Elsevier

Journal of Human Evolution

Volume 93, April 2016, Pages 46-62
Journal of Human Evolution

Premolar root and canal variation in South African Plio-Pleistocene specimens attributed to Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.12.002Get rights and content

Abstract

South African hominin fossils attributed to Australopithecus africanus derive from the cave sites of Makapansgat, Sterkfontein, and Taung, from deposits dated between about 2 and 3 million years ago (Ma), while Paranthropus robustus is known from Drimolen, Kromdraai, and Swartkrans, from deposits dated between about 1 and 2 Ma. Although variation in the premolar root complex has informed taxonomic and phylogenetic hypotheses for these fossil hominin species, traditionally there has been a focus on external root form, number, and position. In this study, we use microtomography to undertake the first comprehensive study of maxillary and mandibular premolar root and canal variation in Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus (n = 166 teeth) within and between the species. We also test for correlations between premolar size and root morphology as predicted under the ‘size/number continuum’ (SNC) model, which correlates increasing root number with tooth size. Our results demonstrate previously undocumented variation in these two fossil hominin species and highlight taxonomic differences in the presence and frequency of particular root types, qualitative root traits, and tooth size (measured as cervix cross-sectional area). Patterns of tooth size and canal/root number are broadly consistent with the SNC model, however statistically significant support is limited. The implications for hominin taxonomy in light of the increased variation in root morphology documented in this study are discussed.

Introduction

Premolar tooth root and canal anatomy can vary in structure and size. This variability has been examined in modern humans and non-human hominoids, as well as certain fossil hominins, and has been attributed both functional and systematic significance (Wood, 1981, Wood, 1988, Abbott, 1984, Wood et al., 1988, Wood and Engleman, 1988, Tobias, 1995, Brunet et al., 1996, Kupczik et al., 2005, Kupczik and Hublin, 2010, Emonet et al., 2012, Emonet et al., 2014, Hamon et al., 2012, Moore et al., 2013, Moore et al., 2015). Nevertheless, limitations in acquiring detailed observations of the roots and canals in situ (Ward et al., 1982, Abbott, 1984, Shields, 2000, Shields, 2005) have forced researchers to apply only basic categorizations of morphological variation, thus having an impact on the potential of the premolar root complex for systematic inquiry. Difficulties of imaging the detailed aspects of root structure have also limited our understanding of potential developmental influences on root morphology in modern humans and their fossil relatives.

Examination of the premolar root and/or pulp canals has been accomplished by direct observation (Frisch, 1963, Turner, 1981, Moggi-Cecchi et al., 2010), 2D radiography (Sperber, 1974, Abbott, 1984, Wood et al., 1988, Wood and Engleman, 1988, Shields, 2000, Shields, 2005), and 3D computed tomography (Ward et al., 1982, Kupczik et al., 2005, Kupczik and Dean, 2008, Higham et al., 2011, Moore et al., 2013, Moore et al., 2015, Emonet et al., 2014). Compared to the external root(s), the canal system has received less attention either due to experimental design or imaging limitations, but has been examined in extant hominoids (Abbott, 1984, Emonet et al., 2014) and fossil hominins (Kallay, 1963, Sperber, 1974, Abbott, 1984, Wood et al., 1988). More recently, microtomographic approaches have identified novel, taxonomically relevant morphotypes in extant ape root/canal morphology and have emphasized the important contribution of the canal(s) for more fine-grained characterization of root morphology (Kupczik and Hublin, 2010, Prado-Simón et al., 2010, Prado-Simón et al., 2012, Higham et al., 2011, Moore et al., 2013, Moore et al., 2015). This is particularly relevant as the variable inclusion of both external and internal morphology influences interpretation of taxonomic differences and theorized evolutionary trajectories within clades. For example, studies of premolar root morphology in extant and fossil hominoids have focused on root number or form (Sperber, 1974, Turner, 1981, Tobias, 1995, Emonet and Kullmer, 2011, Emonet et al., 2014), canal number or form (Bermúdez de Castro et al., 1999, Sert and Bayirli, 2004), aspects of the root surface (Turner, 1981, Trope et al., 1986), or a combination thereof (Kallay, 1963, Abbott, 1984, Wood, 1988, Zilberman and Smith, 1992, Higham et al., 2011, Prado-Simón et al., 2012, Moore et al., 2013, Moore et al., 2015). Collectively, these studies highlight the necessity to apply accurate and repeatable scoring criteria of the root system for proper interpretations of variation.

