Understanding Craniofacial Anomalies 2002
DOI: 10.1002/0471221953.ch15
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolutionary Changes in the Midface and Mandible: Establishing the Primate Form

Abstract: Figure 15.2 Lateral view of chimpanzee skull showing prominent supraorbital ridge.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
(118 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, a greater or lesser number of turbinals is used to categorize olfactory abilities (Le Gros Clark, 1959; Wako et al, 1999; Ding and Dahl, 2003). In a more general sense, decreasing snout length and complexity are identified as a trend in primate evolution in which respiratory functions increase in emphasis while olfactory functions decrease (Siebert and Swindler, 2002). As a consequence of the differential scaling of mucosa, quantification of ethmoturbinals or snout configuration may not be a valid criterion for inferring olfactory surface area in CT or osteological studies of primates and their ancestors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, a greater or lesser number of turbinals is used to categorize olfactory abilities (Le Gros Clark, 1959; Wako et al, 1999; Ding and Dahl, 2003). In a more general sense, decreasing snout length and complexity are identified as a trend in primate evolution in which respiratory functions increase in emphasis while olfactory functions decrease (Siebert and Swindler, 2002). As a consequence of the differential scaling of mucosa, quantification of ethmoturbinals or snout configuration may not be a valid criterion for inferring olfactory surface area in CT or osteological studies of primates and their ancestors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, it is considered that the cranial base is under stronger genetic control than the cranial vault and the face (Schilling & Thorogood, 2000;Sperber, 2001). Moreover, it is assumed that the face is the most sensitive skull region to non-genetic factors because it plays a key role in foraging and adaptation to environment and because facial growth is more extended into the postnatal period (Siebert & Swindler, 2002).…”
Section: Morphological Integration In the Human Skullmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Teeth consist mainly of dentin and are held within the alveoli by a periodontal ligament 7 . Many non‐human primates have comparatively larger cusps and adjacent anatomical diastemas 8 . The diastema mesial to the maxillary cusps allows the lateral movement of the inferior cusps 5 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…larger cusps and adjacent anatomical diastemas. 8 The diastema mesial to the maxillary cusps allows the lateral movement of the inferior cusps. 5 The number of teeth ranges from 32 to 36, following the formula 2× (2/2 incisors, 1/1 canine, 3/3 premolars, and 3/3 molars).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%