No abstract

In the study of mammalian adaptation to the environment, teeth are of primary importance due to their role as one of the direct interaction points between an individual and its ecological surroundings. Here, molar shape and function are investigated through traditional multivariate statistics and Thin-Plate Splines deformations to compare the relative location of lower first molar occlusal structures (protoconid, metaconid, hypoconid, entoconid, cristid obliqua, and protolophid) in modern lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, and a non-primate outgroup taxon (Tupaia). Results suggest that shape is based both on tooth size and dietary patterns. Small teeth tend to be short (anteroposteriorally) with wide talonids, whereas larger teeth are generally characterized as being long and narrow. In considering non-size related shape trends, frugivorous and graminivorous taxa generally exhibit a relatively buccal intersection of the cristid obliqua with the base of the protolophid, and a relatively ''perpendicular'' position of the protolophid in relation to the anteroposterior axis of the tooth (defined as the axis connecting the protolophid and hypoconid). Morphological trends of folivores include a central (midline) position of the cristid obliqua-protolophid base intersection and an oblique angle of the protolophid. Insectivorous taxa (primate and non-primate) generally exhibit a central placement of the cristid obliqua-protolophid base intersection (as in folivores), along with a relatively perpendicular angle of the protolophid (as in frugivores). Omnivorous taxa exhibit shape patterns that are intermediate between these three former groups. This study provides a comparative baseline for the interpretation of morphological trends in fossil primate groups, particularly the Adapiformes. Anat Rec, 292:701-719, 2009. V V C 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Although studies analyzing the content of evolution curriculum usually focus on courses within the context of a biological sciences department or program, research must also address students and courses outside of the biological sciences. For example, using data solely from biological courses will not fully represent the scope of coverage of evolution in university education, as other fields, like anthropology, also utilize evolutionary principles. We analyzed the content of 31 university-level anthropology textbooks for the following: (1) presence of a definition of evolution in various sections of the textbooks, (2) accuracy and consistency of the definitions provided in the textbook sections, and (3) differences between textbooks for cultural and physical anthropology. Results of this study suggest that anthropology textbooks do not necessarily (1) provide a single definition of evolution or (2) provide an accurate, "baseline" definition of evolution when present. Additionally, substantive differences were observed between definitions provided in different sections within a single textbook, as well as between textbooks written for cultural anthropology and physical anthropology/archaeology courses. Given the inclusion of anthropology courses in general education curriculum at the university-level, we conclude that this situation may further exacerbate the misunderstanding of the basic tenets of evolution that university students have been repeatedly shown to demonstrate. We stress the role of the instructor in choosing textbooks that provide accurate information for students, as well as the responsibility they hold in providing a concise, accurate definition of evolution in social sciences courses.

While numerous studies address college students' (typically biology majors) perceptions of evolution, research on how students from a range of majors view intelligent design (ID) has not been conducted. In this study, a survey was administered to 692 students, only 2.2% of whom were biology majors, at a medium-sized Midwestern university. The data from this survey were analyzed to answer the following two research questions: (1) To what extent do college students believe ID is an alternative to, or a better explanation than, evolution? and (2) To what extent do college students believe ID represents a form of creationism? In addition to discussing the results of our analyses, we also provide possible implications of our findings for researchers and educators.

No abstract

No abstract