Based on a number of seminal studies (Abbott, 1984, Wood et al., 1988, Wood and Engleman, 1988, Kupczik et al., 2005) and with reference to Miocene fossil apes (see Hartwig, 2002, Emonet, 2009, Emonet et al., 2014), the inferred ‘ancestral’ great ape pattern of the maxillary third (P3) and fourth (P4) premolars consists of two buccal and one lingual root, each roughly elliptical in cross-section and containing a single pulp canal. The mandibular third premolar (P3) bears one mesio-buccal root (elliptical, with a single canal) and one distal root (plate-like, with two canals), and the mandibular fourth premolar (P4) has one mesial and one distal root (both plate-like, each with two canals). Within the hominin clade, a derived condition of a trend for reduction in root/canal number has been suggested to characterize the genus Homo (and the lineage leading to modern humans in particular), while an elaboration (in both form and number) of the mandibular premolar roots has been suggested to be prominent in the genus Paranthropus (i.e., ‘molariform’ roots in the robust species of the genus Australopithecus, chiefly Paranthropus boisei; Abbott, 1984, Wood, 1988, Wood et al., 1988). Moore et al., 2013, Moore et al., 2015 analyzed the premolar roots of a large sample of Hylobates, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla, and Pongo and demonstrated that while the ancestral pattern is largely retained, each taxon expresses greater variation than previously documented (including unique morphotypes) and there is evidence of both reduction (Hylobates and P. troglodytes) and elaboration (Gorilla and Pongo) in root morphology. Re-evaluating the root system of australopiths (see also Abbott, 1984, Wood et al., 1988, Wood and Engleman, 1988), within the context of this newly documented variation in extant apes, is one of the goals of this study.

During root development, morphological variability of the root complex is governed by ontogenetic modification of Hertwig's epithelial root sheath (HERS) and associated inter-radicular process(es) (for review see Butler, 1956, Carlsen, 1967, Kovacs, 1967, Kovacs, 1971, Ten Cate, 1996, Jernvall and Thesleff, 2000, Shields, 2005, Wright, 2007). The sheath begins root formation at the cervical enamel, growing in the direction of and culminating as a primary apical foramen/foramina at the apex of each root body (Kovacs, 1967, Kovacs, 1971, Ten Cate, 1996). Specifically, size of the spherical tooth primordium and cellular activity (i.e., HERS growth and inter-radicular process initiation, level of penetration and unity) interact to regulate root and canal form and number (Jernvall and Thesleff, 2000, Shields, 2005). The resultant co-variation between tooth germ size and root form/number was formulated into a developmental model by Shields (2005) called the root ‘size/number continuum’ (SNC). Based on modern humans, this model predicts that the size of the developing premolar tooth germ (inferred from tooth size) predisposes the number and expression of inter-radicular processes (IRPs) responsible for root form and number (i.e., smaller tooth germs often form fewer roots and larger tooth germs usually form a greater number of roots). However, it has been observed that tooth size alteration does not necessarily correlate with root number variability depending on the ape taxon and premolar position (Abbott, 1984, Shields, 2005, Moore et al., 2015). Therefore, root morphology is postulated to result from complex interactions of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors (Kovacs, 1967, Brook and Johns, 1995, Jaenisch and Bird, 2003, Shields, 2005, Brook, 2009, Hamon et al., 2012). The SNC model is testable from the level of the order Primates down to familial twins (Shields, 2005). Recently, Moore et al., 2015, Moore et al., 2013 investigation of the SNC model across extant non-human hominoids (using cross-sectional cervix area as a proxy for tooth size) provided equivocal support for the model, prompting the goal of the present study to investigate its applicability within the hominin clade.

