2009
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-009-1273-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determining shark size from forensic analysis of bite damage

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
103
1
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(126 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
4
103
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…plutodus Garrick &Springer, 1964, are small pelagic sharks best known for their feeding behavior, which has been characterized by some authors as ectoparasitic. Cookiecutter sharks use specialized pharyngeal muscles, upper jaw, hyoid and branchial arches, and fleshy lips to suck onto prey, inserting hooklike upper teeth and proportionately massive lower teeth into the prey, then may twist in a circular motion to remove a plug of flesh (Shirai and Nakaya 1992, Motta and Wilga 2001, Lowry et al 2009). The resultant circular and concave wounds have been observed on the bodies of a variety of large pelagic species, including such diverse biota as cetaceans, pinnipeds, scombroid fishes (tunas, snake mackerels, b illfishes), sharks and rays, and sea turtles ( Jones 1971, Papastamatiou et al 2010.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…plutodus Garrick &Springer, 1964, are small pelagic sharks best known for their feeding behavior, which has been characterized by some authors as ectoparasitic. Cookiecutter sharks use specialized pharyngeal muscles, upper jaw, hyoid and branchial arches, and fleshy lips to suck onto prey, inserting hooklike upper teeth and proportionately massive lower teeth into the prey, then may twist in a circular motion to remove a plug of flesh (Shirai and Nakaya 1992, Motta and Wilga 2001, Lowry et al 2009). The resultant circular and concave wounds have been observed on the bodies of a variety of large pelagic species, including such diverse biota as cetaceans, pinnipeds, scombroid fishes (tunas, snake mackerels, b illfishes), sharks and rays, and sea turtles ( Jones 1971, Papastamatiou et al 2010.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To reconstruct a white shark's size, we needed appropriate references from the wounds or board damages, preferably adjacent tooth imprints. Since there is a strong correlation between a shark's length and its interdental distances, the measurements taken from surfer wounds or damaged boards allowed us to accurately estimate the size of the white shark involved [40,41].…”
Section: What Is It With Surfers and Sharks?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Identifying the Source Of The Cranial Traumamentioning
confidence: 99%