A distinguishing feature of <i>Pongo</i> upper molars and its implications for the taxonomic identification of isolated hominid teeth from the Pleistocene of Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The taxonomic status of isolated hominoid teeth from the Asian Pleistocene has long been controversial due to difficulties distinguishing between pongine and hominin molars given their high degree of morphometrical variation and overlap. Here, we combine nonmetric and geometric morphometric data to document a dental pattern that appears to be taxonomically diagnostic among Pongo. We focus on the protoconule, a cuspule of well-documented evolutionary history, as well as on shape differences of the mesial fovea of the upper molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined 469 upper molars of eight hominid genera (Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Homo, Meganthropus, Sivapithecus, Pan, Gorilla, and Pongo), including representatives of Homo erectus and extinct and recent Pongo. Analyses were conducted at the enamel-dentine junction to overcome the limitations introduced by dental wear. RESULTS: We found that a moderate or large protoconule is present in ~80% of Pleistocene and extant Pongo. Conversely, a moderate to pronounced protoconule in hominins, Meganthropus, and African great apes occurs in low frequencies (~0-20%). Canonical variate analyses for the mesial fovea show that Pleistocene and extant Pongo cluster together and are clearly differentiated from all other groups, except for Sivapithecus. DISCUSSION: This study suggests that the protoconule and the shape of the mesial fovea in upper molars are useful features for the taxonomic identification of isolated hominid teeth. By identifying these new features, our results can contribute to the better understanding of hominoid evolutionary history and biogeography during the Asian Pleistocene. However, we emphasize that the reported features should be used in combination with other diagnostic variables for the most accurate taxonomic assessments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".