, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 73–84 | Cite as

Toothcomb origins: Support for the grooming hypothesis

  • Alfred L. Rosenberger
  • Elizabeth Strasser


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 primates, exhibits preadaptive conditions foreshadowing the emergence of the toothcomb and also evidence of strepsirhine monophyly. We find in all underived lemuriforms and in most fossil adapids where the elements are known, a striking continuity in upper incisor form, including such derived features as an interincisal diastema, strong central incisor prong, low-crowned morphology and reduced premaxillary size. The pattern suggests a basic strepsirhine reduction in the functional significance of the anterior dentition in feeding and harvesting roles. These features may be related to a novel connection of the rhinarium with the vomeronasal organ via a sulcate pair of labial folds, which serves as a component of a specialized behavioral-physiological complex dealing with olfactory communication. Rather than being the anatomical nucleus of this system, the toothcomb may have been added secondarily in the lemuriform descendants of the preadapted adapids, possibly as a device to stimulate glandular secretion of pheromones by direct pressure, and to simultaneously distribute odorants through the fur.

Key Words

Toothcomb Lemuriforms Adapids Grooming Phylogeny Adaptation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bailey, K., 1978.Flehmen in the ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta).Behaviour, 65: 309–319.Google Scholar
  2. Bock, W. J., 1981. Functional-adaptive analysis in evolutionary classification.Amer. Zool., 21: 5–20.Google Scholar
  3. Beecher, R. M., 1983. Evolution of the mandibular symphysis in Notharchinae (Adapidae, Primates).Int. J. Primatol., 4: 99–112.Google Scholar
  4. Buettner-Janusch, J. &R. M. Andrew, 1962. Use of the incisors by primates in grooming.Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 20: 127–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartmill, M. &R. F. Kay, 1978. Craniodental morphology, tarsier affinities and primate sub-orders. In:Recent Advances in Primatology, Vol. 3, Evolution,D. J. Chivers &K. A. Josey (eds.), Academic Press, London, pp. 205–213.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, A. B., 1978. Olfactory communication.Galago crassicaudatus and the social life of prosimians. In:Recent Advances in Primatology, Vol. 1, Behaviour,D. J. Chivers &J. Herbert (eds.), Academic Press, London, pp. 109–117.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, J. G. &K. P. Bhatnagar, 1976. Comparative anatomy of the vomeronasal organ complex in bats.J. Anat., 122: 571–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dagosto, M., 1984. Postcranium ofAdapis parisiensis andLeptadapis magnus (Adapiformes, Primates). Adaptational and phylogenetic significance.Folia Primatol., 41: 49–101.Google Scholar
  9. Estes, R. D., 1972. The role of the vomeronasal organ in mammalian reproduction.Mammalia, 36: 315–341.Google Scholar
  10. Gingerich, P. D., 1975. Dentition ofAdapis parisiensis and the evolution of the lemuriform toothcomb. In:Lemur Biology,I. Tattersall &R. W. Sussman (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
  11. ----, 1976. Cranial anatomy and evolution of early Tertiary Plesiadapidae (Mammalia, Primates).Mus. Paleon., Univ. of Michigan, Pap. on Paleon., 15.Google Scholar
  12. ———— &R. D. Martin, 1981. Cranial morphology and adaptations in Eocene Adapidae. II. The Cambridge skull ofAdapis parisiensis.Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 56: 235–257.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, W. K., 1920. On the structure and relations ofNotharctus, an American Eocene primate.Mem. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 3: 51–243.Google Scholar
  14. ————, 1922.The Origin and Evolution of the Human Dentition. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Hofer, H. O., 1977. The anatomical relations of the ductus vomeronasalis and the occurrence of taste buds in the papilla palatina ofNycticebus coucang (Primates, Prosimiae) with remarks on strepsirhinism.Gegen. Morph. Jahrb., 123: 836–856.Google Scholar
  16. ————, 1980. The external anatomy of the oro-nasal region of primates.Z. Morphol., 71: 233–249.Google Scholar
  17. ————, 1982. Anatomy of the oro-nasal region of some species of Tenrecidae and considerations of Tupaiids and Lemurids.Gegen. Morphol. Jahrb., 4: 588–613.Google Scholar
  18. Jolly, A., 1963.Lemur Behavior. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Kay, R. F., 1980. Platyrrhine origins: A reappraisal of the dental evidence. In:Evolutionary Biology of the New World Monkeys and Continental Drift,R. L. Ciochon &A. Brunetto Chiarelli (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 159–188.Google Scholar
  20. Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., T. M. Bown &J. A. Lillegraven, 1979. Eutheria. In:Mesozoic Mammals,J. A. Lillegraven,Z. Kielan-Jaworowska &W. A. Clemens (eds.), Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 221–258.Google Scholar