Curiosity about South African australopith premolar root morphology dates back to the mid-20th century, with characterization based mainly from direct examination (e.g., Gregory and Hellman, 1939, Broom and Schepers, 1946, Broom and Robinson, 1952, Robinson, 1956, Sperber, 1974). Previous surveys report differences in root number, form, and orientation distinguishing Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus (Robinson, 1956, Sperber, 1974, Abbott, 1984, Wood, 1988, Wood et al., 1988, Wood and Engleman, 1988, Tobias, 1995), as well as evidence for mandibular root ‘molarization’ in cases from Swartkrans and Sterkfontein (Gregory and Hellman, 1939, Broom and Schepers, 1946, Robinson, 1952, Robinson, 1956, Sperber, 1974, Abbott, 1984, Wood, 1988, Moggi-Cecchi et al., 2006). Comprehensive analyses of the associations of the Sterkfontein Member 4 sample (Moggi-Cecchi et al., 2006), new P. robustus material from the site of Drimolen (Keyser, 2000, Moggi-Cecchi et al., 2010), the availability of high-resolution 3D imaging of material from Drimolen, Kromdraai, Makapansgat, Sterkfontein, and Swartkrans, an expanded comparative context of hominoid root morphology (Emonet et al., 2012, Moore et al., 2013, Moore et al., 2015), and new models predicting root variation (Shields, 2005) support a re-examination of root and canal variability in A. africanus and P. robustus.

The present study uses microtomographic scans of over 95% of the hypodigms of A. africanus and P. robustus to (1) characterize, quantify, and document variability in premolar root morphology within and between each species, (2) test whether the SNC model adequately explains the observed root variation within each species, and (3) compare our findings with documented variation in extant non-human apes and other Plio-Pleistocene hominins.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

The sample of permanent premolars (n = 166; Table 1) is derived from microtomographic scans of crania and mandibles from A. africanus (n = 49 individuals) and P. robustus (n = 60 individuals). The A. africanus specimens originate from Makapansgat and Sterkfontein and the P. robustus material originates from Drimolen, Kromdraai, and Swartkrans. All fossil material is curated at either the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History (DNMNH; Pretoria, South Africa; formerly known as the Transvaal

Root types for each premolar class and taxon

Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 illustrate and report counts and percentages of canal and external root form/number/configuration, as well as a representative cross-sectional image of each root type at each premolar position for A. africanus and P. robustus. Across the two fossil species, five root types are observed for the maxillary premolars and eight root types for the mandibular premolars. The SOM includes a Specimen Image Atlas that illustrates a cross-sectional image of each

Premolar root and canal variation

The current study documents a greater level of premolar root system variation and a different intra- and inter-specific pattern for A. africanus and P. robustus than previous investigations (Gregory and Hellman, 1939, Broom and Schepers, 1946, Broom and Robinson, 1952, Robinson, 1956, Sperber, 1974, Abbott, 1984, Wood et al., 1988, Wood and Engleman, 1988, Tobias, 1995). Major trends within and between the two taxa are summarized in Table 7, specific findings for each are discussed below, and

Conclusions

Our analysis of premolar root and canal form/number/configuration in A. africanus and P. robustus reveals increased levels of variation, but also taxonomically distinctive morphology at particular premolar positions. Canal morphology, examined using microtomography, is an important trait and augments the inter-specific differences based on external root appearance alone. At some premolar positions, our results support the ‘size/number continuum’ model within species, particularly in the

Acknowledgments

For fossil access, we thank Stephany Potze and Lazarus Kgasi of the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History, and Bernard Zipfel of the University of the Witwatersrand. For access to specimens from Drimolen, we thank Colin Menter. Material from Sterkfontein and Drimolen was scanned through collaboration between the Institute of Human Evolution (now integrated with the Evolutionary Studies Institute), University of the Witwatersrand, and the Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute

References (129)

  • K. Kupczik et al.

    Mandibular molar root morphology in Neanderthals and Late Pleistocene and recent Homo sapiens

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2010)
  • A. Le Cabec et al.

    Long anterior mandibular tooth roots in Neanderthals are not the result of their large jaws

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2012)
  • K. Moe et al.

    Development of the pioneer sympathetic innervation into the dental pulp of the mouse mandibular first molar

    Arch. Oral. Biol.

    (2008)
  • J. Moggi-Cecchi et al.

    Early hominid dental remains from Members 4 and 5 of the Sterkfontein Formation (1966–1996 excavations): Catalogue, individual associations, morphological descriptions and initial metrical analysis

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2006)
  • J. Moggi-Cecchi et al.

    Early hominin dental remains from the Plio-Pleistocene site of Drimolen, South Africa

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2010)
  • S. Sert et al.

