Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2010 Variation in Premaxillary Tooth Count and a Developmental Abnormality in a Tyrannosaurid Dinosaur
Tetsuto Miyashita, Darren H. Tanke, Philip J. Currie
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Premaxillary tooth count tends to be stable amongst toothed dinosaurs, and most theropods have four teeth in each premaxilla. Only one case of bilaterally asymmetric variation is known in theropod premaxillary dentition, and there is no record of ontogenetic or individual variation in premaxillary tooth count. Based on these observations, a tyrannosaurid left premaxilla with three teeth (TMP 2007.20.124) is an interesting deviation and represents an unusual individual of Daspletosaurus sp. with a developmental abnormality. The lower number of teeth is coupled with relatively larger alveoli, each of which is capable of hosting a larger than normal tooth. This indicates that tooth size and dental count vary inversely, and instances of reduction in tooth count may arise from selection for increased tooth size. On the other hand, the conservative number of premaxillary teeth in most theropods implies strong developmental constraints and a functional trade-off between the dimensions of the premaxillary alveolar margin and the size of the teeth. In light of recent advances in the study of tooth morphogenesis, tooth count is a function of two parameters: dimensions of an odontogenic field for a tooth series, and dimensions of tooth positions. A probable developmental cause for the low tooth count of TMP 2007.20.124 is that the dimensions of the alveoli expanded by approximately a third during tooth morphogenesis. Numerical traits such as tooth count are difficult to treat in a phylogenetic analysis. When formulating a phylogenetic character, a potential alternative to simply counting is to rely on the morphological signature for developmental parameters that control the number of the element in question.

Introduction

Premaxillary tooth count is remarkably stable amongst toothed theropod dinosaurs, and an overwhelming majority of taxa have four teeth in each premaxilla. There are only six exceptions to this rule. Pelecanimimus and spinosauroids have six or seven premaxillary teeth (Perez-Moreno et al. 1994; Charig and Milner 1997; Rauhut 2003; Dal Sasso et al. 2005). Allosaurus and Neovenator each have five premaxillary teeth (Gilmore 1920; Madsen 1976; Hutt et al. 1996), whereas Ceratosaurus is unique in having just three (Gilmore 1920; Madsen and Welles 2000). Torvosaurus is also previously reported to have only three premaxillary teeth on each side (Galton and Jensen 1979), but it has the fourth tooth, which is pathological and covered by a rugose excrescence of bone (Britt 1991; Roger Benson personal communication 2009). In almost all theropods, there is no known individual or bilateral variation in the number of premaxillary teeth. An exception is the holotype of Baryonyx, which has six premaxillary teeth on the left side, and seven on the other (Charig and Milner 1997). No theropod is known to increase or decrease the number of premaxillary teeth in ontogeny, although most theropod taxa lack ontogenetic series of specimens. Amongst coelurosaurs with teeth, the premaxillary tooth count of four is universal, with the exception of the unusual Pelecanimimus. Tooth count does vary in maxillae and dentaries, notably in tyrannosaurids, both individually and bilaterally (Currie 2003a). These variations in tyrannosaurids most likely represent developmental plasticity near the back end of the tooth rows, but this is not the case in the front part in proximity of the premaxilla (rationale for this in Discussion).

Premaxillary tooth count is similarly stable in sauropods (Table 1). The count is universally four amongst sauropods, even in the sauropod Nigersaurus with its highly modified skull and dentition in which the dental battery houses more than five hundred teeth (Sereno et al. 2007). Because the tooth count is variable amongst prosauropods, the conservation of four premaxillary teeth is either retention of the presiomorphic archosaur condition or an independently acquired trait. The latter hypothesis is dependent on the paraphyly of prosauropods. Ornithischians repeatedly evolved edentulous premaxillae that are correlated with the presence of extensive beaks. The tooth count is more variable across clades, but an important trend in the currently available data is that the lack of premaxillary teeth in stegosaurs, ankylosaurs, iguanodonts and ceratopsids is not preceded by sequential loss. This is also true for the lineages of edentulous theropods (e.g., ornithomimosaurs and oviraptorids). In summary, premaxillary tooth count is relatively stable within major clades of dinosaurs, regardless of a wide variety of snout morphology. This conservatism suggests that premaxillary tooth count in dinosaurs is a trait under strong developmental regulation.

Fig. 1.

A–D. A left partial tyrannosaurid premaxilla with three alveoli, from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Campanian), Alberta, Canada; TMP 2007.124.20; in lateral (A, B) and posteromedial (C, D) views; illustrations (A, C) and photographs (B, D). E. Stratigraphic column showing succession of tyrannosaurids during the Upper Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada. Shaded units indicate occurrence of tyrannosaurids identifiable down to generic level.

f01_635.eps

Based on these observations, a left tyrannosaurid premaxilla with three alveoli (TMP 2007.20.124) is an interesting deviation. This provides the first evidence that the premaxillary tooth count varies in tyrannosaurids, and a second exception from the four-tooth “rule” in coelurosaurs in addition to the unusual Pelecanimimus. It is common across vertebrates that tooth count morphologically distinguishes species from one another. Therefore, plasticity in tooth count provides an opportunity to understand the developmental background for discrete morphological variation. This paper addresses the developmental and functional implications of three premaxillary teeth in tyrannosaurids and explores the developmental mechanisms that may account for tooth count variation.

