Toothcomb origins: Support for the grooming hypothesis

@article{Rosenberger2006ToothcombOS,
  title={Toothcomb origins: Support for the grooming hypothesis},
  author={A. Rosenberger and E. Strasser},
  journal={Primates},
  year={2006},
  volume={26},
  pages={73-84}
}
Debate over the original adaptive significance of the lemuriform toothcomb, whether it was principally a grooming organ or a scraper-feeding tool, currently hinges upon the functional morphology of the lower incisors and canines of lemurs and lorises, and the fossil adapids thought to be their ancestors or structural prototypes. We suggest that the morphology of the upper incisors and the oronasal complex of the latter, given the context of a more general theory of incisor evolution within the… Expand
55 Citations

Figures from this paper

Adaptive Profile Versus Adaptive Specialization: Fossils and Gummivory in Early Primate Evolution
  • 50
  • Highly Influenced
  • PDF
Evolution and development of the strepsirrhine primate skull
  • 20
  • Highly Influenced
  • PDF
Exudativory in the Asian loris, Nycticebus: Evolutionary divergence in the toothcomb and M3.
  • 41
Anthropoid versus strepsirhine status of the African Eocene primates Algeripithecus and Azibius: craniodental evidence
  • 88
  • PDF
Do roost-excavating bats have stronger skulls?
  • 13
  • PDF
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 60 REFERENCES
Why did the strepsirhine tooth comb evolve.
  • 68
Comparative anatomy of the vomeronasal organ complex in bats.
  • 72
Adaptive radiation and behaviour of the Malagasy lemurs.
  • R. D. Martin
  • Biology, Medicine
  • Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences
  • 1972
  • 364
...
1
2
3
4
5
...