Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
1 September 2012 Connecting Hunter-Schreger Band Microstructure to Enamel Microwear Features: New Insights from Durophagous Carnivores
Zhijie Jack Tseng
Author Affiliations +

Several recent studies have clarified the link between microwear features and diet among living carnivorans, but it is still unclear whether previously interpreted evolutionary trends for dietary specialization, based on examination of enamel microstructure, are consistent with such insights from microwear analysis. This study examined the relationship between microwear and microstructure features using a sample of fossil hyaenids and canids. Hunter-Schreger Bands (HSB) and microwear features were examined at the same magnification level using optical stereomicroscopy. Multiple trials conducted on each specimen showed higher variance of smaller (<0.03 mm) microwear features compared to large (>0.03 mm) features. The number of pits was positively correlated with more derived HSB in both p4 and m1; fossil teeth with derived HSB possessed microwear features similar to patterns found in modern spotted hyenas. Microscopic scratches were not as closely associated with HSB patterns, but large scratches were more tightly linked to HSB than smaller ones on p4. An examination of evolutionary trends in HSB specialization in the two carnivoran lineages showed that derived HSB patterns evolved prior to the highly robust craniodental characteristics typical of later bone-cracking ecomorphologies. Therefore, the increase of hard food in the diet of less specialized hyaenids and canids was accompanied by a mosaic mode of evolution, with microstructural changes preceding key macrostructural morphological adaptations.


Carnivoran enamel microstructure is arranged into HunterSchreger Bands (HSB), specializations of which have evolved convergently across the order (Stefen 1997). Increased folding of HSB into sharp-angled, “zig-zag” patterns is thought to provide structural support and biomechanical advantages in the teeth of species that also possess craniodental specializations for durophagy (Ferretti 1999, 2007; Stefen 1999; Stefen and Rensberger 1999). In those durophagous ecomorphologies, enamel micro structural changes are accompanied by macrostructural changes in morphology, such as more robust premolars, deeper skulls, and relatively shorter rostra (Werdelin 1989; Van Valkenburgh 2007; Tseng and Wang 2011). Inferences of paleoecology from morphological features in durophagous species, however, have seldom been linked with more direct indicators of paleodiet.

Dental microwear features, the patterns of abrasion on teeth from food and other ingested particles, have been studied as direct indicators revealing the diets of extinct animals (Walker et al. 1978; Peters 1982). In a paleoecological context, microwear analyses have been applied to a number of vertebrate groups, including dinosaurs (Williams et al. 2009), crocodilians (Osi and Weishampel 2009), fishes (Purnell et al. 2006), and a wide range of mammals: marsupials (e.g., Robson and Young 1990), primates (e.g., Daegling and Grine 1994; Scott et al. 2005), rodents (e.g., Rodrigues et al. 2009), sirenians (Domning and Beatty 2007), carnivorans (Hagura and Onodera 1987; Van Valkenburgh et al. 1990; Anyonge 1996; Goillot et al. 2009; Peigne et al. 2009; Schubert et al. 2010), xenarthrans (Green 2009), and, most commonly, ungulate mammals (e.g., Merceron et al. 2004; Kaiser and Brinkmann 2006; Sanson et al. 2007; Semprebon and Rivals 2007; Joomun et al. 2008; Merceron et al. 2010, among others). Compared to the large number of studies that interpret paleodiets using microwear analysis, the link between enamel microstructure and microwear patterns has been less commonly explored (Maas 1991; Teaford et al. 1996). This study focuses on the correlation between enamel micro structure and enamel microwear patterns among durophagous mammalian carnivores, using fossil canids and hyaenids as a case study.

Canidae and Hyaenidae are two carnivoran families that have convergently evolved bone-cracking ecomorphologies (Werdelin 1996). Specialized enamel microstructure in modern spotted hyenas is linked with their bone-rich diet (Kruuk 1972; Rensberger and Wang 2005; Rensberger and Stefen 2006). Similar microstructural specializations are observed in fossil hyaenids (Ferretti 2007) and borophagine canids (Stefen 1999). However, it is not known whether microstructural adaptations for increased structural strength are actually associated with microwear indicators of more hard food in the diet. Previous microwear studies on durophagous carnivores found that spotted hyenas possess a larger number of microscopic pits relative to scratches on their teeth, and also fewer narrow microwear features when compared to non-durophagous species (Van Valkenburgh et al. 1990). Therefore, I test the hypothesis that HSB specialization is linked to increasing numbers of large microwear features and also more pits relative to scratches.

Institutional abbreviations.—AMNH, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA; F:AM, Frick Collection, American Museum of Natural History; HMV, Hezheng Paleozoology Museum, Gansu, China; IVPP, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, China; LACM, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, California, USA; MVZ, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA; PPHM, Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum, Texas, USA; UAMZ, University of Alberta Museum of Zoology, Alberta, Canada; UCMP, University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, California, USA; USNM, National Museum of Natural History (also NMNH), Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C, USA.

