A method for age determination of dolphins.

The use of growth layers in teeth as an indicator of age in odnotocetes and pinnipeds was suggested by Laws (1954) and since then the method has been used extensively in both marine and non-marine mammals. Dentinal growth layers are groups (growth layer groups) of repetitive alternating bands which in cross-section are similar to growth rings in trees. The most commonly used methods for counting growth layer groups (GLGs) are by undecalcified longitudinal thin sections (150 um) or decalcified and stained thin sections (10-30 um). In longitudinal sections viewed with light microscopy, GLGs appear as opaque and translucent cones nestled one inside another, with the oldest dentine Iying adjacent to the enamel, and the newest layer borderinq the pulp cavity.

Precision of age determination of northern offshore spotted dolphins.

We investigated within- and between-reader precision in estimating age for northern offshore spotted dolphins and possible effects on precision from the sex and age-class of specimens. Age was estimated from patterns of growth layer groups i n the dentine and cementum of the dolphins' teeth. Each specimen was aged at least three times by each of two persons. Two data samples were studied. The first comprised 800 of each sex from animals collected during 1973-78. The second included 45 females collected during 1981. There were significant, generally downward trends through time in the estimates from multiple readings of the 1973-78 data. These trends were slight, and age distributions from last readings and mean estimates per specimen appeared to be homogeneous. The largest factor affecting precision in the 1973-78 data set was between-reader variation. In light of the relatively high within-reader precision (trends considered), the consistent between-reader differences suggest a problem of accuracy rather than precision for this series. Within-reader coefficients of variation averaged approximately 7% and 11%. Pooling the data resulted i n an average coefficient of variation near 16%. Within- and between-reader precision were higher for the 1981 sample, and the data homogeneous over both factors. CVs averaged near 5% and 6% for the two readers. These results point to further refinements in reading the 1981 series. Properties of the 1981 sample may be partly responsible for greater precision: by chance there were proportionately fewer older dolphins included, and preparation and selection criteria were probably more stringent. (PDF contains 35 pages.)