↓ Skip to main content

Skeletal Indicators of Shark Feeding on Human Remains: Evidence from Florida Forensic Anthropology Cases

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Forensic Sciences (Blackwell Publishing Limited), May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Skeletal Indicators of Shark Feeding on Human Remains: Evidence from Florida Forensic Anthropology Cases
Published in
Journal of Forensic Sciences (Blackwell Publishing Limited), May 2017
DOI 10.1111/1556-4029.13470
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This research examines a series of six Florida forensic anthropology cases that exhibit taphonomic evidence of marine deposition and shark-feeding activities. In each case, we analyzed patterns of trauma/damage on the skeletal remains (e.g., sharp-force bone gouges and punctures) and possible mechanisms by which they were inflicted during shark predation/scavenging. In some cases, shark teeth were embedded in the remains; in the absence of this evidence, we measured interdental distance from defects in the bone to estimate shark body length, as well as to draw inferences about the potential species responsible. We discuss similarities and differences among the cases and make comparisons to literature documenting diagnostic shark-inflicted damage to human remains from nearby regions. We find that the majority of cases potentially involve bull or tiger sharks scavenging the remains of previously deceased, adult male individuals. This scavenging results in a distinctive taphonomic signature including incised gouges in cortical bone.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 18%
Social Sciences 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2025.
All research outputs
#1,087,444
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Forensic Sciences (Blackwell Publishing Limited)
#127
of 4,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,380
of 356,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Forensic Sciences (Blackwell Publishing Limited)
#5
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.