Institutional abbreviation.—CMNH, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; TMP, Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada.

Systematic palaeontology

Theropoda Marsh, 1881
Coelurosauria von Huene, 1914
Tyrannosauridae Osborn, 1906
Genus Daspletosaurus Russell, 1970
cf. Daspletosaurus sp.
Fig. 1.

  • Material.—TMP 2007.20.124, a partial left premaxilla.

  • Description.—TMP 2007.20.124 is a left tyrannosaurid premaxilla, based on the angle between the alveolar margin and the interpremaxillary suture, which is more than 50° (Fig. 1). The angle is 60°, and is comparable to that of immature tyrannosaurines (63° in TMP 1994.143.1 Daspletosaurus sp.), but larger than that of albertosaurines (35° and 47° in TMP 1991.36.500 and TMP 1999.33.1, Gorgosaurus libratus). Because of abrasion, it lacks the supranarial and subnarial processes, and most of the medial surface, including the interdental plates, is missing. The arc length along the complete alveolar margin is 20% larger than that of a juvenile Daspletosaurus sp. (TMP 1994.143.1) and about as large as that of an adult Gorgosaurus libratus (TMP 2005.9.9) (Table 2; ACL). When in its life position, the premaxilla is relatively short anteroposteriorly and wide lateromedially, just as in those of similar-sized tyrannosaurids. The narial fossa is partially preserved. The interpremaxillary suture is a flat surface that extends along the medial edge of the anterior wall of the first alveolus. The interdental plates are missing, but two ridges clearly mark the boundaries between the three teeth. The partially preserved, smooth surface along the posterior edge of the bone is part of the maxillary suture. The texture is unlike the pitted, spongy alveolar surface. The three alveoli are variable in size (Table 2). The first alveolus is the largest, and the next two alveoli are successively smaller. The three alveoli gradually taper dorsally, following the external bone profile. There is no indication of a space for an extra alveolus anywhere along the alveolar margin.

  • Stratigraphic and geographic range.—Dinosaur Park Formation, Belly River Group (Campanian, Cretaceous); 5 m above the boundary with the underlying Oldman Formation. Denhart Coulee, southern Alberta, Canada.

  • Table 1.

    Summary of premaxillary tooth count in dinosaurs. The tooth count of four is independently conserved in theropods and sauropods. Ornithischians repeatedly evolved edentulous premaxillae. The ornithischians with premaxillary teeth tend to lack alveoli in the anterior part of the element where kelatinous sheath form a beak (“partly” in the “edentulous” column). There is no positive evidence for sequential loss of teeth into edentulous premaxilla.

    t01_635.gif

    Table 2.

    Measurements on and proportions of the tyrannosaurid premaxillae stored at TMP, not including the specimens on display. Arc length was measured by a tape measure, and the others were by a caliper. All measurements in mm. Abbreviations: A1, mesiodistal diameter of first alveolus; A2, mesiodistal diameter of second alveolus; A3, mesiodistal diameter of third alveolus; A4, mesiodistal diameter of fourth alveolus; ACL, arc length (outside the curvature) of alveolar margin; AM, mean mesiodistal alveolus diameter; A/ACL, sum of mesiodistal alveolar diameters divided by the arc length.

    t02_635.gif

    Discussion

    Taxonomic affinity.—Two tyrannosaurid taxa are known from the Dinosaur Park Formation: the albertosaurine Gorgosaurus libratus and the tyrannosaurine Daspletosaurus sp. (Currie 2003a; Fig. 1E). TMP 2007.20.124 is identified as cf. Daspletosaurus sp. based on the greater relative width of the premaxilla in its life position, as determined by the angle between the interpremaxillary suture and the alveolar margin in ventral view. Even though the width of a tyrannosaurid premaxilla is influenced by allometry, the premaxillary width can be differentiated between albertosaurines and tyrannosaurines (Currie 2003a; Carr and Williamson 2004). Carr and Williamson (2004) used the “narrow” width to distinguish albertosaurines from tyrannosaurines, but they did not provide objective, quantitative criteria to define “narrow.” In this paper, a “wide” premaxilla typical of tyrannosaurines is defined as one in which all the premaxillary teeth are visible in anterior view. That is, each of the teeth after the first one is not overlapped for more than a third of its width by the sequentially more anterior tooth. This visibility criterion applies to immature specimens of tyrannosaurines (TMP 1994.143.1, Daspletosaurus sp.; CMNH 7514, Nanotyrannus lancensis), but may differ in specimens with aberrant tooth counts. TMP 2007.20.124 is still interpreted as “wide” because the angle between the interpremaxillary suture and the alveolar margin is comparable to that of tyrannosaurines (50–80°).

    TMP 2007.20.124 possibly represents a new tyrannosaurid taxon because it deviates from the remarkably conservative condition of four premaxillary teeth amongst theropods. However, it is not warranted to assume a distinct taxon based only on the tooth count of a single element, regardless of how unusual. No other potentially diagnostic character is seen in the specimen, and there is no way to test the possibility of bilateral asymmetry, as is the case for Baryonyx (Charig and Milner 1997). Furthermore, the Dinosaur Park Formation is an extremely well-sampled stratigraphic unit from which more than thirty associated skulls and skeletons of tyrannosaurids have been collected, all unambiguously identified either as Daspletosaurus or Gorgosaurus (Currie 2003a, 2005). The discovery of another distinct large tyrannosaurid theropod is unlikely from this formation. Unless supported by further evidence, TMP 2007.20.124 is best identified as Daspletosaurus sp., the only tyrannosaurine from the formation.