Other abbreviations.—HSB, Hunter-Schreger Bands.

Material and methods

Microwear analysis.—Both microwear and microstructure methods used in this study were non-invasive, and therefore could be applied across both fossil and extant specimens without destructive sampling. 64 p4 specimens and 75 m1 specimens were examined in the study (Appendices 1,2). The lower fourth premolar (p4) is used to crack bones, and the lower first molar (m1 ; carnassial) is used to both cut flesh and crack bones in the durophagous spotted hyena (Kruuk 1972). Specimens included fossil hyaenids and canids, as well as the extant spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta and the African hunting dog Lycaon pictus (Appendices 1, 2). All specimens were cleaned with cotton swabs and either acetone or ethanol solutions. Specimens were then examined under an optical stereomicroscope to make sure the enamel surface was free of adhesives or sediment matrix. Molds were made with a vinyl polysiloxane material (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA) through a dispensing gun as described in Solounias and Semprebon (2002). All specimens were molded twice, with the first mold used as a cleaning layer, which was discarded. Second molds were then cast using high-resolution, spectrally clear, optical grade epoxy resin (EPO-TEK 301, Epoxy Technology Inc., Billerica, MA, USA). The casts were evacuated in a vacuum chamber for 20 minutes, and then left to set at room temperature for five days.

Fig. 1.

Tooth positions examined in the study, shown on a spotted hyena dentary. Black squares indicate the approximate size of the area examined during each trial. Note the exposed areas of dentine on the shear facet of m1; all trials were done on the enamel portion of the teeth only.


Examination for microwear features was done using an optical stereomicroscope at 30× magnification (compared to 35× in Solounias and Semprebon 2002). Microwear features were recorded inside a 1 × 1 mm2 area, which was delineated on the labial edge of the p4 and m1 wear facet using a crossed stage micrometer scale fitted inside the eyepiece of the microscope (Fig. 1). Care was taken to examine only areas on the enamel portion of the tooth crown, as opposed to the dentine area present on the shear facet of the lower molar (Fig. 1); weathering and laboratory preparation can easily create artificial features on the dentine, which is a softer material than enamel. Features were either scored as scratches (i.e., length:width ratio > 4:1) or pits (i.e., length:width ratio < 4:1). At 30×, all features with widths smaller than the width between two micrometer ticks (<0.03 mm) were scored as small, while those larger than 0.03 mm were scored as large. As such, four categories of features were analyzed: small versus large scratches, and small versus large pits (Fig. 2).

All specimens were examined three times by the author, with the interval between any two trials on the same specimen ranging from four days to six months apart. Analyses were done in ∼4 hour sittings, with random sampling of specimens in no particular order of examination. No attempts were made to analyze identical 1 × 1 mm2 areas on the tooth during each trial, as the trials were intended to include a sample of different areas on the labial face of the wear facets. It should be noted that the methods employed in this study were aimed to address the specific question of the connection between microwear signals and enamel microstructure in durophagous hyaenids and canids; results from other microwear studies should not be compared directly to the data in this study. Furthermore, results obtained from replication of the methods used here in studies of other taxa also should not be directly compared to the results of the present study, as such comparisons are potentially affected by other taxon-specific factors with yet unknown influence on microwear patterns (see Discussion).

Fig. 2.

Examples of microwear features examined. A. Labial (buccal) wear facet on p4 of the extant spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta Erxleben, 1777 (cast of MVZ173771), showing a typical specimen with moderate tooth crown attrition. B. Examples of small (thin) scratches (MVZ173771). C. Examples of large (thick) scratches (C. crocuta, MVZ165179). D. Examples of small pits (Borophagus secundus VanderHoof, 1931, UCMP30479). E. Examples of large pits (C. crocuta, MVZ165160). F. p4 crown surface of the African hunting dog Lycaon pictus Temminck, 1820 (MVZ4842); note paucity of microwear features. Scale bars 1 mm.


Microstructure analysis.—All of the fossil specimens examined in the microwear analysis were also analyzed for HSB specialization (Stefen 1997). Specimens with lightercolored enamel preservation and clean surfaces can be examined directly with an oblique light source, illuminating HSB patterns without the necessity of sectioning the specimens (Koenigswald 1980; Stefen and Rensberger 1999). Only specimens that fit such criteria were chosen for both microwear and microstructure analyses. At the time of cleaning and molding, the original specimens were analyzed with an optical stereomicroscope at 30× magnification. HSB patterns were recorded at three levels on the tooth crown: the top, middle, and bottom 33% of the crown (Fig. 3). The most commonly found (> 50% of the region) HSB was recorded as representative of that region; if two HSB categories were equally common in a given region, the more derived HSB pattern was recorded. As previously categorized by Stefen (1997), the most derived HSB pattern in carnivorans is zigzag HSB, followed by acute-angled undulating HSB, and then undulating HSB (Fig. 3B–D).

Fig. 3.

