The African Plio-Pleistocene hominins known as australopiths evolved a distinctive craniofacial morphology that traditionally has been viewed as a dietary adaptation for feeding on either small, hard objects or on large volumes of food. A historically influential interpretation of this morphology hypothesizes that loads applied to the premolars during feeding had a profound influence on the evolution of australopith craniofacial form. Here, we test this hypothesis using finite element analysis in conjunction with comparative, imaging, and experimental methods. We find that the facial skeleton of the Australopithecus type species, A. africanus, is well suited to withstand premolar loads. However, we suggest that the mastication of either small objects or large volumes of food is unlikely to fully explain the evolution of facial form in this species. Rather, key aspects of australopith craniofacial morphology are more likely to be related to the ingestion and initial preparation of large, mechanically protected food objects like large nuts and seeds. These foods may have broadened the diet of these hominins, possibly by being critical resources that australopiths relied on during periods when their preferred dietary items were in short supply. Our analysis reconciles apparent discrepancies between dietary reconstructions based on biomechanics, tooth morphology, and dental microwear.evolution ͉ face ͉ finite element analysis ͉ hominin ͉ diet

The African Plio-Pleistocene hominins known as australopiths evolved derived craniodental features frequently interpreted as adaptations for feeding on either hard, or compliant/tough foods. Among australopiths, Paranthropus boisei is the most robust form, exhibiting traits traditionally hypothesized to produce high bite forces efficiently and strengthen the face against feeding stresses. However, recent mechanical analyses imply that P. boisei may not have been an efficient producer of bite force and that robust morphology in primates is not necessarily strong. Here we use an engineering method, finite element analysis, to show that the facial skeleton of P. boisei is structurally strong, exhibits a strain pattern different from that in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Australopithecus africanus, and efficiently produces high bite force. It has been suggested that P. boisei consumed a diet of compliant/tough foods like grass blades and sedge pith. However, the blunt occlusal topography of this and other species suggests that australopiths are adapted to consume hard foods, perhaps including grass and sedge seeds. A consideration of evolutionary trends in morphology relating to feeding mechanics suggests that food processing behaviors in gracile australopiths evidently were disrupted by environmental change, perhaps contributing to the eventual evolution of Homo and Paranthropus.

No abstract

In a broad range of evolutionary studies, an understanding of intraspecific variation is needed in order to contextualize and interpret the meaning of variation between species. However, mechanical analyses of primate crania using experimental or modeling methods typically encounter logistical constraints that force them to rely on data gathered from only one or a few individuals. This results in a lack of knowledge concerning the mechanical significance of intraspecific shape variation that limits our ability to infer the significance of interspecific differences. This study uses geometric morphometric methods (GM) and finite element analysis (FEA) to examine the biomechanical implications of shape variation in chimpanzee crania, thereby providing a comparative context in which to interpret shape-related mechanical variation between hominin species. Six finite element models (FEMs) of chimpanzee crania were constructed from CT scans following shape-space Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of a matrix of 709 Procrustes coordinates (digitized onto 21 specimens) to identify the individuals at the extremes of the first three principal components. The FEMs were assigned the material properties of bone and were loaded and constrained to simulate maximal bites on the P3 and M2. Resulting strains indicate that intraspecific cranial variation in morphology is associated with quantitatively high levels of variation in strain magnitudes, but qualitatively little variation in the distribution of strain concentrations. Thus, interspecific comparisons should include considerations of the spatial patterning of strains rather than focus only their magnitude.

Recent biomechanical analyses examining the feeding adaptations of early hominins have yielded results consistent with the hypothesis that hard foods exerted a selection pressure that influenced the evolution of australopith morphology. However, this hypothesis appears inconsistent with recent reconstructions of early hominin diet based on dental microwear and stable isotopes. Thus, it is likely that either the diets of some australopiths included a high proportion of foods these taxa were poorly adapted to consume (i.e., foods that they would not have processed efficiently), or that aspects of what we thought we knew about the functional morphology of teeth must be wrong. Evaluation of these possibilities requires a recognition that analyses based on microwear, isotopes, finite element modeling, and enamel chips and cracks each test different types of hypotheses and allow different types of inferences. Microwear and isotopic analyses are best suited to reconstructing broad dietary patterns, but are limited in their ability to falsify specific hypotheses about morphological adaptation. Conversely, finite element analysis is a tool for evaluating the mechanical basis of form-function relationships, but says little about the frequency with which specific behaviors were performed or the particular types of food that were consumed. Enamel chip and crack analyses are means of both reconstructing diet and examining biomechanics. We suggest that current evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that certain derived australopith traits are adaptations for consuming hard foods, but that australopiths had generalized diets that could include high proportions of foods that were both compliant and tough.