Implications of the Relationship Between Basicranial Flexion and Facial Orientation for the Evolution of Hominid Craniofacial Structures
The basicranium and face have been linked through genetic, developmental, and functional relationships throughout their evolution. As a result, basicranial morphology most likely plays a major role in the evolution of facial structures. We describe the relationships between basicranial flexion and the face in Homo, Pan, and Gorilla to determine the role of cranial base angle reduction in the setup of the short and orthognathic face of Homo. We test the hypotheses that cranial base flexion plays a significant part in variation in facial orientation, length, and projection at the intraspecific level. The sample comprised 125 crania of adult specimens including 66 Homo sapiens, 32 Pan troglodytes, and 27 Gorilla gorilla. We described the cranial base and face using landmarks placed on scans of the surfaces and computed correlations between the cranial base angle and facial orientation, length, and projection. Our results support the hypotheses that cranial base flexion plays a significant part in facial orientation for Homo and Pan and in facial length for Pan. The hypothesis that basicranial flexion is related to a reduction of facial projection is not supported. The findings suggest that basicranial flexion can explain several anatomical specificities of hominins, including the reduction of prognathism and the reduction of the length of the nasopharynx. We found different patterns in the different genera, highlighting the fact that changes in the relationship between craniofacial structures may have occurred during hominid evolution.
KeywordsCranial base Cranium Facial block Facial projection Hominin
We thank the following institutions and people for allowing us access to their specimens or data: Mr. W. Wendelen of the Royal Museum for Central Africa (Tervuren, Belgium), Pr. C. P. E. Zollikofer and Dr. M. Ponce de León of the Anthropologisches Institut und Museum (Zürich, Switzerland), and the Natural History Museum (London). We also thank the following people and facilities for the CT scans data acquisition: the Department of Radiology of UZ Leuven (Leuven, Belgium), the Kantonsspital Winterthur (Winterthur, Switzerland), and the Hammersmith Hospital (London). We thank Pr. D. E. Lieberman and Dr. T. Bienvenu for their comments on previous versions of this work. We also thank S. Ramdarshan for his help improving the English. We thank Dr. J. Setchell and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The Agence Nationale de la Recherche (project ANR-09-BLAN-0238) supported this work.
- Basili, C., Slavicek, R., Tajima, K., & Sato, S. (2009). A three-dimensional computerized tomography study of the relationship between cranial base angle and maxillofacial architecture in caucasic human skull. International Journal of Stomatology & Occlusion Medicine, 2(4), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Biegert, J. (1963). The evaluation of characteristics of the skull, hands and feet for primate taxonomy. In S. L. Washburn (Ed.), Classification and human evolution (pp. 77–199). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
- Enlow, D. H., & Azuma, M. (1975). Functional growth boundaries in the human and mammalian face. In D. Bergsma (Ed.), Morphogenesis and malformation of face and brain (pp. 217–230). New York: Alan R. Liss.Google Scholar
- Enlow, D. H., & Hans, M. G. (1996). Essentials of facial growth. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
- Guy, F., Lieberman, D. E., Pilbeam, D., Ponce de León, M., Likius, A., Mackaye, H. T., et al. (2005). Morphological affinities of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Late Miocene hominid from Chad) cranium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102(52), 18836.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Klingenberg, C. P. (2010). Evolution and development of shape: integrating quantitative approaches. Nature, 11, 623–635.Google Scholar
- Lebatard, A.-E., Bourlès, D. L., Duringer, P., Jolivet, M., Braucher, R., Carcaillet, J., et al. (2008). Cosmogenic nuclide dating of Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Australopithecus bahrelghazali: Mio-Pliocene hominids from Chad. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 3226–3231.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lieberman, D. E. (2000). Ontogeny, homology and phylogeny in the Hominid craniofacial skeleton: The problem of the browridge. In P. O’Higgins & M. Cohn (Eds.), Development, growth and evolution (pp. 85–122). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Neaux, D. (2013). Covariations des structures crâniofaciales chez les hominidés. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Poitiers.Google Scholar
- Olson, R. L., & Miller, E. C. (1958). Morphological integration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
- Simpson, E. K. (2005). Variation in cranial base flexion and craniofacial morphology in modern humans. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
- Spoor, F. (1997). Basicranial architecture and relative brain size of Sts 5 (Australopithecus africanus) and other Plio-Pleistocene hominids. South African Journal of Science, 93, 182–186.Google Scholar
- Wiley, D. F., Amenta, N., Alcantara, D. A., Ghosh, D., Kil, J. Y., Delson, E., et al. (2005). Evolutionnary morphing. Proceedings of IEEE Visualization 2005. http://graphics.idav.ucdavis.edu/research/projects/EvoMorph.