    Developmental abnormality.—TMP 2007.20.124 provides the first evidence that the premaxillary tooth count can vary in tyrannosaurids. The loss of one tooth position is not due to breakage of the specimen because the maxillary suture is still preserved. Neither does the low tooth count represent postnatal modification or a pathological condition, because the specimen lacks an alveolus filled with bone, and because there is no abnormal bone texture. The size differences between the alveoli are also minor. It is therefore unlikely that any one of the alveoli expanded to incorporate another alveolus at some stage of development. Past bibliographic reviews of theropod paleopathology (Tanke and Rothschild 2002; Rothschild and Tanke 2005) do not include observations of theropod premaxilla tooth count variation due to pathological conditions. The low tooth count is not attributable to ontogenetic variation either. A juvenile specimen of Daspletosaurus (TMP 1994.143.1, 10 years old, 496 kg estimated body mass; Erickson et al. 2004) is smaller than TMP 2007.20.124 in size, but clearly has four premaxillary teeth on both premaxillae as in all other specimens of Daspletosaurus. This means that the premaxillary tooth count neither increases nor decreases in Daspletosaurus under normal conditions. Thus, the low premaxillary tooth count in TMP 2007.20.124 represents a case of abnormal tooth development. Under this hypothesis, it is unlikely that the number of the premaxillary teeth is subject to developmental plasticity under normal conditions, because no other tyrannosaurid premaxilla is known to have more than or less than four teeth. The three complete alveoli with no trace indicating the fourth precludes post-natal modification to the number of the premaxillary teeth. Thus, the three-tooth state may be interpreted as a developmental abnormality due to an error during odontogenesis. Further analysis of this character requires a brief review of tooth morphogenesis and discussion for a developmental model to explain tooth count variation.

    Developmental models for tooth count variation.—Using mice, Kavanagh et al. (2007) demonstrated that inhibitory signals from a developing tooth bud successively regulate development of the next tooth. Under this model, prolonged or accelerated development of a tooth bud changes the proportions of molars that subsequently develop, and results in variation in the number and relative size of the teeth (Fig. 2A). A long history of morphological works on mammal dentition lends support for this model. Most importantly, teeth that develop later have lower heritabilities for size or are more variable in size and shape (Lundstrüm 1948; Bader 1965; Bader and Lehman 1965; Guthrie 1965; Sofaer et al. 1971a; Gingerich and Winkler 1979). This is because the last tooth to develop must accommodate fluctuations in size growth of earlier developing teeth. Indeed, if the teeth that develop earlier end up being relatively larger, the ones that develop later tend to compensate for this by reducing their relative size (Gruneburg 1951; Grewal 1962; Van Valen 1962; Gould and Garwood 1969; Sofaer 1969; Sofaer et al. 1971a, b) Recently, Laffont et al. (2009) and Renaud et al. (2009) provided positive evidence for the cascading effect of molar proportions in voles and mice. These observations demonstrate that the dimensions of a tooth position are regulated separately from the dimensions of an odontogenic field, and that changes in tooth size alter the proportions of the teeth and eventually lead to tooth count variation. Renvoisé et al. (2009) used the molar dimensions in arvicolines to reject proportional reduction in molar size predicted by the inhibitory cascade model. However, proportional reduction in tooth size is only possible if the inhibitory signals proportionally accumulates from one tooth to next, and if relative dimensions of the odontogenic field remains constant between animals under comparison. In other words, a cascade of inhibitory signals can create teeth of identical size if the signals proportionally decrease in expression levels from one tooth to the next.

    Fig. 2.

    Diagrams that represent developmental models to explain regulation of tooth count. A. The inhibitory cascade model (Kavanagh et al. 2007) in which a developing tooth successively inhibits subsequent ones in a hypothetical mammal. B. The zone of inhibition model (Osborn 1971, 1978, 1998; Kulesa et al. 1996) in which a tooth develops outside the sphere of inhibition around an already developing tooth in a hypothetical reptile. Roman numerals show the sequence of tooth site formation, whereas Arabic numerals indicate the spatial order of tooth positions. The inhibitory cascade model explains regulation of tooth size, whereas the zone of inhibition model deals with spatial regulation of tooth positions. The pattern of tooth formation is spatially and temporarily sequential in the inhibitory cascade model (applicable to mammals), but does not have to be spatially sequential in the zone of inhibition model (applicable to mammals and non-mammals alike).

    f02_635.eps

    Outside Mammalia, there is evidence for shared regulatory pathways and similar regulatory mechanisms for tooth size and an odontogenic field (Smith 2003; Streelman et al. 2003; Fraser et al. 2004, 2006a, 2009). But tooth patterning is more complicated in non-mammalian vertebrates, partly because primary tooth position patterning must translate into continuous replacement pattern (Fraser et al. 2006b; Huysseune and Witten 2006), and partly because teeth do not necessarily form in an apparent sequential manner. In alligators, for example, primary tooth positions are established anterior and posterior to the first tooth bud, and secondary tooth positions are set in between some of the primary ones (Westergaard and Ferguson 1986, 1987, 1990). To interpret this, Osborn (1971, 1978) postulated a zone of inhibition around a developing tooth bud, coupled with growth of an entire odontogenic field (Kulesa et al. 1996; Osborn 1998). That is, a tooth bud can only develop outside the sphere of a threshold concentration of inhibitors around an already developing tooth bud (Fig. 2B). Growth of the odontogenic field allows adjacent teeth to form outside the zone of inhibition. Under this model, a zone of inhibition morphologically manifests itself in the space that each tooth position occupies.

