No description available.

No description available.

Although bite force is a commonly used metric of feeding performance, other factors such as bite pressure and strike speed are also likely to affect prey capture. Therefore, this study investigated static bite force, dynamic speeds, and predator and prey forces resulting from ram strikes, as well as bite pressure of the king mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla, in order to examine their relative contributions to overall feeding performance. Theoretical posterior bite force ranged from 14.0-318.7 N. Ram speed, recorded with a rod and reel incorporated with a line counter and video camera, ranged from 3.3-15.8 BL/s. Impact forces on the prey ranged from 0.1-1.9N. Bite pressure, estimated using theoretical bite forces at three gape angles and tooth cross-sectional areas, ranged from 1.7-56.9 MPa. Mass-specific bite force for king mackerel is relatively low in comparison with other bony fishes and sharks, with relatively little impact force applied to the prey during the strike. This suggests that king mackerel rely on high velocity chases and high bite pressure generated via sharp, laterally compressed teeth to maximize feeding performance.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1987.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1984.

Thesis (doctoral)--University of Göteborg, 1992. / Added t.p. with thesis statement inserted. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1987.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1984.

Thesis (doctoral)--University of Göteborg, 1992. / Added t.p. with thesis statement inserted. Includes bibliographical references.

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.