Search

Interproximal wear facets were examined on hominoid teeth from the middle Miocene site at Paşalar, Turkey. The aim was to find matches between adjacent premolar and molar teeth from single individuals that were collected in the field as isolated teeth and use them to reconstruct tooth rows. These were then used to investigate: (1) the wear gradient on the molar teeth; (2) the dispersal of teeth from single mandibles and maxillae; (3) the size ratios among the molars; and (4) the number of individuals represented by the hominoid sample. Facets were scored for size and shape and were assessed visually using photographs and superimposed outline drawings on acetate transparencies. Out of a sample of approximately 1,500 teeth collected between 1983 and 1996, 532 molars and 258 premolars produced apparent matches making up 160 tooth rows. These were then examined rigorously for morphological consistency and state of wear, and, employing the criterion that only the most unequivocal associations should be used, the final number was reduced to 48 tooth rows-31 mandibular and 17 maxillary. The tooth associations represent a minimum of 21 individuals and probably as many as 34. Molar wear was rapid, with M1s having almost twice as much wear as M3s, as measured by a wear-gradient index. The M2s are intermediate but generally closer to M1s in degree of wear, as are P4s. This wear pattern suggests either delayed eruption of M3s or extremely abrasive diets causing rapid, heavy wear. There is some indication that the wear patterns in Griphopithecus alpani and Kenyapithecus kizili are different, with the latter perhaps having a lower wear gradient, but the K. kizili sample is very small. In both species, the M2 is the largest molar and the M1 is the smallest. Separation of individual teeth in the 48 tooth associations varied from widely separated-up to 8.5m apart-to within a few centimeters of each other. One tooth row (D922) was found with the teeth in contact but the maxillary bone had dissolved away. Two dispersal mechanisms have been identified from earlier taphonomic work: transport of disarticulated elements to the fossil site and reworking of sediments by spring action.

A new species of fossil hominoid is described from the middle Miocene deposits at Paşalar, Turkey. It is the less common of the two Paşalar species discussed by Martin and Andrews (1993), making up approximately 10% of the individuals in the Paşalar hominoid sample according to analyses of the minimum number of individuals. To the diagnostic features of I(1) described by Alpagut et al. (1990) and Martin and Andrews (1993) can now be added further diagnostic features of all the anterior teeth, as well as both upper premolars and P(3). These include discrete, nonmetric features and metric differences at all the noted tooth positions. Attempts to distinguish the upper and lower molars of the two species have so far been unsuccessful, with the possible exception of M(3). The morphology of the new species is similar in most respects to that of Kenyapithecus wickeri from Fort Ternan, especially concerning maxillary morphology. They share robust and moderately deep maxillary alveolar processes, a restricted maxillary sinus with an elevated and uncomplicated floor, lacking the compartmentalization evident to varying degrees in many other taxa, and a zygomatic process that originates and turns laterally fairly high above the alveolar margin. There are also a number of distinctive similarities in the dentition, particularly for I(1), C(1), P(4) and P(3). The I(1) morphology in particular, with greatly hypertrophied lingual marginal ridges bounding a uniformly thickened basal crown area, is distinctive among Miocene hominoids. All of these similarities serve to reinforce the differences noted by others between the derived morphology of K. wickeri and the more primitive morphology of Equatorius africanus from Maboko and Kipsaramon. The new species differs from K. wickeri in morphological details of most of the anterior and premolar teeth that are known for both species, despite the general morphological similarity, and in the size of I(1) versus I(2). One striking feature of the new species is a relatively large incisive fossa, although it cannot be determined if this is associated with an open palatine fenestra, as in many early Miocene hominoids, or a minimally overlapping palate and nasoalveolar clivus, as in some middle and late Miocene hominoids.