4.3 Article

Functional implications of enamel thickness in the lower molars of red colobus (Procolobus badius) and Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata)

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 605-620

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.2002.0593

关键词

chewing efficiency; pQCT; red colobus; folivore; enamel rim; lower molar

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to determine whether teeth are likely to retain their functional efficiency throughout an individual's life time. This was done by comparing the enamel volume, the cross-sectional enamel area and the pattern of enamel distribution on unworn M(2)s of folivorous (Procolobus badius: red colobus; n=8) and frugivorous (Macaca fuscata: Japanese macaque; n=6) cercopithecids. The enamel volume of M. fuscata is significantly greater than that of P. badius. As the lower molars of colobines become worn, the dentine is exposed on the buccal cusps and narrow enamel rims are formed around the dentine exposures. The buccal enamel rims are especially well-developed and sharp, a pattern that has probably been selected for as being advantageous for shredding fibrous plant materials. The results of this study demonstrate that the enamel on the lingual side of the protoconid, where dentine exposure occurs first, is much thinner in P. badius than it is in M. fuscata. In addition, the dentine is exposed and thin enamel rims are formed faster in P. badius than in M. fuscata. Also, P. badius has significantly thinner and more uniform enamel distribution on the buccal wall of the crown and a higher protoconid. The buccal flare is well-developed in M. fuscata, but poorly developed in P. badius. It is tentatively suggested that the undeveloped flare and thinner enamel of P. badius combine to enable this species to maintain narrow rims, even after dental attrition, while the high cusps may be an adaptation for providing narrow enamel rims throughout life. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据