A Comparison of Animal Jaws and Bite Mark Patterns^*

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the jaw shapes and bite mark patterns of wild and domestic animals to assist investigators in their analysis of animal bite marks. The analyses were made on 12 species in the Order Carnivora housed in the Mammalian Collection at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Illinois. In addition to metric analysis, one skull from each species was photographed as a representative sample with an ABFO No. 2 scale in place. Bite patterns of the maxillary and mandibular dentition were documented using foamed polystyrene exemplars, which were also photographed. A total of 486 specimens were examined to analyze the jaw and bite mark patterns. A modified technique for measuring intercanine distances was developed to more accurately reflect the characteristics seen in animal bite marks. In it, three separate areas were measured on the canines, rather than just the cusp tip. This was to maximize the amount of information acquired from each skull, specifically to accommodate variances in the depth of bite injuries.

Ataque mortal por perros de raza rottweiller a una mujer adulta: posible ataque en manada y antropofagia postmortal: Revisión y análisis de un caso de autopsia médico legal

“…El cuarto premolar superior, mayor que los demás, se opone al primer molar inferior y entre ambos se produce un efecto de cizalla que permite desgarrar la carne en trozos, por lo que se denomina a ambos dientes carniceros (Figura 8). Los molares (2 en la hemiarcada superior y 3 en la inferior), de tamaño decreciente, tienen una cara externa cortante y una lingual molariforme, que utilizan habitualmente para triturar las piezas óseas y exponer el tuétano 21 .…”

“…Algunos autores destacan que la presencia de 6 incisivos en la mordida, con el arco frontal entre los caninos curvado, la configuración no oval de la lesión completa (como en mordeduras humanas) y la presencia de profundas marcas de caninos son sugestivas de mordeduras por mamíferos de la familia de los cánidos (lobo, coyote, perro). La distancia entre las marcas de los caninos es sugestiva de la distancia entre los caninos del animal y por ello puede usarse como indicador del tamaño del animal 21,23,24 . Algunos autores recomiendan la toma de moldes dentales para superposición de las heridas con dichos moldes y para la conservación de piezas de convicción fehacientes de los parámetros de la dentición animal, algunos como la distancia intercaninos con eventual utilidad reconstructiva en casos de heridas simples por mordedura canina (Figura 9).…”

Identification of a Pre-Contact Polar Bear Victim at Native Point, Southampton Island, Nunavut, Using 3D Technology and a Virtual Zooarchaeology Collection

“…An additional variable of critical significance for this study relates to the manner in which intercanine width ranges are obtained. As discussed by Murmann et al (2006), the conical shape of the canines means that intercanine widths will vary on the same individual depending upon where measures are taken, with the greatest distance occurring between the cusps and the smallest where the teeth erupt from their sockets. This means that the intercanine width measure obtained for a superficial bite mark involving minimal canine engagement will be larger than the width measure obtained for a deeper puncture wound made by the same animal because these deeper bites involve progressively more of the teeth (e.g., Murmann et al, 2006: Figs.…”

“…Although detailed descriptions of bite mark injuries involving humans and wild animals are largely lacking (e.g., Freer, 2004), odontological studies with similar goals have been successfully undertaken in modern cases when investigators need to identify the species, or even the individual animal, involved in human-animal and animalanimal encounters (e.g., Glass et al, 1975;George et al, 1994;Rollins and Spencer, 1995;Nambiar et al, 1996;Murmann et al, 2006;De Giorgio et al, 2007;Lowry et al, 2009;Shields et al, 2009;Bergman et al, 2010); a smaller number of taphonomic studies have also been described (e.g., Sutcliffe, 1970;Brain, 1981;Boaz et al, 2000;Domínguez-Rodrigo and Piqueras, 2003;Delaney-Rivera et al, 2009;Gignac et al, 2010). In some of these cases, a direct comparison was made between wound marks and an individual animal, while in other instances, where species identification was the goal, the spacing between paired canine marks (intercanine width or canine spread) was considered against known ranges for candidate species (e.g., Elbroch, 2006:83 -88) in order to narrow the list of possible perpetrators.…”

“…To resolve this ambiguity, Murmann et al (2006) advocate producing two intercanine widths in order to establish ranges appropriate for deep bites (mesial bone height, or MBH, measured using the alveolar bone of the socket), as well as for less forceful bites involving little or no tooth penetration (canine cusp tip to canine cusp tip, or Tip). Unfortunately, while Murmann et al (2006 : Tables 14 and 15) do provide MBH and Tip width ranges for gray wolves and grizzly and black bears, polar bears were not included.…”