    Developmental implications.—These developmental insights are useful in the interpretation of tooth count variation. In tyrannosaurid theropods, tooth count varies intraspecifically and bilaterally in the maxillae and dentaries. Amongst specimens of Gorgosaurus, for example, the maxillary tooth count varies from thirteen to fifteen, and bilateral variation may exist by a difference of one additional tooth on either side (Currie 2003a). In these animals, maxillary tooth row length is highly correlated with maxillary length (Currie 2003b), suggesting consistent spatial regulation of the odontogenic field. At the same time, correspondence of anterior alveolus positions with other morphological landmarks within maxillae (Miyashita 2008) indicates that the sizes of the teeth and of their zones of inhibition are also controlled. As such, putting teeth of given sizes along the alveolar margin lines up the alveoli in predictable positions. Posteriorly along the tooth row, however, the accumulation of small errors in regulation of tooth sizes and the zones of inhibition, plus perhaps slight difference in dimensions of the odontogenic field between right and left sides, would leave either enough or too little room for the last few teeth. At this stage, any presumptive tooth potential outside the field would be aborted. The net result is bilateral asymmetry and intraspecific variation in tyrannosaurid maxillary tooth count. Such hypothesised compensatory interaction is consistent with the mammalian trend of shifting molar proportions. Sofaer (1973) explains the mammalian compensatory interaction that teeth are genetically too large for the element in which they develop, and therefore modulate their proportions and number to fit in it. A compensatory interaction between the regulatory parameters offers a simpler explanation for tooth count variation than assuming that developmental regulation acts directly upon the determination of each tooth position. Although the zone of inhibition and tooth size cannot be decoupled for most dinosaurs with their teeth being closely packed together, the widely spaced dentition of the theropod Archaeornithoides (Elżanowski and Wellnhofer 1993) and the heterodont premaxillary dentition of spinosaurid theropods (Charig and Milner 1997; Dal Sasso et al. 2005) demonstrate that these traits can be independent.

    As for premaxillary dentition in dinosaurs, less plasticity in tooth count is expected than for maxillary or dentary dentitions, simply because the relatively smaller dimensions of the alveolar margin of the premaxilla would leave little room for the accumulation of perturbations to include or exclude an extra tooth. A taxonomic difference in premaxillary tooth count must be a rare consequence of significant alterations to one or more of the regulatory properties to create or remove a tooth position. These predictions accurately describe the trends of premaxillary tooth count in dinosaurs (Table 1). Odontogenic fields of the premaxilla and maxilla are independent from each other (Westergaard and Ferguson 1990), partly because a tooth never develops across the boundary between the premaxilla and maxilla. In tyrannosaurids, the anterior borders of the maxillae serve as posterior walls of the last premaxillary alveoli (Currie 2003a). Also in tyrannosauroids, premaxillary teeth equal each other in size but are smaller than maxillary teeth, which suggests that relative size of the teeth is regulated independently between premaxilla and maxilla.

    TMP 2007.20.124 has the largest alveolar dimensions relative to premaxillary size among all the tyrannosaurid premaxillae listed in Table 2 (Fig. 3). The sizes of the alveoli in TMP 2007.20.124 are comparable to those of TMP 2001.36.1, one of the largest specimens of Daspletosaurus, whereas the length of the premaxillary alveolar margin measured is approximately 30% smaller than that in TMP 2001.36.1. Because all alveoli in TMP 2007.20.124 are similar in size to each other, it is possible that the first three premaxillary tooth positions grew relatively large and eventually “pushed” the potential fourth tooth outside the odontogenic field of the premaxilla at an early stage in the development. The implication is that the low premaxillary tooth count of TMP 2007.20.124 is a result of an abnormal increase in tooth size, rather than to a change in relative dimensions of the odontogenic field or to an inconsistent regulation on tooth size along the tooth row. By simple calculation, a zone of inhibition a third larger could alter the tooth count to three from four (Fig. 4), which roughly coincides with relative size of premaxillary alveoli in TMP 2007.20.124 compared to other tyrannosaurids. When a mean alveolar diameter is corrected for length of the alveolar margin, TMP 2007.20.124 has a diameter 1.23 times the average of those in four-toothed tyrannosaurid premaxillae (Table 2: mean alveolus diameter/premaxillary arc length). In contrast, the premaxillary tooth count of seven in Pelecanimimus is attributed to the relatively small size of the teeth (Perez-Moreno et al. 1994), which could be a consequence of decreased expression of the inhibitor. Finally, a test for cascading effect and compensatory interaction in tooth size regulation in dinosaurs must meet three predictions: (i) tooth count co-varies with relative dimensions of the tooth-bearing portion of the alveolar margin and/or the relative size of the alveoli taken together but not individually; (ii) the teeth and the alveoli show higher covariance in size and shape between adjacent ones than between those spaced widely apart along the series; and (iii) the last developing tooth and alveolus in the series are more variable in relative size and shape than the earlier ones. Although these predictions await quantitative tests, the relatively large tooth size and low tooth count in TMP 2007.20.124 provides qualitative support for tooth count as a function of relative tooth size. Also consistent with the first prediction is the association of a high premaxillary tooth count of seven with either small teeth (Pelecanimimus) or an elongate premaxillary alveolar margin (spinosaurids) in theropods.

