Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 May;214(5):655-70.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01064.x.

Evolution of M1 crown size and cusp proportions in the genus Homo

Affiliations

Evolution of M1 crown size and cusp proportions in the genus Homo

Rolf Quam et al. J Anat. 2009 May.

Abstract

Previous research into tooth crown dimensions and cusp proportions has proved to be a useful way to identify taxonomic differences in Pliocene and Pleistocene fossil hominins. The present study has identified changes in both M(1) crown size and cusp proportions within the genus Homo, with M(1) overall crown size reduction apparently occurring in two main stages. The first stage (a reduction of ca. 17%) is associated with the emergence of Homo ergaster and Homo erectus sensu stricto. The second stage (a reduction of ca. 10%) occurs in Homo sapiens, but the reduced modern human M(1) tooth crown size was only attained in Upper Paleolithic times. The absolute sizes of the individual cusps are highly positively correlated with overall crown size and dental reduction produces a reduction in the absolute size of each of the cusps. Most of the individual cusps scale isometrically with crown size, but the paracone shows a negative allometric relationship, indicating that the reduction in paracone size is less than in the other M(1) cusps. Thus, the phylogenetically oldest cusp in the upper molars also seems to be the most stable cusp (at least in the M(1)). The most striking change in M(1) cusp proportions is a change in the relative size of the areas of the paracone and metacone. The combination of a small relative paracone and a large relative metacone generally characterizes specimens attributed to early Homo, and the presence of this character state in Australopithecus and Paranthropus suggests it may represent the primitive condition for the later part of the hominin clade. In contrast, nearly all later Homo taxa, with the exception of Homo antecessor, show the opposite condition (i.e. a relatively large paracone and a relatively small metacone). This change in the relationship between the relative sizes of the paracone and metacone is related to an isometric reduction of the absolute size of the metacone. This metacone reduction occurs in the context of relative stability in the paracone as crown size decreases. Among later Homo taxa, both Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis show a further reduction of the metacone and an enlargement of the hypocone. Fossil and contemporary H. sapiens samples show a trend toward increasing the relative size of the protocone and decreasing the relative size of the hypocone. In Europe, modern human M(1) cusp proportions are essentially reached during the Upper Paleolithic. Although some variation was documented among the fossil taxa, we suggest that the relative size of the M(1) paracone and metacone areas may be useful for differentiating the earliest members of our genus from subsequent Homo species.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Occlusal photograph of the Krapina D171 M1 with the cusps outlined to illustrate the measurement methodology.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bivariate plot of the relative paracone area vs. the relative metacone area across the hominin sample. Specimens that fall within the shaded area between the solid lines are considered to show equal-sized cusps (see Methods). Specimens attributed to Australopithecus, Paranthropus and early Homo largely fall above the region of equal-sized cusps, indicating they combine a large relative metacone with a small relative paracone. In contrast, most later Homo taxa fall below this same region, indicating the opposite relationship. The positions of a few specimens which depart from this general pattern are indicated.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Andrews P. An alternative interpretation of the characters used to define Homo erectus. Cour Forschinst Senckenberg. 1984;69:167–175.
    1. Antón S. Evolutionary significance of cranial variation in Asian Homo erectus. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002;118:301–323. - PubMed
    1. Antón S. Natural history of Homo erectus. Yrb Phys Anthropol. 2003;46:126–170. - PubMed
    1. Antón S, Spoor F, Fellman C, Swisher C. Defining Homo erectus: size considered. In: Henke W, Tattersall I, editors. Handbook of Paleoanthropology, Vol. 3, Phylogeny of Hominids. Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. pp. 1655–1693. (eds.
    1. Arsuaga JL, Martínez I, Gracia A, Carretero JM, Carbonell E. Three new human skulls from the Sima de los Huesos site in Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain. Nature. 1993;362:534–537. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources