## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
The results obtained highlight aspects and inferences that might be relevant not only for archeology but also for sub-disciplines associated with zoology and applied taphonomy. To begin, we see how the TOST test has determined that differences are likely to exist between leopards and tigers. At least, according to the present data, the odds of tiger and leopard pits being similar are at most 1 to 2.8 [44], and thus, with a prior probability of 0.5, these odds can be calculated at 1 to 1.4. Considering how other studies have shown high likelihoods of being able to differentiate between large and small field species [21], the present data are not surprising because [21] was able to differentiate the pits tooth of leopards, lions, and jaguars, and in this work, we have been able to differentiate the pits tooth of leopards and tigers. Alongside other observations made by authors differentiating between carnivore species [3,18,22,46, 24], we could even propose a more optimistic prior probability of 0.75 to report the posterior likelihood of tiger and leopard tooth pits being similar at 1 to 2 [44]. In either case, the present study supports that differentiation between carnivore species is possible. Regarding the differentiation by sex, TOST values for both intraspecific comparisons affirm that in this sample there are no clear intraspecific differences between male and female samples based on their tooth pits. It should be noted that given the lack of an allometry study in the sample, we are comparing all of them only using the _shape_ variable, and not the _form_ variable, as in previous studies [18, 19, 20, 21, 22]. Despite this, and even if these tests were to be performed on _form_ variables, leopards (\(p=0.009\), FPR = 10.3%) and tigers (\(p=0.003\), FPR = 4.5%) can be calculated to be similar in the _form_ space as well. These results support that the intraspecific size differences of a carnivore, either due to the population variability of the species or due to their sexual dimorphism [27,29,31], do not seem to be a conditioning factor in tooth pit morphology. Furthermore, considering how this has been confirmed in species presenting large sexual dimorphism, the present study strongly implies that tooth marks made by other species, such as those from the canid and hyenid families, may be less likely to be influenced by this variable. The present study builds on hypotheses proposed by [19,20,22], in that carnivore tooth pits appear to be the type of tooth mark less affected by intraspecific variability, captive stress, prey size, and now sexual dimorphism. In light of this, it can additionally be argued that the results obtained by [1,3,18,22] are reliable for the discerning of carnivore agencies. This is yet another piece to the puzzle that argues that the biomechanical and tooth size variability that are often present [20,27] are not likely to distort these results. These are promising results that provide a stronger basis for the wider application of our methodological approaches in paleontological, archaeological, and forensic veterinary fields, as well as modern-day ecological studies. However, the results presented in this work must be taken with caution, since they have been obtained from a small sample and therefore the sample should be expanded in future studies. Despite this limitation, it must be assessed that different carnivores do not show intraspecific variability in tooth pits. Wolves do not show differences in tooth pits between different populations, and neither do leopards and tigers. Conceptualization, J.Y. ; methodology, L.A.C. ; validation, L.A.C. and J.Y. ; formal analysis, D.H.-R., S.J.T.-G., [PERSON] and [PERSON]-[PERSON]-R.-A. ; investigation, [PERSON] and [PERSON]-J.-R.-A. ; resources, J.Y. ; data curation, D.H.-R., S.J.T.-G., A.G. and J.R.; writing--original draft preparation, J.Y., D.H.-R.;