    Fig. 3.

    A residual plot of diameters of premaxillary aliveoli relative to the alveolar dimensions. TMP 2007.20.124 (indicated by a square) has larger premaxillary alveoli relative to other tyrannosaurid specimens with four premaxillary teeth (indicated by X; see Table 2). A major reduced axis regression is computed for the four-toothed specimens (n = 11) in bivariate plot of log-transformed mean alveolus diameter against log-transformed premaxillary arc length (y = 0.975x - 0.671; R = 0.941; R2 = 0.886). TMP 2007.20.124 does not fall in the range of variation in the residual plot, which suggests that it deviates from the normal tyrannosaurid trend. Abbreviations: ACL, arc length (outside the curvature) of alveolar margin; AM, mean mesiodistal alveolus diameter.

    f03_635.eps

    Fig. 4.

    Hypothetical zones of inhibition during premaxillary odontogenesis in tyrannosaurids. The outline represents a tyrannosaurid premaxilla in posteromedial view. A. A normal four-toothed premaxilla of a tyrannosaurid. B. TMP 2007.20.124 with only three premaxillary teeth. A zone of inhibition is a third larger in TMP 2007.20.124 than in a normal tyrannosaurid premaxilla, excluding the fourth tooth position from the alveolar margin.

    f04_635.eps

    Phylogenetic implications.—It is always an issue how to treat numerical traits such as tooth count and number of vertebrae in phylogenetic analysis, because implicit character weighting is an inevitable consequence of assigning a character state to continuous variation. All but one major character set for phylogenetic analysis of tyrannosaurids is free of characters based on tooth count (Holtz 2001, 2004; Carr 2004; Carr and Williamson in Brusatte et al. 2009; Sereno et al. 2009; as opposed to Currie et al. 2003). These characters do not accurately reflect true phylogenetic signals, not only because tooth count is variable individually, but also because tooth count is a function of size regulation of both an odontogenic field and tooth positions. Therefore, variation in tooth count should be assessed using a morphological signature for alteration in each parameter. Relative dimensions of an odontogenic field and relative tooth size may be difficult to determine. A more indirect alternative is to use a combination of particular positions of teeth relative to other landmarks. For example, a sixth maxillary tooth position coincides with the anterior margin of an antorbital fossa in all tyrannosaurids and in the basal tyrannosauroids Dilong and Raptorex, but not in another basal tyrannosauroid (Guanlong).

    Functional implications.—The lower number of tooth positions and the sizes of the alveoli in TMP 2007.20.124 show that the premaxillary teeth were relatively larger, and presumably mechanically more resistant. However, the otherwise consistent presence of four teeth in tyrannosaurids suggests that the selective advantage of larger premaxillary teeth, if any, is limited. The conservatism in theropod premaxillary tooth count may imply that four is the functionally optimal number for premaxillary teeth. Lack of functional morphological studies on relatively small, lateromedially wide tyrannosaurid premaxillary teeth restrains the authors from exploring a functional implication of the larger premaxillary teeth.

    Acknowledgements

    Jim Gardner and Brandon Strilisky (TMP, Drumheller, Canada) provided access to the specimens. We thank Eric Snively (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada) for discussion, John Osborn (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), and Jeffrey Wilson (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA) for feedback, Roger Benson (Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK), Hans Larsson (McGill University, Montreal, Canada) and two anonymous reviewers for comments. Don Henderson (TMP, Drumheller, Canada) was T.M.'s host in Drumheller. TM thanks family and friends for ongoing support through his illness, especially Kesia Andressen, P.J.C. and Eva Koppelhus, Rich Palmer, and Lois Hammond (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), his parents and grandparents, and members of the Dinosaur Club (Tokyo, Japan).

    References

    1.

    R.S. Bader 1965. Heritability of dental characters in the house mouse. Evolution 19: 378–384.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2406448 Google Scholar

    2.

    R.S. Bader and W.H. Lehman 1965. Phenotypic and genetypic variation in odontometric traits of the house mouse. American Midland Naturalist 74: 28–38.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2423116 Google Scholar

    3.

    B.B. Britt 1991. The theropods of the Dry Mesa Quarry (Morrison Formation), Colorado: with emphasis on the osteology of Torvosaurus tanneri. Brigham Young University Geological Studies 37: 1–72. Google Scholar

    4.

    B. Brown and E.M. Schlaikjer 1940. The structure and relationships of Protoceratops. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 40: 133–266.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1940.tb57047.x Google Scholar

    5.

    S.L. Brusatte , T.D. Carr , G.M. Erickson , G.S. Bever , and M.A. Norell 2009. A long-snouted, multi-horned tyrannosaurid from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 17261–17266.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906911106 Google Scholar

    6.

    K. Carpenter , J.I. Kirkland , D. Burge , and J. Bird 2001. Disarticulated skull of a new primitive ankylosaurid from the Lower Cretaceous of Eastern Utah. In: K. Carpenter (ed.), The Armored Dinosaurs , 211–238. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Google Scholar

    7.