  21. Kinzey, W. G., A. L. Rosenberger &M. Ramirez, 1975. Vertical clinging and leaping in a Neotropical anthropoid.Nature, 225: 327–328.Google Scholar
  22. Le Gros Clark, W. E., 1959.The Antecedents of Man. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. ———— &D. P. Thomas, 1952. The Miocene lemuroids of East Africa.Fos. Mam. Afr., 5: 1–20.Google Scholar
  24. Luckett, W. P., 1982.Comparative Biology and Evolutionary Relationships of Tree Shrews. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Maier, W., 1979. A new dental formula for the Tupaiiformes.J. Human Evol., 8: 319–321.Google Scholar
  26. ————, 1980a. Nasal structure in Old and New World primates. In:Evolutionary Biology of New World Monkeys and Continental Drift,R. L. Ciochon &A. Brunetto Chiarelli (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 219–241.Google Scholar
  27. ————, 1980b. Konstruktionsmorphologische Untersuchengen an Gebiss der rezenten Prosimiae (Primates).Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 538: 1–158.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, R. D., 1972. Adaptive variation of behavior of Malagasy lemurs.Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (B), 26: 295–352.Google Scholar
  29. ————, 1973. Comparative anatomy and primate systematics.Symp. Zool. Soc. London, 33: 301–337.Google Scholar
  30. ————, 1979. Phylogenetic aspects of prosimian behavior. In:Studies of Prosimian Behavior,G. A. Doyle &R. D. Martin (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 45–77.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, M. E., 1964.Anatomy of the Dog. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, K. D., A. Walker &L. L. Jacobs, 1981. Function of the mandibular toothcomb in living and extinct mammals.Nature, 289: 583–585.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenberger, A. L., M. E. Strasser & E. Delson, 1985. Anterior dentition ofNotharctus and the adapid-anthropoid hypothesis.Folia Primatol.Google Scholar
  34. ———— &F. S. Szalay, 1980. On the tarsiiform origin of Anthropoidea. In:Evolutionary Biology of New World Monkeys and Continental Drift,R. L. Ciochon &A. Brunetto Chiarelli (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 139–157.Google Scholar
  35. Schilling, A., 1979. Olfactory communication in prosimians. In:Studies of Prosimian Behavior,G. A. Doyle &R. D. Martin (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 461–542.Google Scholar
  36. Schwartz, J. H., I. Tattersall &N. Eldredge, 1978. Phylogeny and classification of the primates revisited.Yrbk. Phys. Anthropol., 21: 95–133.Google Scholar
  37. Simons, E. L., 1972.Primate Evolution: An Introduction to Man's Place in Nature. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Simpson, G. G., 1940. Studies on the earliest primates.Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 77: 185–212.Google Scholar
  39. Stehlin, H. G., 1916. Die Saugetiere de schweizerischen Eozans. Critischer Catalog de Materialien, 7. Teil 2, Halfte.Abhand. Schweiz. Palaeont. Ges., 51: 1299–1552.Google Scholar
  40. Stephan von, H. &O. J. Andy, 1969. Quantitative comparative neuroanatomy of primates: an attempt at phylogenetic interpretation.Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 167: 370–387.Google Scholar
  41. ————,G. Baron &H. D. Frahm, 1982. Comparison of brain structure volumes in Insectivora and Primates. II. Accessory Olfactory bulb (ABO).J. Hirnforsch., 23: 575–591.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Szalay, F. S., 1976. Systematics of the Omomyidae (Tarsiiformes, Primates): taxonomy, phylogeny and adaptations.Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 156: 157–450.Google Scholar
  43. ————, 1981. Functional analysis and the practice of the phylogenetic method as reflected by some mammalian studies.Amer. Zool., 21: 37–45.Google Scholar
  44. ———— &E. Delson, 1979.Evolutionary History of the Primates. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  45. ———— &C. Katz, 1973. Phylogeny of lemurs, galagos and lorises.Folia Primatol., 19: 88–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. ———— &D. Seligsohn, 1977. Why did the strepsirhine toothcomb evolve?Folia Primatol., 27: 75–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker, A., 1969. New evidence from Uganda regarding the dentition of Miocene Lorisidae.Uganda J., 33: 90–91.Google Scholar
  48. Wohrmann-Repenning, A., 1978. Geschmacksknospen an der Papillan palatina vonTupaia glis (Diard, 1920), ihr Vorkommen und ihre Beziehung zum Jacobsonschen Organ.Gegen. Morph. Jahrb., 124: 375–384.Google Scholar
  49. Wysocki, C. J., 1979. Neurobehavioral evidence for the involvement of the vomeonasal system in Mammalian reproduction.Neuros. Biobehav. Rev., 3: 301–341.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred L. Rosenberger
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Strasser
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Anthropology, Graduate School and University CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations