Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:15:20.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Ontogeny and function of the masticatory complex in Gorilla: Functional, evolutionary, and taxonomic implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

Andrea B. Taylor
Affiliation:
Departments of Community and Family Medicine and Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, U.S.A.
Andrea B. Taylor
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Michele L. Goldsmith
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The classic studies of Coolidge (1929) and Groves (1967, 1970a, b, 1986; Groves and Stott, 1979), coupled with more recent investigations (Uchida, 1996, 1998; Taylor, 1998a, b, 1999, 2002), have revealed considerable variability in the cranium, mandible, and dentition among subspecies and even geographic populations of gorillas (Albrecht et al., Leigh et al., Stumpf et al., this volume). Historically, investigators have tended to emphasize the taxonomic implications of this variation (Coolidge, 1929; Groves, 1967, 1970a) and with good reason, as a well-founded taxonomy clearly forms the basis for meaningful studies in other important fields, including morphology, behavioral ecology, and genetics. While there have been some attempts to draw functional inferences from differences in craniomandibular and dental morphology among gorilla subspecies (Vogel, 1961; Groves, 1970a, b; Uchida, 1996, 1998; Taylor, 1998b, 1999, 2000), nevertheless the nature and patterning of variation in jaw form among gorilla subspecies remains unresolved.

I examine masticatory form and function in gorillas to assess whether gorilla subspecies differ predictably in morphology as a function of dietary specialization. I focus particularly on the expected pattern of morphological differentiation in Gorilla based on the degree to which these taxa differ in degree of folivory versus frugivory. I use an ontogenetic, allometric approach in an explicitly phylogenetic context to evaluate whether differences among subspecies can be principally attributed to extrapolation or truncation of inherited patterns of ontogenetic allometry (Shea, 1995), or to derived dissociations of ancestral allometries.

Information

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×