    Evaluation of the root canal configurations of the mandibular and maxillary permanent teeth by gender in the Turkish Population

    J. Endod.

    (2004)
  • M.M. Skinner et al.

    Enamel-dentine junction (EDJ) morphology distinguishes the lower molars of Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2008)
  • D.S. Strait et al.

    Inferring hominoid and early hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: The role of fossil taxa

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2004)
  • S.A. Abbott

    A comparative study of tooth root morphology in the great apes, modern man and early hominids

    (1984)
  • Z. Alemseged et al.

    Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896

    Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

    (2002)
  • R.M. Baume et al.

    Inbreeding effects on dental morphometrics in Papio hamadryas

    Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

    (1983)
  • S. Benazzi et al.

    Using occlusal wear information and finite element analysis to investigate stress distributions in human molars

    J. Anat.

    (2011)
  • A.H. Brook

    Multilevel complex interactions between genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors in the aetiology of anomalies of dental development

    Arch. Oral. Biol.

    (2009)
  • A.H. Brook et al.

    Dental anomalies of number and size in a Romano-British population

  • A.H. Brook et al.

    Variability and patterning in permanent tooth size of four human ethnic groups

    Arch. Oral. Biol.

    (2009)
  • A.H. Brook et al.

    Influences in a biologically complex adaptive system: Environmental stress affects dental development in a group of Romano-Britons

    Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn

    (2016)
  • R. Broom

    Another new type of fossil ape-man

    Nature

    (1949)
  • R. Broom et al.

    Swartkrans Ape-man: Paranthropus crassidens

    Trans. Mus. Mem.

    (1952)
  • R. Broom et al.

    The South African fossil Ape-men: The Australopithecinae

    Trans. Mus. Mem.

    (1946)
  • M. Brunet et al.

    Australopithecus bahrelghazali, une nouvelle espèce d’Hominidé ancien de la région de Koro Toro (Tchad)

    C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris

    (1996)
  • M. Brunet et al.

    A new hominid from the upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa

    Nature

    (2002)
  • M. Brunet et al.

    New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad

    Nature

    (2005)
  • P.M. Butler

    The ontogeny of molar pattern

    Biol. Rev.

    (1956)
  • O. Carlsen

    Odontogenetic morphology

    Odontol. Tidskr.

    (1967)
  • A.J. Chaparro et al.

    Number of roots and canals in maxillary first premolars: Study of an Andalusian population

    Endod. Dent. Traumatol.

    (1999)
  • R.J. Clarke

    Australopithecus and early Homo in southern Africa

  • R.J. Clarke

    A new Australopithecus cranium from Sterkfontein and its bearing on the ancestry of Paranthropus

  • R.J. Clarke

    Advances in understanding the craniofacial anatomy of South African early hominins

  • R.J. Clarke

    Latest information on Sterkfontein's Australopithecus skeleton and a new look at Australopithecus

    S. Afr. J. Sci.

    (2008)
  • R.J. Clarke

    Australopithecus from Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa

  • K. Coffing et al.

    Four-million-year-old hominids from East Lake Turkana, Kenya

    Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

    (1994)
  • P.J. Constantino et al.

    The influence of fallback foods on great ape tooth enamel

    Am. J. Phys. Anthropol

    (2009)
  • M. Domínguez-Rodrigo et al.

    First partial skeleton of a 1.34-million-year-old Paranthropus boisei from Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

    PLoS One

    (2013)
  • N.J. Dominy et al.

    Mechanical properties of plant underground storage organs and implications for dietary models of early hominins

    Evol. Biol.

    (2008)
  • E.-G. Emonet

    Khoratpithecus et la radiation des hominoïds en Asie du Sud-Est au Miocène

    (2009)
  • E.-G. Emonet et al.

    Variability of the number of roots in a single biological population of Pan troglodytes verus

  • E.-G. Emonet et al.

    Subocclusal dental morphology of Sahelanthropus tchadensis and the evolution of teeth in hominins

    Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

    (2014)
  • J.G. Fleagle

    PrimateAdaptation and Evolution

    (1998)
  • C. Fornai et al.

    Testing the “second australopithecine species hypothesis” for Sterkfontein Member 4, South Africa

    Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

    (2010)
  • H. Fukase

    Spatial relationship between the mental foramen and mandibular developing teeth in modern humans, chimpanzees, and hamadryas baboons

    Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text