The 'Mistaken Identity Hypothesis' for shark bites on humans is an anthropomorphic fallacy

Abstract

The Mistaken Identity Hypothesis (MIH) interprets shark bites on surfers, swimmers and snorkelers as 'mistakesa' stemming primarily from similarities in the visual appearance of ocean users and the sharks typical prey. MIH is now widely accepted as fact by the general public and some sections of the scientific community despite remaining unproven. This hypothesis assumes that 'mistakena' shark bites on humans result primarily from confusing visual cues and ignores the important role of other senses (e.g. hearing) in discriminating potential prey. A far simpler 'natural explorationa' hypothesis can reasonably explain not only shark bites that have been characterized as 'mistaken identitya' events but also those that cannot be reasonably explained by MIH (e.g. shark bites that occur in very clear water). Simply stated, sharks dona't make 'mistakesa' but instead continually explore their environments and routinely investigate novel objects as potential prey by biting them.