.3897/zoologia.34.e19864.
  14. Richard Chuang; Vincent Bonhomme; Rethinking the dental morphological differences between domestic equids. Journal of Archaeological Science 2019, 101, 140-148, 10.1016/j.jas.2018.02.020.
  15. A. Hulme-Beaman; J. Claude; Y. Chaval; A. Evin; S. Morand; J. D. Vigne; K. Dobney; T. Cucchi; Dental Shape Variation and Phylogenetic Signal in the Rattini Tribe Species of Mainland Southeast Asia. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 2018, 26, 435-446, 10.1007/s10914-017-9423-8.
  16. Vincent Miele; Gaspard Dussert; Thomas Cucchi; Sabrina Renaud; Deep learning for species identification of modern and fossil rodent molars. BioRxiv 2020, null, null, 10.1101/2020.08.20.259176.
  17. Víctor Toledo González; Fernando Ortega Ojeda; Gabriel M. Fonseca; Carmen García-Ruiz; Pablo Navarro Cáceres; Pilar Pérez-Lloret; María Del Pilar Marín García; A Morphological and Morphometric Dental Analysis as a Forensic Tool to Identify the Iberian Wolf (Canis Lupus Signatus). Animals 2020, 10, 975, 10.3390/ani10060975.
  18. J. Michael Plavcan; Dana A. Cope; Metric variation and species recognition in the fossil record. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 2001, 10, 204-222, 10.1002/evan.20001.
  19. Da Silva, R.F.; Mendes, S.D.S.C.; Marinho, D.E.A.; Júnior, A.F.R.; Guimarães, M.A. Importance of the comparative anatomy in Forensic Anthropology—Case report. RSBO 2013, 10, 193–197.
  20. Lloyd A. Courtenay; Darío Herranz-Rodrigo; Diego González-Aguilera; José Yravedra; Developments in data science solutions for carnivore tooth pit classification. Scientific Reports 2021, 11, 1-15, 10.1038/s41598-021-89518-4.
  21. José Yravedra; Miguel Ángel Maté-González; Lloyd A. Courtenay; Diego González-Aguilera; Maximiliano Fernández Fernández; The use of canid tooth marks on bone for the identification of livestock predation. Scientific Reports 2019, 9, 1-9, 10.1038/s41598-019-52807-0.
  22. Lloyd A. Courtenay; José Yravedra; Rosa Huguet; Julia Aramendi; Miguel Ángel Maté-González; Diego González-Aguilera; Mari Carmen Arriaza; Combining machine learning algorithms and geometric morphometrics: A study of carnivore tooth marks. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 2019, 522, 28-39, 10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.03.007.
  23. Hillson, S. Teeth, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
  24. David K. Whittaker; Lionel W. Rawle; The effect of conditions of putrefaction on species determination in human and animal teeth. Forensic Science International 1987, 35, 209-212, 10.1016/0379-0738(87)90057-0.
  25. Marie Balasse; Stanley H. Ambrose; Distinguishing sheep and goats using dental morphology and stable carbon isotopes in C4 grassland environments. Journal of Archaeological Science 2005, 32, 691-702, 10.1016/j.jas.2004.11.013.
  26. Tae-Wook Kim; Hwa-Jin Lee; Yoo-Kyung Kim; Hong-Shik Oh; Sang-Hyun Han; Genetic identification of prey species from teeth in faeces from the Endangered leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis using mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequence. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 2017, 29, 170-174, 10.1080/24701394.2016.1261852.
  27. Korakot Nganvongpanit; Janine L. Brown; Kittisak Buddhachat; Chaleamchat Somgird; Chatchote Thitaram; Elemental Analysis of Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) Teeth Using X-ray Fluorescence and a Comparison to Other Species. Biological Trace Element Research 2015, 170, 94-105, 10.1007/s12011-015-0445-x.
  28. Korakot Nganvongpanit; Kittisak Buddhachat; Sarisa Klinhom; Patcharaporn Kaewmong; Chatchote Thitaram; Pasuk Mahakkanukrauh; Determining comparative elemental profile using handheld X-ray fluorescence in humans, elephants, dogs, and dolphins: Preliminary study for species identification. Forensic Science International 2016, 263, 101-106, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.056.
  29. N Irfanita; I Jaswir; M E S Mirghani; S Sukmasari; Y D Ardini; W Lestari; Rapid detection of gelatin in dental materials using attenuated total reflection fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2017, 884, 012090, 10.1088/1742-6596/884/1/012090.
  30. Xin Wei; Kai Yu; Hao Wu; Chen Shen; Huiyu Li; Ruina Liu; Qinru Sun; Zhenyuan Wang; Species identification of teeth of human and non-human. Forensic Science International 2022, 333, 111205, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111205.
  31. F.J. McPherson; P.J. Chenoweth; Mammalian sexual dimorphism. Animal Reproduction Science 2012, 131, 109-122, 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2012.02.007.
  32. Michael Lough‐Stevens; Nicholas G. Schultz; Matthew D. Dean; The baubellum is more developmentally and evolutionarily labile than the baculum. Ecology and Evolution 2017, 8, 1073-1083, 10.1002/ece3.3634.
  33. E. Szuma; Geography of sexual dimorphism in the tooth size of the red fox Vulpes vulpes (Mammalia, Carnivora). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 2007, 46, 73-81, 10.1111/j.1439-0469.2007.00418.x.
  34. J. L. Gittleman; B. Van Valkenburgh; Sexual dimorphism in the canines and skulls of carnivores: effects of size, phylogency, and behavioural ecology. Journal of Zoology 1997, 242, 97-117, 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1997.tb02932.x.
  35. Peter Lüps; Timothy J. Roper; Tooth size in the European badger ( Meles meles ) with special reference to sexual dimorphism, diet and intraspecific aggression. Acta Theriologica 1988, 33, 21-33, 10.4098/at.arch.88-2.
  36. John J. Mayer; Jr. I. Lehr Brisbin; Sex Identification of Sus scrofa Based on Canine Morphology. Journal of Mammalogy 1988, 69, 408-412, 10.2307/1381402.
  37. B. Van Valkenburgh; C. B. Ruff; Canine tooth strength and killing behaviour in large carnivores. Journal of Zoology 1987, 212, 379-397, 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb02910.x.
  38. Per Christiansen; John M. Harris; Variation in Craniomandibular Morphology and Sexual Dimorphism in Pantherines and the Sabercat Smilodon fatalis. PLOS ONE 2012, 7, e48352, 10.1371/journal.pone.0048352.
  39. Thor Larsen; Sexual Dimorphism in the Molar Rows of the Polar Bear. The Journal of Wildlife Management 1971, 35, 374, 10.2307/3799617.
  40. J. Michael Plavcan; Sexual dimorphism in primate evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2001, 116, 25-53, 10.1002/ajpa.10011.abs.
  41. Gary T. Schwartz; Christopher Dean; Ontogeny of canine dimorphism in extant hominoids. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2001, 115, 269-283, 10.1002/ajpa.1081.
  42. J. Michael Plavcan; Sexual Size Dimorphism, Canine Dimorphism, and Male-Male Competition in Primates. Human Nature 2012, 23, 45-67, 10.1007/s12110-012-9130-3.
  43. Cooper, J.E.; Cooper, M.E. Pathology and post-mortem examinations. In Introduction to Veterinary and Comparative Forensic Medicine; Cooper, J.E., Cooper, M.E., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 168–224.
  44. Sriraman, P.K. Forensic necropsy. In Wildlife Necropsy and Forensics; Sriraman, P.K., Ed.; CRC Press: Oxon, UK, 2021; pp. 152–199.
  45. Moreangels M. Mbizah; Gerhard Steenkamp; Rosemary J. Groom; Evaluation of the Applicability of Different Age Determination Methods for Estimating Age of the Endangered African Wild Dog (Lycaon Pictus). PLOS ONE 2016, 11, e0164676, 10.1371/journal.pone.0164676.
  46. O’Connor, T.P. Vertebrate demography by numbers: Age, sex, and zooarchaeological practice. In Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones; Ruscillo, D., Ed.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 1–8.
  47. C. A. Spinage; A review of the age determination of mammals by means of teeth, with especial reference to Africa. African Journal of Ecology 1973, 11, 165-187, 10.1111/j.1365-2028.1973.tb00081.x.
  48. Daniel E. Lieberman; The Biological Basis for Seasonal Increments in Dental Cementum and Their Application to Archaeological Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 1994, 21, 525-539, 10.1006/jasc.1994.1052.
  49. Lemons, M.; Beebe, D. Oral anatomy and physiology. In Wiggs’s Veterinary Dentistry: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed.; Lobprise, H.B., Dodd, J.R., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–24.
