A critique of faunal analysis: Inconsistency among experts in blind tests

Fish faunal specialists with doctoral degrees independently evaluated samples of fish bones, teeth, and scales from a coastal archaeological site in San Luis Obispo County, California (CA-SLO-165). The considerable variation in interpretation raises serious questions regarding the accuracy of reporting and the usefulness of the dat generated. Little agreement at the species level, wide difference in the total numbers of specimens in a given taxon, apparently inaccurate identifications, placements of specimens in excessively specific or overly general categories were typical inconsistencies. Recommendations for minimizing problems include having faunal work done by a specialist with biological knowledge of the specific animal group, and geographic region, identifying the reference collection used in the evaluation, stipulation of the criteria used for distinguishing similar species, and the location of the storage facility for the sample. Second opinions should be solicited and unreviewed data appearing in the 'grey literature' should not be cited. A vigorous review process, rather than the reader, should select for credible information.