Abstract
Enamel patterns on the occlusal surfaces of equid teeth are asserted to have tribal-level differences. The most notable example compares the Equini and Hipparionini, where Equini have higher crowned teeth with less enamel-band complexity and less total occlusal enamel than Hipparionini. Whereas previous work has successfully quantified differences in enamel band shape by dividing the length of enamel band by the square root of the occlusal surface area (Occlusal Enamel Index, OEI), it was clear that OEI only partially removes the effect of body size. Because enamel band length scales allometrically, body size still has an influence on OEI, with larger individuals having relatively longer enamel bands than smaller individuals. Fractal dimensionality (D) can be scaled to any level, so we have used it to quantify occlusal enamel complexity in a way that allows us to get at an accurate representation of the relationship between complexity and body size. To test the hypothesis of tribal-level complexity differences between Equini and Hipparionini, we digitally traced a sample of 98 teeth, one tooth per individual; 31 Hipparionini and 67 Equini. We restricted our sampling to the P3-M2 to reduce the effect of tooth position. After calculating the D of these teeth with the fractal box method which uses the number of boxes of various sizes to calculate the D of a line, we performed a t-test on the individual values of D for each specimen, comparing the means between the two tribes, and a phylogenetically informed generalized least squares regression (PGLS) for each tribe with occlusal surface area as the independent variable and D as the dependent variable. The slopes of both PGLS analyses were compared using a t-test to determine if the same linear relationship existed between the two tribes. The t-test between tribes was significant (p < 0.0001), suggesting different D populations for each lineage. The PGLS for Hipparionini was a positive but not significant (p = 0.4912) relationship between D and occlusal surface area, but the relationship for Equini was significantly negative (p = 0.0177). λ was 0 for both tests, indicating no important phylogenetic signal is present in the relationship between these two characters, thus the PGLS collapses down to a non-phylogenetic generalized least squares (GLS) model. The t-test comparing the slopes of the regressions was not significant, indicating that the two lineages could have the same relationship between D and occlusal surface area. Our results suggest that the two tribes have the same negative relationship between D and occlusal surface area but the Hipparionini are offset to higher values than the Equini. This offset reflects the divergence between the two lineages since their last common ancestor and may have constrained their ability to respond to environmental change over the Neogene, leading to the differential survival of the Equini.
Highlights
Dental morphology in ungulates has been a matter of great discussion with respect to phylogeny, diet, and habitat (Simpson, 1951; Rensberger, Forsten & Fortelius, 1984; Strömberg, 2006; Heywood, 2010; Kaiser et al, 2010; Damuth & Janis, 2011)
A great deal of work has focused on hypsodonty (Strömberg, 2006; Mihlbachler et al, 2011) and enamel microstructure (Pfretzschner, 1993) but only recently has there been focus on quantifying occlusal enamel band complexity (Famoso, Feranec & Davis, 2013; Famoso & Davis, 2014; Famoso et al, 2016), chewing surface complexity utilizing the occlusal patch count (OPC) method (Evans & Janis, 2014), and total content of enamel quantified as a percentage of the total tooth volume (Winkler & Kaiser, 2015a; Winkler & Kaiser, 2015b)
Our phylogenetically informed generalized least squares regression (PGLS) results and t -test of the two slopes indicate a negative relationship between occlusal surface area and
Summary
Dental morphology in ungulates has been a matter of great discussion with respect to phylogeny, diet, and habitat (Simpson, 1951; Rensberger, Forsten & Fortelius, 1984; Strömberg, 2006; Heywood, 2010; Kaiser et al, 2010; Damuth & Janis, 2011). Hipparionini and Equini are sister tribes, derived from the Merychippine-grade that lies at the base of the Equinae (MacFadden, 1998; Famoso & Davis, 2014). The Hipparionini become extinct in the Pleistocene while the Equini are extant (MacFadden, 1998). Both tribes were present in North America and the Old World, with Hipparionini the more prevalent. In the Clarendonian North American Land Mammal Age (Miocene; 12.5–9 Ma), there was a 3:1 relationship between individuals of the Hipparionini and Equini in the Great Plains region, despite similar generic diversity (Famoso & Pagnac, 2011). Equini currently consists of only one genus with eight species (Orlando et al, 2009; Vilstrup et al, 2013)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.