  50. Kyoungsun Park; Jaesang Ahn; Sunmee Kang; Euiri Lee; Soohyun Kim; Sangwan Park; Sungwon Park; Hyunwoo Noh; Kangmoon Seo; Determining the age of cats by pulp cavity/tooth width ratio using dental radiography. Journal of Veterinary Science 2014, 15, 557-561, 10.4142/jvs.2014.15.4.557.
  51. Tatiana Nomokonova; Robert J. Losey; Kira McLachlin; Olga P. Bachura; Andrei V. Gusev; Pavel A. Kosintsev; Natalia V. Fedorova; Mikhail V. Sablin; Age estimation of archaeological dogs using pulp cavity closure ratios. Journal of Archaeological Science 2020, 123, 105252, 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105252.
  52. Knowlton, F.F.; Whittemore, S.L. Pulp cavity-tooth width ratios from known-age and wild-caught coyotes determined by radiography. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2001, 29, 239–244.
  53. Paula A. White; Dennis Ikanda; Luigi Ferrante; Philippe Chardonnet; Pascal Mesochina; Roberto Cameriere; Age Estimation of African Lions Panthera leo by Ratio of Tooth Areas. PLOS ONE 2016, 11, e0153648, 10.1371/journal.pone.0153648.
  54. Hopkins, S.S.B. Estimation of body size in fossil mammals. In Methods in Paleoecology: Reconstructing Cenozoic Terrestrial Environments and Ecological Communities; Croft, D.A., Su, D.F., Simpson, S.W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94265-0_2.
  55. Gingerich, P.D. Prediction of body mass in mammalian species from long bone lengths and diameters. In Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology; The University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1990; Volume 28, pp. 79–92.
  56. Lynn E. Copes; Gary T. Schwartz; The scale of it all: postcanine tooth size, the taxon-level effect, and the universality of Gould's scaling law. Paleobiology 2010, 36, 188-203, 10.1666/08089.1.
  57. Juha Saarinen; Omar Cirilli; Flavia Strani; Keiko Meshida; Raymond L. Bernor; Testing Equid Body Mass Estimate Equations on Modern Zebras—With Implications to Understanding the Relationship of Body Size, Diet, and Habitats of Equus in the Pleistocene of Europe. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2021, 9, 622412, 10.3389/fevo.2021.622412.
  58. R. J. Losey; B. Osipov; R. Sivakumaran; T. Nomokonova; E. V. Kovychev; N. G. Diatchina; Estimating Body Mass in Dogs and Wolves Using Cranial and Mandibular Dimensions: Application to Siberian Canids. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 2013, 25, 946-959, 10.1002/oa.2386.
  59. Freudenthal, M.; Martín-Suárez, E. Estimating body mass of fossil rodents. Scr. Geol. 2013, 145, 1–130.
  60. Philip D. Gingerich; Margaret J. Schoeninger; Patterns of tooth size variability in the dentition of primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1979, 51, 457-465, 10.1002/ajpa.1330510318.
  61. Cynthia L. Gordon; A First Look at Estimating Body Size in Dentally Conservative Marsupials. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 2003, 10, 1-21, 10.1023/a:1025545023221.
  62. Serge Legendre; Claudia Roth; Correlation of carnassial tooth size and body weight in recent carnivores (mammalia). Historical Biology 1988, 1, 85-98, 10.1080/08912968809386468.
  63. Morris, B.; Mead, A.J. Body mass estimates from bone and tooth measurements in white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus. Ga. J. Sci. 2016, 74, 18.
  64. Edward H. Miller; Shane P. Mahoney; Michael L. Kennedy; Phyllis K. Kennedy; Variation, Sexual Dimorphism, and Allometry in Molar Size of the Black Bear. Journal of Mammalogy 2009, 90, 491-503, 10.1644/08-mamm-a-055.1.
  65. Blanca Moncunill-Solé; Xavier Jordana; Nekane Marín-Moratalla; Salvador Moyà-Solà; Meike Köhler; How large are the extinct giant insular rodents? New body mass estimations from teeth and bones. Integrative Zoology 2014, 9, 197-212, 10.1111/1749-4877.12063.
  66. Marian Dagosto; Carl J. Terranova; Estimating the body size of eocene primates: A comparison of results from dental and postcranial variables. International Journal of Primatology 1992, 13, 307-344, 10.1007/bf02547818.
  67. Carol Lauer; The relationship of tooth size to body size in a population of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1975, 43, 333-339, 10.1002/ajpa.1330430306.
  68. Victor J. Perez; Ronny M. Leder; Teddy Badaut; Body length estimation of Neogene macrophagous lamniform sharks (Carcharodon and Otodus) derived from associated fossil dentitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 2021, 24, 1-28, 10.26879/1140.
