4.3 Review

A geometric morphometric analysis of hominin upper first molar shape

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 272-285

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.02.002

Keywords

neandertals; dental anthropology; geometric morphometrics; maxillary molars

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent studies have revealed interesting differences in upper first molar morphology across the hominin fossil record, particularly significant between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. Usually these analyses have been performed by means of classic morphometric methods, including the measurement of relative cusp areas or the angles defined between cusps. Although these studies have provided valuable information for the morphological characterization of some hominin species, we believe that the analysis of this particular tooth could be more conclusive for taxonomic assignment. In this study, we have applied geometric morphometric methods to explore the morphological variability of the upper first molar (M-1) across the human fossil record. Our emphasis focuses on the study of the phenetic relationships among the European middle Pleistocene populations (designated as H. heidelbergensis) with H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, but the inclusion of Australopithecus and early Homo specimens has helped us to assess the polarity of the observed traits. H. neanderthalensis presents a unique morphology characterized by a relatively distal displacement of the lingual cusps and protrusion in the external outline of a large and bulging hypocone. This morphology can be found in a less pronounced degree in the European early and middle Pleistocene populations, and reaches its maximum expression with the H. neanderthalensis lineage. In contrast, modem humans retain the primitive morphology with a square occlusal polygon associated with a round external outline. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available