1991American Journal of Physical AnthropologyRequires access

Dental development and the evolution of life history in Hominidae

B. Holly Smith

Open publisher page 277 citations

Abstract

Abstract Development of the dentition is critically integrated into the life cycle in living mammals. Recent work on dental development has given rise to three separate lines of evidence on the evolution of human growth and aging; these three, based on several independent studies, are reviewed and integrated here. First, comparative study of living primate species demonstrates that measures of development (e.g., age of emergence of the first permanent molar) are highly correlated with the morphological attributes brain and body weight (as highly as r = 0.98, N = 21 species). These data predict that small‐bodied, small‐brained Australopithecus erupted M1 at 3–3.5 years and possessed a life span comparable to that of a chimpanzee. Second, chronological age at death for three australopithecines who died at or near emergence of M1 is now estimated as ∼3.25 years based on incremental lines in teeth; this differs substantially from expectations based on human growth schedules (5.5–6 years). Third, developmental sequences (assessed by the coefficient of variation of human dental age) observed in gracile Australopithecus and great apes diverge from those of humans to a comparable degree; sequences become more like modern humans after the appearance of the genus Homo. These three lines of evidence agree that the unique rate and pattern of human life history did not exist at the australopithecine stage of human evolution. It is proposed that the life history of early Homo matched no living model precisely and that growth and aging evolved substantially in the Hominidae during the last 2 million years.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Development of the dentition is critically integrated into the life cycle in living mammals. Recent work on dental development has given rise to three separate lines of evidence on the evolution of human growth and aging; these three, based on several independent studies, are reviewed and integrated here. First, comparative study of living primate species demonstrates that measures of development (e.g., age of emergence of the first permanent molar) are highly correlated with the morphological attributes brain and body weight (as highly as r = 0.98, N = 21 species). These data predict that small‐bodied, small‐brained Australopithecus erupted M1 at 3–3.5 years and possessed a life span comparable to that of a chimpanzee. Second, chronological age at death for three australopithecines who died at or near emergence of M1 is now estimated as ∼3.25 years based on incremental lines in teeth; this differs substantially from expectations based on human growth schedules (5.5–6 years). Third, developmental sequences (assessed by the coefficient of variation of human dental age) observed in gracile Australopithecus and great apes diverge from those of humans to a comparable degree; sequences become more like modern humans after the appearance of the genus Homo. These three lines of evidence agree that the unique rate and pattern of human life history did not exist at the australopithecine stage of human evolution. It is proposed that the life history of early Homo matched no living model precisely and that growth and aging evolved substantially in the Hominidae during the last 2 million years.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 277 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract Development of the dentition is critically integrated into the life cycle in living mammals. Recent work on dental development has given rise to three separate lines of evidence on the evolution of human growth and aging; these three, based on several independent studies, are reviewed and integrated here. First, comparative study of living primate species demonstrates that measures of development (e.g., age of emergence of the first permanent molar) are highly correlated with the morphological attributes brain and body weight (as highly as r = 0.98, N = 21 species). These data predict that small‐bodied, small‐brained Australopithecus erupted M1 at 3–3.5 years and possessed a life span comparable to that of a chimpanzee. Second, chronological age at death for three australopithecines who died at or near emergence of M1 is now estimated as ∼3.25 years based on incremental lines in teeth; this differs substantially from expectations based on human growth schedules (5.5–6 years). Third, developmental sequences (assessed by the coefficient of variation of human dental age) observed in gracile Australopithecus and great apes diverge from those of humans to a comparable degree; sequences become more like modern humans after the appearance of the genus Homo. These three lines of evidence agree that the unique rate and pattern of human life history did not exist at the australopithecine stage of human evolution. It is proposed that the life history of early Homo matched no living model precisely and that growth and aging evolved substantially in the Hominidae during the last 2 million years.

Key concepts: Hominidae, Human evolution, Australopithecus, Evolutionary biology, Dentition, Primate, Biology, Heterochrony

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Dental development and the evolution of life history in Hominidae — Research Paper | ScholarLens