Disappearing Enamel and Molars: The Evolution of a Dietary Niche Focused on Gums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gummivory, a diet focused primarily on gums, is a relatively rare dietary niche among mammals, but is found in several species of strepsirrhine primates. Getting gums requires either gouging a wound in tree bark to stimulate gum flow or scraping at a semi‐dried gum plug. Both of these acquisition activities focus on the anterior dentition, and the processing of the gums requires minimal mastication with molars. Primate diets focused on leaves and fruits are associated with specific dental signatures, morphological features that can also be used when examining the fossil record. Does gummivory, a relatively low‐quality diet based on foods that are readily available, have a consistent dental signature among primates? How did the evolutionary process of gummivory in primates shape the dentition, if at all? The present study was designed to evaluate these questions. Linear measurements were collected via calipers from select anterior teeth and the last lower molar from lorisid primates that feed primarily on gums and their closely‐related, non‐gummivorous relatives: Loris spp. (n=19), Nycticebus coucang (n=61), Arctocebus spp. (n=8), and Perodicticus spp. (n=40). Mean scaled differences were compared among the four groups using Bonferroni corrected one‐way ANOVA's (alpha <0.05). For some of these taxa, differential enamel thickness in the lower canine, used to represent the toothcomb, was examined via Micro‐CT scans. We found consistent reduction (p<0.05) of the lower last molar in gummivorous taxa relative to the non‐gummivorous taxa. We also found differential distribution of enamel thickness in the anterior teeth (specifically, the toothcomb) with reduced enamel on the lingual surface relative to the labial surface of the toothcomb teeth. This feature is consistent with the findings from previous studies of other gouging mammals, and gummivorous primates. Together, these dental findings suggest a potential dental signature of gummivory in primates: reduction of the lower last molar and differential distribution of enamel thickness in the anterior teeth. Support or Funding Information NSERC Discovery Grant and Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".