Many primates habitually feed on tree exudates such as gums and saps. Among these exudate feeders, Cebuella pygmaea, Callithrix spp., Phaner furcifer, and most likely Euoticus elegantulus elicit exudate flow by biting into trees with their anterior dentition. We define this behavior as gouging. Beyond the recent publication by Dumont ([1997] Am J Phys Anthropol 102:187-202), there have been few attempts to address whether any aspect of skull form in gouging primates relates to this specialized feeding behavior. However, many researchers have proposed that tree gouging results in larger bite force, larger internal skull loads, and larger jaw gapes in comparison to other chewing and biting behaviors. If true, then we might expect primate gougers to exhibit skull modifications that provide increased abilities to produce bite forces at the incisors, withstand loads in the skull, and/or generate large gapes for gouging. We develop 13 morphological predictions based on the expectation that gouging involves relatively large jaw forces and/or jaw gapes. We compare skull shapes for P. furcifer to five cheirogaleid taxa, E. elegantulus to six galagid species, and C. jacchus to two tamarin species, so as to assess whether gouging primates exhibit these predicted morphological shapes. Our results show little morphological evidence for increased force-production or load-resistance abilities in the skulls of these gouging primates. Conversely, these gougers tend to have skull shapes that are advantageous for creating large gapes. For example, all three gouging species have significantly lower condylar heights relative to the toothrow at a given mandibular length in comparison with closely related, nongouging taxa. Lowering the height of the condyle relative to the mandibular toothrow should reduce the stretching of the masseters and medial pterygoids during jaw opening, as well as position the mandibular incisors more anteriorly at wide jaw gapes. In other words, the lower incisors will follow a more vertical trajectory during both jaw opening and closing. We predict, based on these findings, that tree-gouging primates do not generate unusually large forces, but that they do use relatively large gapes during gouging. Of course, in vivo data on jaw forces and jaw gapes are required to reliably assess skull functions during gouging.

No abstract

Common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) and cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) (Callitrichidae, Primates) share a broadly similar diet of fruits, insects, and tree exudates. Common marmosets, however, differ from tamarins by actively gouging trees with their anterior teeth to elicit tree exudate flow. During tree gouging, marmosets produce relatively large jaw gapes, but do not necessarily produce relatively large bite forces at the anterior teeth. We compared the fiber architecture of the masseter muscle in tree-gouging Callithrix jacchus (n = 10) to nongouging Saguinus oedipus (n = 8) to determine whether the marmoset masseter facilitates producing these large gapes during tree gouging. We predict that the marmoset masseter has relatively longer fibers and, hence, greater potential muscle excursion (i.e., a greater range of motion through increased muscle stretch). Conversely, because of the expected trade-off between excursion and force production in muscle architecture, we predict that the cotton-top tamarin masseter has more pinnate fibers and increased physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) as compared to common marmosets. Likewise, the S. oedipus masseter is predicted to have a greater proportion of tendon relative to muscle fiber as compared to the common marmoset masseter. Common marmosets have absolutely and relatively longer masseter fibers than cotton-top tamarins. Given that fiber length is directly proportional to muscle excursion and by extension contraction velocity, this result suggests that marmosets have masseters designed for relatively greater stretching and, hence, larger gapes. Conversely, the cotton-top tamarin masseter has a greater angle of pinnation (but not significantly so), larger PCSA, and higher proportion of tendon. The significantly larger PCSA in the tamarin masseter suggests that their masseter has relatively greater force production capabilities as compared to marmosets. Collectively, these results suggest that the fiber architecture of the common marmoset masseter is part of a suite of features of the masticatory apparatus that facilitates the production of relatively large gapes during tree gouging.

The major purpose of this study is to analyze anterior and posterior temporalis muscle force recruitment and firing patterns in various anthropoid and strepsirrhine primates. There are two specific goals for this project. First, we test the hypothesis that in addition to transversely directed muscle force, the evolution of symphyseal fusion in primates may also be linked to vertically directed balancing-side muscle force during chewing (Hylander et al. [2000] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 112:469-492). Second, we test the hypothesis of whether strepsirrhines retain the hypothesized primitive mammalian condition for the firing of the anterior temporalis, whereas anthropoids have the derived condition (Weijs [1994] Biomechanics of Feeding in Vertebrates; Berlin: Springer-Verlag, p. 282-320). Electromyographic (EMG) activities of the left and right anterior and posterior temporalis muscles were recorded and analyzed in baboons, macaques, owl monkeys, thick-tailed galagos, and ring-tailed lemurs. In addition, as we used the working-side superficial masseter as a reference muscle, we also recorded and analyzed EMG activity of the left and right superficial masseter in these primates. The data for the anterior temporalis provided no support for the hypothesis that symphyseal fusion in primates is linked to vertically directed jaw muscle forces during mastication. Thus, symphyseal fusion in primates is most likely mainly linked to the timing and recruitment of transversely directed forces from the balancing-side deep masseter (Hylander et al. [2000] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 112:469-492). In addition, our data demonstrate that the firing patterns for the working- and balancing-side anterior temporalis muscles are near identical in both strepsirrhines and anthropoids. Their working- and balancing-side anterior temporalis muscles fire asynchronously and reach peak activity during the power stroke. Similarly, their working- and balancing-side posterior temporalis muscles also fire asynchronously and reach peak activity during the power stroke. Compared to these strepsirrhines, however, the balancing-side posterior temporalis of anthropoids appears to have a relatively delayed firing pattern. Moreover, based on their smaller W/B ratios, anthropoids demonstrate a relative increase in muscle-force recruitment of the balancing-side posterior temporalis. This in turn suggests that anthropoids may emphasize the duration and magnitude of the power stroke during mastication. This hypothesis, however, requires additional testing. Furthermore, during the latter portion of the power stroke, the late activity of the balancing-side posterior temporalis of anthropoids apparently assists the balancing-side deep masseter in driving the working-side molars through the terminal portion of occlusion.