A revision of the genus Leopoldamys is presented, and both the species composition and distribution in Indochina and Sundaic regions is reinvestigated. The phylogeny of the genus is recovered based on Cyt b, COI, and IRBP gene analyses. Five basal and 16 secondary monophyletic phylogenetic lineages were identified. A taxonomic reassessment of the continental and Sundaic populations is performed based on morphological verification of the genetically defined clades. Six clades were recovered in the phylogenetic analyses and correspond to morphologically defined species: L. revertens (distributed in lowlands of eastern and central Indochina), L. herberti (western and central Indochina, northward to northern Vietnam), L. edwardsi (China and northern Vietnam, northward of 21 degrees N), L. milleti (endemic of Dalat Plateau, southern Vietnam), L. sabanus (Borneo), and L. vociferans (lowlands of the Malacca Peninsula, northward to southwestern Thailand). The absence of proper L. sabanus in continental Indochina is revealed. The substitute name for the species known from the majority of Indochina under the name of L. sabanus should be L. revertens. The name L. neilli, which has been ascribed to populations from Thailand and Vietnam, is a junior synonym of L. herberti. Two related but rather divergent clades are found in Sumatra and the Malacca Peninsula. Based on their considerable genetic distances, these forms should be regarded as separate species from the L. sabanus type-bearing populations of Borneo, or as the members of L. sabanus polytypic superspecies. The substitute name for the lineage-bearing taxon from Malacca should be L. vociferans. The continental populations of Leopoldamys can be distinguished from each other by external and cranial characters and may be subdivided into four species. Two of these species (L. revertens and L. milleti) are well distinguished by external and cranial morphology, whereas the other two species (L. herberti and L. edwardsi) may be treated as sibling species that are difficult to distinguish based on morphological characters.
Craniofacial superimposition, although existing for one century, is still a controversial technique within the scientific community. Objective and unbiased validation studies over a significant number of cases are required to establish a more solid picture on the reliability. However, there is lack of protocols and standards in the application of the technique leading to contradictory information concerning reliability. Instead of following a uniform methodology, every expert tends to apply his own approach to the problem, based on the available technology and deep knowledge on human craniofacial anatomy, soft tissues, and their relationships. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of different craniofacial superimposition methodologies and the corresponding technical approaches to this type of identification. With all the data generated, some of the most representative experts in craniofacial identification joined in a discussion intended to identify and agree on the most important issues that have to be considered to properly employ the craniofacial superimposition technique. As a consequence, the consortium has produced the current manuscript, which can be considered the first standard in the field; including good and bad practices, sources of error and uncertainties, technological requirements and desirable features, and finally a common scale for the craniofacial matching evaluation. Such a document is intended to be part of a more complete framework for craniofacial superimposition, to be developed during the FP7-founded project MEPROCS, which will favour and standardize its proper application.
As part of the scientific tasks coordinated throughout The 'New Methodologies and Protocols of Forensic Identification by Craniofacial Superimposition (MEPROCS)' project, the current study aims to analyse the performance of a diverse set of CFS methodologies and the corresponding technical approaches when dealing with a common dataset of real-world cases. Thus, a multiple-lab study on craniofacial superimposition has been carried out for the first time. In particular, 26 participants from 17 different institutions in 13 countries were asked to deal with 14 identification scenarios, some of them involving the comparison of multiple candidates and unknown skulls. In total, 60 craniofacial superimposition problems divided in two set of females and males. Each participant follow her/his own methodology and employed her/his particular technological means. For each single case they were asked to report the final identification decision (either positive or negative) along with the rationale supporting the decision and at least one image illustrating the overlay/superimposition outcome. This study is expected to provide important insights to better understand the most convenient characteristics of every method included in this study.
Craniofacial superimposition has the potential to be used as an identification method when other traditional biological techniques are not applicable due to insufficient quality or absence of ante-mortem and post-mortem data. Despite having been used in many countries as a method of inclusion and exclusion for over a century it lacks standards. Thus, the purpose of this research is to provide forensic practitioners with standard criteria for analysing skull-face relationships. Thirty-seven experts from 16 different institutions participated in this study, which consisted of evaluating 65 criteria for assessing skull-face anatomical consistency on a sample of 24 different skull-face superimpositions. An unbiased statistical analysis established the most objective and discriminative criteria. Results did not show strong associations, however, important insights to address lack of standards were provided. In addition, a novel methodology for understanding and standardizing identification methods based on the observation of morphological patterns has been proposed.