DENTAL MICROWEAR AND DIET IN VENEZUELAN PRIMATES
DENTAL MICROWEAR AND DIET IN VENEZUELAN PRIMATES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/ajpa.1330880308
复制
发表时间：
1992-07-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
RUNESTAD, JA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
TEAFORD, MF;RUNESTAD, JA
最近的微磨损分析表明，磨损模式可能与饮食差异有关。然而，这项工作的大部分是基于对博物馆材料的分析，而这些材料的收集日期和地点并不为人所知。鉴于这些困难，比较同一时间从同一地区收集的不同属的微磨损模式是可取的。史密森尼委内瑞拉项目（Handley, 1976）提供了这样做的机会，该项目在同一个月内从相同的潮湿热带森林地点收集了多个灵长类动物属。这些猴子代表了广泛的饮食偏好，包括sammiri、Cebus、Chiropotes、Ateles、Aotus、Pithecia和Alouatta。与之前的微磨损分析一样，根据Rose（1983）和Teaford和Oyen（1989）的描述，从牙印中制备环氧树脂复制品。在每个标本的上第二磨牙的第9面上拍摄了两张显微照片。计算和分析与Teaford和Robinson（1989）的描述相同。结果重申了先前记录的以硬物为食的灵长类动物与不以硬物为食的灵长类动物在牙齿微磨损方面的差异——Pithecia和Alouatta在一系列微磨损模式的极端情况下，包括中间饮食的物种之间更微妙的差异。这些细微的微磨损差异在博物馆样品中很难记录下来。然而，额外的结果表明，1)显微划痕的宽度可能不是饮食差异的一个较差指标，2)大小凹坑的形成可能不同，3)在这些潮湿的热带森林遗址中，灵长类动物牙齿微磨损的季节性差异很小。
Recent microwear analyses have demonstrated that wear patterns can be correlated with dietary differences. However, much of this work has been based on analyses of museum material where dates and locations of collection are not well known. In view of these difficulties, it would be desirable to compare microwear patterns for different genera collected from the same area at the same time.The opportunity to do this was provided by the collections of the Smithsonian Venezuelan Project (Handley, 1976), in which multiple primate genera were collected from the same humid tropical forest sites within the same month. The monkeys represent a wide range of dietary preferences, and include Saimiri, Cebus, Chiropotes, Ateles, Aotus, Pithecia, and Alouatta.As in previous microwear analyses, epoxy replicas were prepared from dental impressions, as described by Rose (1983) and Teaford and Oyen (1989). Two micrographs were taken of facet 9 on an upper second molar of each specimen. Computations and analyses were the same as described by Teaford and Robinson (1989).Results reaffirm previously documented differences in dental microwear between primates that feed on hard objects versus those that do not-with Pithecia and Alouatta at the extremes of a range of microwear patterns including more subtle differences between species with intermediate diets. The subtle microwear differences are by no means easy to document in museum samples. However, additional results suggest that 1) the width of microscopic scratches may be a poor indicator of dietary differences, 2) large and small pits may be formed differently, and 3) there are very few seasonal differences in dental microwear in the primates at these humid tropical forest sites.