    T.D. Carr 2004. Phylogeny of Tyrannosauroidea (Dinosauria: Coelurosauria) with Special Reference to North American Forms. 1270 pp. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Toronto, Toronto. Google Scholar

    8.

    T.D. Carr and T.E. Williamson 2004. Diversity of late Maastrichtian Tyrannosauridae (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from western North America. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 142: 479–523.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2004.00130.x Google Scholar

    9.

    A.J. Charig and A.C. Milner 1997. Baryonyx walkeri, a fish-eating dinosaur from the Wealden of Surrey. Bulletin of Natural History Museum of London, Geology Series 53: 11–70. Google Scholar

    10.

    W.P. Coombs Jr. 1971. The Ankylosauria. 487 pp. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University, New York. Google Scholar

    11.

    P.J. Currie 2003a. Cranial anatomy of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48: 191–226. Google Scholar

    12.

    P.J. Currie 2003b. Allometric growth in tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of North America and Asia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 40: 651–665.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/e02-083 Google Scholar

    13.

    P.J. Currie 2005. Theropods, including birds. In : P.J. Currie and E.B. Koppelhus (eds.), Dinosaur Provincial Park , 367–397. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Google Scholar

    14.

    P.J. Currie , J.H. Hurum , and K. Sabath 2003. Skull structure and evolution in tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48: 227–234. Google Scholar

    15.

    C. Dal Sasso , S. Maganuco , E. Buffetaut , and M.A. Mendez 2005. New information on the skull other enigmatic theropod Spinosaurus, with remarks on its size and affinities. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25: 888–896.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2005)025%5B0888: NIOTSO%5D2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar

    16.

    Z.-M. Dong and Y. Azuma 1997. On a primitive neoceratopsian from the Early Cretaceous. In : Z.-M. Dong (eds.), Sino-Japanese Silk Road Dinosaur Expedition , 68–89. China Ocean Press, Beijing. Google Scholar

    17.

    T.H. Eaton 1960. A new armored dinosaur from the Cretaceous of Kansas. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions 8: 1–24. Google Scholar

    18.

    A. Elżanowski and P. Wellnhofer 1993. Skull of Archaeornithoides from the Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia. American Journal of Science 293: 235–252. Google Scholar

    19.

    G.M. Erickson , P.J. Makovicky , P.J. Currie , M.A. Norell , S.A. Yerby , and C.A. Brochu 2004. Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature 430: 772–775.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02699 Google Scholar

    20.

    G.J. Fraser , A. Graham , and M.M. Smith 2004. Conserved deployment of genes during odontogenesis across osteichthyans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271: 2311–2317.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2878 Google Scholar

    21.

    G.J. Fraser , A. Graham , and M.M. Smith 2006a. Developmental and evolutionary origins of the vertebrate dentition: molecular controls for spatio-temporal organization of tooth sites in osteichthyans. Journal of Experimental Zoology 306B: 183–283.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21097 Google Scholar

    22.

    G.J. Fraser , B.K. Berkovitz , A. Graham , and M.M. Smith 2006b. Gene deployment for tooth replacement in the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): a developmental model for evolution of the osteichthyan dentition. Evolution and Development 8: 446–457.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.1525-142X.2006.00118.x Google Scholar

    23.

    G.J. Fraser , C.D. Hulsey , R.F. Bloomquist , K. Uyesugi , N.R. Manley , and J.T. Streelman 2009. An ancient gene network is co-opted for teeth on old and new jaws. PLoS Biology 7: 233–247.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000031 Google Scholar

    24.

    P.M. Galton 1974. The ornithischian dinosaur Hypsilophodon from the Wealden of the Isle of Wight. Bulletin of British Museum of Natural History, Geological series 25: 1–152. Google Scholar

    25.

    P.M. Galton and J.A. Jensen 1979. A new large theropod dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic of Colorado. Brigham Young University Geology Studies 26: 1–12. Google Scholar

    26.

    P.M. Galton and P. Upchurch 2004a. Prosauropoda. In : D.B. Weishampel , P. Dodson , and H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria 2ndedition , 232–258. University of California Press, Berkeley. Google Scholar

    27.

    P.M. Galton and P. Upchurch 2004b. Stegosauria. In : D.B. Weishampel , P. Dodson , and H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria 2nd edition , 343–362. University of California Press, Berkeley. Google Scholar

    28.

    C.W. Gilmore 1920. Osteology of the carnivorous Dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special reference to the genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus. Bulletin of United States National Museum 110: 1–154. Google Scholar

    29.

    P.D. Gingerich and D.A. Winkler 1979. Patterns of variation and correlation in the dentition of the red fox, Vulpes vulpes. Journal of Mammalogy 60: 691–704. Google Scholar

    30.

    S.J. Gould and R.A. Garwood 1969. Levels of integration in mammalian dentitions: an analysis of correlations in Nesophontes micrus (Insectivora) and Oryzomys couesi (Rodentia). Evolution 23: 276–300.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2406792 Google Scholar

    31.

    M.S. Grewal 1962. The development of an inherited tooth defect in the mouse. Journal of Embryological Experimental Morphology 10: 202–211. Google Scholar

    32.

    H. Gruneburg 1951. The genetics of a tooth defect in the mouse. Proceedings of the Royal SocietyB 138: 437–451.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1951.0034 Google Scholar

    33.

    R.D. Guthrie 1965. Variability in characters undergoing rapid evolution, an analysis of Microtus molars. Evolution 19: 214–233.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2406375 Google Scholar

    34.

    T.R. Holtz Jr. 2001. The phylogeny and taxonomy of the Tyrannosauridae. In : D.H. Tanke K. Carpenter (eds.), Mesozoic Vertebrate Life , 64–83. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Google Scholar

    35.

    T.R. Holtz Jr. 2004. Tyrannosauroidea. In : D.B. Weishampel , P. Dodson , and H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria 2nd edition , 111–135. University of California Press, Berkley. Google Scholar

    36.

    J.R. Horner , D.B. Weishampel , and C.A. Forster 2004. Hadrosauridae. In : D.B. Weishampel , P. Dodson , and H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria 2nd edition , 438–463. University of California Press, Berkeley. Google Scholar

    37.

    F. von Huene 1914. Das natürliche System der Saurischia. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie. Abteilung B, Geologie und Paläontologie 5: 154–158. Google Scholar

    38.

    S. Hutt , D.M. Martill , and M.J. Barker 1996. The first European allosaurid dinosaur (Lower Cretaceous, Wealden Group, England). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Monatshefte 10: 635–644. Google Scholar

    39.

    A. Huysseune and P.E. Witten 2006. Developmental mechanisms underlying tooth patterning in continuously replacing osteichthyan dentitions. Journal of Experimental Zoology 306B: 204–215.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21091 Google Scholar

    40.

    K.D. Kavanagh , A.R. Evans , and J. Jernvall 2007. Predicting evolutionary patterns of mammalian teeth from development. Nature 449: 427–433.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06153 Google Scholar

    41.

    P.M. Kulesa , G.C. Cruywagen , S.R. Lubkin , P.K. Main , J. Sneyd , M.W.J. Ferguson , and J.D. Murray 1996. On a model mechanism for the spatial patterning of teeth primordial in the alligator. Journal of Theoretical Biology 180: 287–296.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1996.0103 Google Scholar

    42.

    R. Laffont , E. Renvoisé , N. Navarro , P. Alibert , and S. Montuire 2009. Morphological modularity and assessment of developmental processes within the vole dental row (Microtus arvalis, Arvicolinae, Rodentia). Evolution and Development 11: 302–311.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.1525-142X.2009.00332.x Google Scholar

    43.

    A. Lundstrüm 1948. Tooth Size and Occlusion in Twins. 206 pp.South Karger, New York. Google Scholar

    44.

    J.H. Madsen 1976. Allosaurus fragilis: a revised osteology. Utah Geological Survey, Bulletin 109: 1–163. Google Scholar

    45.

    J.H. Madsen and S.P. Welles 2000. Ceratosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda): a revised osteology. Utah Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Publication 2: 1–80. Google Scholar

    46.

    O.C. Marsh 1881. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs, Part V. American Journal of Science series 3, 21: 417–423. Google Scholar

    47.

    T. Maryańska , R.E. Chapman , and D.B. Weishampel 2004. Pachycephalosauria. In : D.B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, and H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria 2nd edition, 464–477.University of California Press, Berkeley. Google Scholar

    48.

    T.M. Miyashita 2008. The most complete Daspletosaurus specimen “MR Daspleto” (Theropoda, Tyrannosauridae): a progress report. University of Alberta Palaeontological Society 2nd Biennial Symposium, Abstract Volume, 33–34. University of Alberta Palaeontological Society, Edmonton. Google Scholar

    49.

    F. Nopcsa 1929. Dinosaurierreste aus Siebenbürgen. Geologica Hungarica, Series Palaeontologica 4: 1–76. Google Scholar

    50.

    D.B. Norman 2004. Basal Iguanodontia. In : D.B. Weishampel , P. Dodson , and H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria 2nd edition , 413–437. University of California Press, Berkeley. Google Scholar

    51.

    D.B. Norman , L.M. Witmer , and D.B. Weishampel 2004. Basal Thyreophora. In : D.B. Weishampel , P. Dodson , and H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria 2nd edition , 335–342. University of California Press, Berkeley. Google Scholar

    52.

    H.F. Osborn 1906. Tyrannosaurus, upper Cretaceous carnivorous dinosaur (second communication). American Museum of Natural History Bulletin 32: 91–92. Google Scholar

    53.

    J.W. Osborn 1971. The ontogeny of tooth succession in Lacerta vivipara Jacquin (1787). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 179: 261–289.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1971.0097 Google Scholar

    54.

    J.W. Osborn 1978. Morphogenetic gradients: fields versus clones. In : P.M. Butler and K.A. Joysey (eds.), Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth , 171–202. Academic Press, London. Google Scholar

    55.

    J.W. Osborn 1998. Relationship between growth and the pattern of tooth initiation in alligator embryos. Journal of Dental Research 77: 1730–1738.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220345980770090901 Google Scholar

    56.

    B.P. Perez-Moreno , J.L. Sanz , A.D. Buscalioni , J.J. Moratalla , F. Ortega , and D. Raskin-Gutman 1994. A unique multitoothed ornithomimosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Spain. Nature 370: 363–367.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/370363a0 Google Scholar

    57.

    O.W.M. Rauhut 2003. The interrelationships and evolution of basal theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology 69: 1–213. Google Scholar

    58.

    S. Renaud , S. Pantalacci , J.-P. Quéré , V. Laudet , and J.-C. Auffray 2009. Developmental constraints revealed by co-variation within and among molar rows in two murine rodents. Evolution and Development 11: 590–602.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2009.00365.x Google Scholar

    59.

    E. Renvoisé , A.R. Evans , A. Jebrane , C. Lebrere , R. Laffont , and S. Montuire 2009. Evolution of mammal tooth patterns: new insights from a developmental prediction model. Evolution 63: 1327–1340.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.1558-5646.2009.00639.x Google Scholar

    60.

    B.M. Rothschild and D.H. Tanke 2005. Theropod Paleopathology: Stateof-the-Art Review. In : K. Carpenter (ed.), The Carnivorous Dinosaurs , 351–365. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Google Scholar

    61.

    D.A. Russell 1970. Tyrannosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of western Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Publications in Palaeontology 1: 1–34. Google Scholar

    62.

    P.C. Sereno 1991. Lesothosaurus, “fabrosaurids,” and the early evolution of Ornithischia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 11: 168–197. Google Scholar

    63.

    P.C. Sereno and Z.-M. Dong 1992. The skull of the basal stegosaur Huayangosaurus taibaii and a cladistic analysis of Stegosauria. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 12: 318–343. Google Scholar

    64.

    P.C. Sereno , J.A. Wilson , L.M. Witmer , J.A. Whitlock , A. Maga , O. Ide , and T.A. Rowe 2007. Structural extremes in a Cretaceous dinosaur. PLoS ONE 2: e1230, 9 pp. Google Scholar

    65.

    P.C. Sereno , L. Tan , S.L. Brusatte , H.J. Kriegstein , X. Zhao , and K. Cloward 2009. Tyrannosaurid skeletal design first evolved at small body size. Science 326: 418–422.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1177428 Google Scholar

    66.

    M.M. Smith 2003. Vertebrate dentition at the origin of jaws: when and how pattern evolved. Evolution and Development 5: 394–413.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-142X.2003.03047.x Google Scholar

    67.

    J. A. Sofaer 1969. Aspects of the tabby-crinkled-downless syndrome. I. The development of tabby teeth. Journal of Embryological Experimental Morphology 22: 181–205. Google Scholar

    68.

    J.A. Sofaer 1973. A model relating developmental interaction and differential evolutionary reduction of tooth size. Evolution 27: 427–434.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2407305 Google Scholar

    69.

    J.A. Sofaer , H.L. Bailit , and C.J. MacLean 1971a. A developmental basis for differential tooth reduction during hominid evolution. Evolution 25 : 509–517.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2407349 Google Scholar

    70.

    J.A. Sofaer , C.S. Chung , J.D. Niswander , and D.W. Runck 1971b. Developmental interaction, size, and agenesis among permanent maxillary incisors. Human Biology 43: 36–45. Google Scholar

    71.

    J.T. Streelman , J.F. Webb , A.C. Albertoson , and T.D. Kocher 2003. The cusp of evolution and development: a model of cichlid tooth shape diversity. Evolution and Development 5: 600–608.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-142X.2003.03065.x Google Scholar

    72.

    D.H. Tanke and B.M. Rothschild 2002. Dinosores: An Annotated Bibliography of Dinosaur Paleopathology and Related Topics—1838–2001. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 20: 1–96. Google Scholar

    73.

    P. Upchurch , P.M. Barrett , and P. Dodson 2004. Sauropoda. In : D.B. Weishampel , P. Dodson , and H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria 2nd edition , 259–322. University of California Press, Berkeley. Google Scholar

    74.

    L. Van Valen 1962. Growth fields in the dentition of Peromyscus. Evolution 16: 272–278.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2406276 Google Scholar

    75.

    B. Westergaard and M.W.J. Ferguson 1986. Development of the dentition in Alligator mississippiensis. Early embryonic development in the lower jaw. Journal of Zoology 210: 575–597. Google Scholar

    76.

    B. Westergaard and M.W.J. Ferguson 1987. Development of the dentition in Alligator mississippiensis. Later development in the lower jaws of embryos, hatchlings and young juveniles. Journal of Zoology 212: 191–222.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb05984.x Google Scholar

    77.

    B. Westergaard and M.W.J. Ferguson 1990. Development of the dentition in Alligator mississippiensis: upper jaw dental and craniofacial development in embryos, hatchlings, and young juveniles, with a comparison to lower jaw development. The American Journal of Anatomy 187: 393–421.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aja.1001870407 Google Scholar

    78.

    X. Xu , P.J. Makovicky , X.-L. Wang , M.A. Norell , and H.-L. You 2002. A ceratopsian dinosaur from China and the early evolution of Ceratopsia. Nature 416: 314–317.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/416314a Google Scholar

    79.

    X. Xu , C.A. Forster , J.M. Clark , and J. Mo 2006. A basal ceratopsian with transitional features from the Late Jurassic of northwestern China. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 273: 2135–2140.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3566 Google Scholar
    Tetsuto Miyashita, Darren H. Tanke, and Philip J. Currie "Variation in Premaxillary Tooth Count and a Developmental Abnormality in a Tyrannosaurid Dinosaur," Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 55(4), 635-643, (1 December 2010). https://doi.org/10.4202/app.2009.0067
    Received: 11 May 2009; Accepted: 23 May 2010; Published: 1 December 2010
    JOURNAL ARTICLE
    9 PAGES


    SHARE
    ARTICLE IMPACT
    Back to Top