  69. Keith A. Hobson; Tracing origins and migration of wildlife using stable isotopes: a review. Oecologia 1999, 120, 314-326, 10.1007/s004420050865.
  70. Gage, J.P.; Francis, M.J.O.; Triffit, J.T. Collagen and Dental Matrices; Butterworth-Heinemann: London, UK, 1989.
  71. K. A. Hoppe; P. L. Koch; T. T. Furutani; Assessing the preservation of biogenic strontium in fossil bones and tooth enamel. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 2003, 13, 20-28, 10.1002/oa.663.
  72. Meier-Augenstein, W. Chapter III.5: Provenancing people. In Stable Isotope Forensics: Methods and Forensic Applications of Stable Isotope Analysis, 2nd ed.; Meier-Augenstein, W., Ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2018; pp. 333–400.
  73. Munro, R.; Munro, H.M.C. (Eds.) Estimation of time since death. In Animal Abuse and Unlawful Killing: Forensic Veterinary Pathology; Saunders Elsevier: London, UK, 2008; pp. 88–93.
  74. J. W. Brooks; Postmortem Changes in Animal Carcasses and Estimation of the Postmortem Interval. Veterinary Pathology 2016, 53, 929-940, 10.1177/0300985816629720.
  75. Brooks, J.W.; Sutton, L. Postmortem changes and estimating the postmortem interval. In Veterinary Forensic Pathology; Brooks J.W., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 43–63.
  76. Maria Erlandsson; Ranald Munro; Estimation of the post-mortem interval in beagle dogs. Science & Justice 2007, 47, 150-154, 10.1016/j.scijus.2007.09.005.
  77. Brooks, J.W. Postmortem changes and the estimation of time since death. In Veterinary Forensics: Investigation, Evidence Collection, and Expert Testimony; Rogers, E., Stern, A.W., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 225–250.
  78. Nihat Akbulut; Selçuk Çetin; Burak Bilecenoğlu; Ahmet Altan; Sibel Akbulut; Mert Ocak; Kaan Orhan; The micro-CT evaluation of enamel-cement thickness, abrasion, and mineral density in teeth in the postmortem interval (PMI): new parameters for the determination of PMI. International Journal of Legal Medicine 2019, 134, 645-653, 10.1007/s00414-019-02104-2.
  79. Michelle A. Granrud; Gretchen R. Dabbs; A preliminary study of incisor exfoliation as an estimator of the postmortem interval using accumulated degree days. Forensic Science International 2012, 220, e29-e32, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.02.020.
  80. Monica Mehendiratta; Kanu Jain; Karen Boaz; Mohit Bansal; Nidhi Manaktala; Estimation of time elapsed since the death from identification of morphological and histological time-related changes in dental pulp: An observational study from porcine teeth. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences 2015, 7, 95-100, 10.4103/0975-1475.154594.
  81. Stephanie T. Young; Jeffrey D. Wells; Gerald R. Hobbs; Clifton P. Bishop; Estimating postmortem interval using RNA degradation and morphological changes in tooth pulp. Forensic Science International 2013, 229, 163.e1-163.e6, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.03.035.
  82. Iris Schulz; Peter M. Schneider; Klaus Olek; Markus A. Rothschild; Michael Tsokos; Examination of Postmortem Animal Interference to Human Remains Using Cross-Species Multiplex PCR. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology 2006, 2, 95-101, 10.1385/fsmp:2:2:95.
  83. Douglas H. Ubelaker; Cassandra M. DeGaglia; The impact of scavenging: perspective from casework in forensic anthropology. Forensic Sciences Research 2020, 5, 32-37, 10.1080/20961790.2019.1704473.
  84. Bernstein, M. The nature of bitemarks. In Bitemark Evidence: A Color Atlas and Text, 2nd ed.; Dorion, R., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 53–65.
  85. Denise C. Murmann; Paula C. Brumit; Bruce A. Schrader; David R. Senn; A Comparison of Animal Jaws and Bite Mark Patterns*. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2006, 51, 846-860, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00166.x.
  86. Ohana, A.J.S. Intercanine distance used as a measure to rule out biters in bite mark forensics. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee: Knoxville, TN, USA, 2016.
  87. Madis Põdra; Asunción Gómez; Santiago Palazón; Do American mink kill European mink? Cautionary message for future recovery efforts. European Journal of Wildlife Research 2013, 59, 431-440, 10.1007/s10344-013-0689-8.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback