Cited by 121Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Canid modification of human remains - implications for time-since-death estimations

Willey, P, Snyder, LM·1989·Journal of Forensic Sciences

Abstract

Time-since-death estimations are usually based on physical decomposition of the corpse, insect succession, and contextual associations. The rates of change and succession are based on decomposition studies, most of which control access of scavengers to the corpse; however, many naturally exposed corpses are subject to scavenger modification. These modifications change the rate of decomposition, the pattern of insect succession, and the context of associations, thus altering estimations of time since death. A controlled feeding study with captive wolves and road-killed deer is pertinent to understanding canid scavenging and how scavenging may alter postmortem changes. During feeding, the wolves commonly dismember and devour the deer in a predictable sequence. Although there are some variations in the usual sequence, the carcass is always moved, and skeletal elements are separated, diminished in size and scattered. Scavenging must, therefore, be considered in estimating time since death.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1520/jfs12718j

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. De Saram, Estimation of the Time of Death by Medical Criteria, Journal of Forensic Medicine, 4, 47
  2. Marshall, 1976, Changes after Death, 78
  3. Morse, 1983, Time of Death, 124
  4. Motter, 1898, A Contribution to the Study of the Fauna of the Grave, Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 6, 201
  5. Rodriguez, 1983, Insect Activity and Its Relationship to Decay Rates of Human Cadavers in East Tennessee, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 28, 423, 10.1520/JFS11524J · DOI
  6. Denne, 1977, Dating of Events from Tree Growth and Wood Structure, Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 17, 257, 10.1016/S0015-7368(77)71159-4 · DOI
  7. Willey, 1987, Estimating Time Since Death Using Plant Roots and Stems, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 32, 1264, 10.1520/JFS11177J · DOI
  8. Morse, 1983, The Skeletal Pathology of Trauma, 145
  9. Binford, 1981, Bones, Ancient Men and Modern Myths
  10. Brain, 1981, The Hunters or the Hunted?
  11. Haynes, G. , Bone Modifications and Skeletal Disturbances by Natural Agencies: Studies in North America, Ph.D. dissertation published by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.
  12. Hill, 1979, Disarticulation and Scattering of Mammal Skeletons, Paleobiology, 5, 261, 10.1017/S0094837300006552 · DOI
  13. Trinkhaus, 1985, Cannibalism and Burial at Krapina, Journal of Human Evolution, 14, 203, 10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80007-5 · DOI
  14. Villa, 1986, Cannibalism in the Neolithic, Science, 233, 431, 10.1126/science.233.4762.431 · DOI
  15. Haglund, 1988, Abstract: “Carnivore-Assisted Disarticulation/Dismemberment of Human Remains, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 75, 218
  16. Klippel, 1987, Taphonomy and Archaeologically Recovered Mammal Bone from Southeast Missouri, Journal of Ethnobiology, 7, 155
  17. Snyder, 1986, Canid Modification of Skeketal Material from Archaeological Sites
  18. Lyman, R. L. , The Taphonomy of Vertebrate Archeofaunas: Bone Density and Differential Survivorship of Fossil Classes, Ph.D. dissertation published by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1982.
  19. Paradiso, 1982, Wolves, Canis lupus and Allies, 460
  20. Beckoff, 1982, Coyote, Canis latrans, 447
  21. 1985, The Complete Dog Book
  22. Blumenschine, 1986, Carcass Consumption Sequences and the Archaeological Distinction of Scavenging and Hunting, Journal of Human Evolution, 15, 639, 10.1016/S0047-2484(86)80002-1 · DOI
  23. Haglund, 1988, Tooth Mark Artifacts and Survival of Bones in Animal-Scavenged Human Skeletons, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 33, 985, 10.1520/JFS12521J · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Willey, P., & Snyder, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • University of Tennessee 2 Graduate assistant , Department of Anthropology, , Knoxville, TN .
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Published
1989-07-01
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
894-901
ISSN
0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W989654683
Cited by
121
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
postmortem interval estimation, postmortem decomposition, insect succession, forensic taphonomy
MeSH terms
Animals, Carnivora, Deer, Feeding Behavior, Female, Forensic Medicine, Humans, Insecta, Male, Postmortem Changes, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review