Print

---

Dear Tony,

it may be worth pointing out that your paper is mainly based on cervical lengths that you had to take through x-rays. The threshold you established may well be applicable to your particular case study but you'll agree that it cannot have a wider use, though the general principle may certainly stand. You also found overlap between the two teeth though not as large as the one we found at West Cotton, which should make us cautious about applying cattle results to sheep or goat. In any case you paper clearly indicates that the difference - assuming that is consistent - can only be reliably demonstrated through measurements. Identification of bovid M1s and M2s by visual assessemnt of their size is definitely not recommended. The full set of M1s, M2s and M1/2s needs to be measured, and measurements plotted to see if two distinct clusters can be identified, which takes us back to the problem of the measurement not being accessible when the teeth are embedded in the jaw. By the way in my experience this clustering is generally more apparent in pigs (provided that domestic and wild populations are not both present)

Best wishes

Umberto