Comparison of Occlusal Area and Postcanine Mesiodistal Length In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2015 Comparison of Occlusal Area and Postcanine Mesiodistal Length in Old World and New World Monkeys Ashley Marie Franklin Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Franklin, Ashley Marie, "Comparison of Occlusal Area and Postcanine Mesiodistal Length in Old World and New World Monkeys" (2015). LSU Master's Theses. 4092. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/4092 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPARISON OF OCCLUSAL AREA AND POSTCANINE MESIODISTAL LENGTH IN OLD WORLD AND NEW WORLD MONKEYS A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Geography and Anthropology by Ashley Marie Franklin B.A., Louisiana State University, 2012 May 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Robert Tague and my other committee members, Dr. Ginesse Listi and Dr. Kathe Managan, for their insight, direction and commitment in helping me with this project. Additional thanks go to the Division of Mammals and Nicole Edmison, Museum Specialist, at the Smithsonian, National Museum of Natural History for opening their doors to me and allowing me to do this study. I would also like to thank the Department of Geography and Anthropology for awarding me the Robert C. West grant, which helped to make this research possible. I am also grateful to my friend, Anthony Reed, for lending his knowledge and expertise by being my statistical support in the early stages of this project. Also, I would like to thank my dear friends, Karen Beebe and Jacob Jesch, for their continued encouragement and support, as well as incredibly helpful editorial comments. I would also like to thank Heather Moats, for all of her encouragement over the years in regards to this project. I would like to extend a special thanks to Paul Fortenberry who has been supportive, sensitive and patient. He has seen me at my best and worst while in graduate school and in working on this project. I would like to thank him for the thoughtful “thesis fuel dinners” he prepared when I otherwise might have forgotten to eat on time. Last but certainly not least, I am forever grateful and indebted to my mother and father for their invaluable help in making my dream of graduate school a reality. Thank you, Mom and Dad, for being a constant source of encouragement through both the hard and easy times. Thank you for never giving up on me and continuing to believe in me. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………..iv LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………....vi ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................4 Primate Teeth.................................................................................................................4 Primate Origins......................................................... ....................................................6 Contemporary Related Studies......................................................................................8 Premolar and Molar Function......................................................................................10 Old World and New World Monkey Species..............................................................11 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................................13 RESULTS...........................................................................................................................18 DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................................33 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................39 VITA..............................................................................................................................................41 iii LIST OF TABLES 1. Formulae Used to Compute Occlusal Area on Each Type of Old World Monkey and New World Monkey Tooth........................................................................................................15 2. Median Body Length and Mass.........................................................................................18 3. Summary Statistics for Occlusal Area (mm2) of Postcanine Teeth, with Results of Student’s t-Test Comparing A. palliata with Co. guereza, and Ceb. capucinus with Cer. albogularis; 2-Tailed Test of Significance (sd = standard deviation)…………………...20 4. Summary Statistics for Mesiodistal Length of Postcanine Teeth (mm), with Results of Student’s t-Test Comparing A. palliata with Co. guereza, and Ceb. capucinus with Cer. albogularis; 2-Tailed Test of Significance (sd = standard deviation)……………...……21 5. Statistics for Summed Occlusal Area (mm2) of Postcanine Teeth, with Results of Student’s t-Test Comparing A. palliata with Co. guereza, and Ceb. capucinus with Cer. albogularis; 2-Tailed Test of Significance (sd = standard deviation)…………………...22 6. Statistics for Summed Mesiodistal Length of Postcanine Teeth (mm), with Results of Student’s t-Test Comparing A. palliata with Co. guereza, and Ceb. capucinus with Cer. albogularis; 2-Tailed Test of Significance (sd = standard deviation)…………………...23 7. Mean Postcanine Occlusal Area in All Combined Maxillary and Mandibular Teeth, Right and Left Side of Jaw……………………………………………………………………..25 8. Mean Maxillary and Mandibular Occlusal Area Distribution in Old World Monkeys’ Postcanine Teeth (mm2), (percentage per type of tooth)……………………………...…26 9. Mean Maxillary and Mandibular Occlusal Area Distribution in New World Monkeys’ Postcanine Teeth (mm2), (percentage per type of tooth)…………………………….…..27 10. Mean Maxillary and Mandibular Comparison of P4 and P3 Occlusal Area (mm2), (percentage per type of tooth)……………………………………………………………28 11. Mean Occlusal Area (mm2), (percentage per type of teeth)………………………….….28 12. Mean Maxillary and Mandibular Postcanine Mesiodistal Length in Old World Monkeys (mm), (percentage per type of tooth)……………………………………………………29 13. Mean Maxillary and Mandibular Postcanine Mesiodistal Length in New World Monkeys (mm), (percentage per type of tooth)………………………………….…………………30 14. Mean Maxillary and Mandibular Postcanine Mesiodistal Length of Teeth and Contribution Per Type of Tooth, Right and Left Side of Jaw……………………...…….31 iv 15. Mean Maxillary and Mandibular Postcanine Mesiodistal Length for P4 and P3 (mm), (percentage per type of tooth)…………………………………………………………....31 16. Mean Postcanine Mesiodistal Length (mm), (percentage per type of tooth)…………….32 17. Mean Cranial and Palatal Measurements………………………………………………...32 18. Summary of Results of Student’s t-Test………………………...……………………….33 v LIST OF FIGURES 1. Maximum Cranial Length from Opisthocranion to Glabella (A. palliata skull)………..14 2. Length of the Palate from Alveolon to Point Closest to the Prosthion (Cer. albogularis skull) …………………………………………………………………………………….14 3. Measurement of the Mesiodistal Length of Third Molar (mandible from Cer. albogularis)……………………………………………………………………………....16 4. Measurements Taken on Molar for the Trapezoidal Formula (molar of Co. guereza).….16 vi ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to discover the relationship between the number of teeth and the postcanine occlusal area and postcanine mesiodistal length in select OWM and NWM species. New World monkeys (NWM) have 12 premolars, whereas Old World monkeys (OWM) have 8. Four species are studied: Cercopithecus albogularis and Colobus guereza (OWM), and Cebus capucinus and Alouatta palliata (NWM). Two pairs of species are chosen because they are classified as having the same general folivorous and omnivorous diet: Co. guereza and A. palliata, and Cer. albogularis and Ceb. capucinus, respectively. Adult, wild caught, female specimens from the Smithsonian, National Museum of Natural History are studied. Sample sizes are as follows: 20 Co. guereza, A. palliata and Ceb. capucinus, and 14 Cer. albogularis. The null hypothesis is there will be no difference in the overall occlusal area of the premolar and molar rows between the compared species, and that the occlusal area on the premolar row will be distributed differently among OWMs’ and NWMs’ individual teeth. Results show that an extra premolar in the NWMs increases the postcanine occlusal area and postcanine mesiodistal length contributed by the premolar row to the overall postcanine row. In NWMs, premolars make up 40-50% of the postcanine mesiodistal length and occlusal area while in OWMs, the premolars