Use of presence vs absence of symphyseal teeth in jaws for the forensic analysis of bites by large traumatogenic shark species

Abstract Identifying the species of shark responsible for a bite on humans is both complex and important for understanding and managing the shark risk. Depending on the species, tiny teeth may or may not be present in the symphyseal space at the junction of the upper and lower half‐jaws. In the case of bites, these tiny teeth (if present) often leave specific marks that may enable species to be quickly and reliably distinguished. We first present the anatomo‐morphological characteristics of the jaws of the three most traumatogenic species for humans which are the white, tiger, and bull sharks. The white shark has no symphyseal teeth, while the tiger and bull sharks do. On the basis of three confirmed real case studies involving those species, we then show that for the white shark, the wide symphyseal space between the first two teeth of each jaw usually leads to wounds including the presence of (quite) large flesh flaps, without any tooth imprint. Conversely, wounds following bites made by the tiger and bull sharks will generally leave characteristic small imprints of symphyseal teeth, especially in the case of incomplete or superficial bites. Although not systematic, this diagnostic approach provides fast, reliable, and clean results. The discrimination between two species with symphyseal teeth can then be made on the basis of complementary anatomic information such as jaw curvature and details linked to the anatomy of the teeth themselves, as well as the ecological context.