Morphological identification of animal hairs: Myths and misconceptions, possibilities and pitfalls

• We compare and contrast skill sets required for practitioners conducting human hair comparative analyses with those required attributing animal hairs to a particular taxon.
• We discuss the consequences of ill trained or inexperienced practitioners attempting to identify animal hairs in the context of myths and misconceptions.
• We will discuss the future of the microscopical identification of animal hairs in the context of SWGWILD.
• We propose recommendations that should be adhered to in order to ensure quality practices in relation to the identification of animal hair.

The examination of hair collected from crime scenes is an important and highly informative discipline relevant to many forensic investigations. However, the forensic identification of animal (non-human) hairs requires different skill sets and competencies to those required for human hair comparisons. The aim of this is paper is not only to highlight the intrinsic differences between forensic human hair comparison and forensic animal hair identification, but also discuss the utility and reliability of the two in the context of possibilities and pitfalls. It also addresses and dispels some of the more popular myths and misconceptions surrounding the microscopical examination of animal hairs. Furthermore, future directions of this discipline are explored through the proposal of recommendations for minimum standards for the morphological identification of animal hairs and the significance of the newly developed guidelines by SWGWILD is discussed.