English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Phrases incorporating the modifier ‘mark’ (e.g., bite mark, tooth mark, gnaw mark, etc.) have recently come under attack. These phrases are wide-spread in their usage, and are, in fact, appropriate to the original definition of the word mark. Phrases such as bite mark and tooth mark are de rigueur as interpretive terms in the larger scientific community and in the archaeological, anthropological, pathological forensic and biological literature and are consistent with the original definition of the word mark. Longstanding convention in the ichnological literature as well as these diverse other disciplines underscores that usage of the word ‘mark’ as a modifier in ichnological analyses is both appropriate and useful for inter-disciplinary communication. Neither the words ‘mark’ nor ‘trace’ are clear terms on their own and become well-defined only when a modifying term is associated (e.g., bite mark or bite trace; trace fossil; ripple mark, fault trace, trace element, gnaw mark, etc.).

Tooth marks, gnaw marks, claw-marks, bite marks, scratch marks, etc: terminology in ichnology