BTW that Texas A&M - Kingsville study was from 2010 - I sure hope the margin of error has decreased over the last 10 years.
Some other interesting tidbits from the 2010 study;https://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/sites/d...nsidedeerresearchnewsletter-fall2010.pdf
* collected 264 mandibles from 134 deer at least 2 yrs old
* Six biologists, holding at least a Master’s degree in Wildlife Science, aged these jaws while referring to the original scientific paper (Severinghaus 1949) on aging deer using tooth wear and a visual guide to the technique.
* These trained biologists, with references in hand, categorized only 49% of jawbones correctly (Figure 1).
* Biologists tended to under-age deer that were greater than 3 years old, but ages were correct ±1 year for 86% of the jaws.
* All 6 observers agreed on the same age for a jaw only 19% of the time, and average agreement for a particular jawbone was 4.1 observers/jawbone.
* sent 232 known-age incisors to a lab for such an analysis. Cementum-annuli aging resulted in 61% accuracy and was correct ±1 year for 92% of the jaws
* Estimating the age of a deer by tooth wear is inaccurate because of variation in tooth wear patterns among deer. Variability is also added by multiple subjective criteria that can be interpreted differently by different people.