Method of enamel microstructure analysis. A. Three regions of the tooth crown were examined for Hunter-Schreger Bands (HSB), representing top, middle, and bottom thirds of the crown. One of three types of HSB was recorded for each region. B. Examples of a region with mostly (> 50%) zig-zag HSB. C. Region with acute-angled undulating HSB (note that some zig-zag HSB is also present, e.g., indicated by a dotted circle). D. Undulating HSB.


To obtain a context for evolutionary changes in HSB patterns across different tooth positions in fossil hyaenids and canids, additional specimens were examined for HSB only (Appendix 3). Samples were taken from those used by Tseng (2011). The entire lower dentition, in addition to p4 and m1, was subject to HSB analysis as described above. Where possible, complete dentaries were used, supplemented by isolated specimens as appropriate (Appendix 3). An abbreviation system was created to refer to different degrees of HSB specialization: a single letter representing HSB pattern at each of the three levels of the crown, with “z” for zig-zag, “a” for acuteangled undulating, and “u” for undulating HSB (e.g., “zau” for a tooth with zig-zag HSB at the top 33% of the crown, acute-undulating HSB at the middle, and undulating HSB at the bottom of the crown).


Microwear features exhibited different degrees of intra-tooth variation across the three trials conducted on each specimen; large microwear features (>0.03 mm) tended to have lower variance than smaller (<0.03 mm) features. In addition, m1 tended to have more variable counts in microwear features compared to p4 (Fig. 4). For all subsequent comparisons of microwear feature counts, mean values of the trials were used to represent each specimen.

Specimens containing at least 33% zig-zag HSB had a larger range of small and large pit counts compared to teeth with less specialized HSB; however, this is true only for p4, but not m1 (Fig. 5A, B, E, F). The number of small scratches showed no trend across different HSB categories, either in p4 or m1 (Fig. 5C, G). Large scratches in p4 specimens with all zig-zag HSB were more numerous than in all less derived teeth, with the former approaching the count in Crocuta; no such pattern was present in m1 specimens (Fig. 5D, H).

In order to achieve comparable sample sizes for statistical analysis, HSB categories were combined into three bins, and analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted on the categories along with the modern Crocuta sample (Table 1, Fig. 6). The number of pits (both large and small) was significantly different across HSB categories on p4, and the increase was incremental (Fig. 6A, B). The number of pits was also significantly different on ml, but the number of large pits among fossil specimens did not approach the range observed in modern Crocuta (Fig. 6F). Among scratches, only large scratches on p4 were significantly different across categories, with the increase being incremental as observed for large pits on p4 (Fig. 6D).

Table 1.

ANOVA of microwear features according to categories of HSB specialization. Statistical testing was done on binned category data (as in Fig. 6).


In an evolutionary context, derived zig-zag HSB (zau to zzz) were not observed among the hesperocyonine canids examined; in borophagine canids, zig-zag HSB were observed in the m1 of Microtomarctus and all subsequent genera (Fig. 7A). Zig-zag HSB spread throughout the premolar dentition in more derived borophagines, and in Epicyon, specimens with all zig-zag HSB across p1–m2 were observed. Zig-zag HSB were present in the premolars and first molar of the hyaenid Ictitherium, and in most of the subsequent hyaenid genera (Fig. 7B). Cheek tooth dentitions in hyaenids became reduced in the derived, larger-bodied genera, in which p1 and m2 were lost. The remaining cheek teeth in those genera retained full zig-zag HSB patterns.


Microwear analysis of the p4 and m1 teeth of fossil hyaenids and canids showed a general increase in both the number and variability of large and small pits with more derived HSB (Figs. 5A, B, E, F, 6A, B, E, F). These findings are consistent with those of Van Valkenburgh et al. (1990), who found a relatively higher number of pits and a higher variability of microwear features in carnivorans with more hard food in their diets. These trends have been shown to be correlated to increasing HSB specialization in this study, supporting the initial hypothesis that derived HSB is associated with an increase in both the number of pits and the variability of features.

Fig. 4.

Histograms of variance among specimen microwear trials in p4 (A–D) and m1 (E–H). A, E. Small scratches. B, F. Large scratches. C, G. Small pits. D, H. Large pits. Plot ranges for p4 and m1 were adjusted to show maximum spread of data, respectively.


Fig. 5.

Box plots of microwear features across HSB categories in p4 (A–D) and m1 (E–H) specimens. Boxes represent inter-quartile ranges, horizontal lines within boxes are medians; vertical lines show upper and lower limits, and asterisks represent outliers. Abbreviations: a, acute-angled undulating HSB; u, undulating HSB; z, zig-zag HSB.


These results are also consistent with previous functional interpretations of the derived zig-zag HSB in allowing a more durophagous diet (Stefen and Rensberger 1999). The intensely folded layers of enamel prisms of zig-zag HSB is thought to function in resisting the large stresses incurred from consumption of hard foods, such as bone. In addition, the layered structure of HSB can also shorten or halt crack propagation in instances of local enamel failure (Chai et al. 2009). Accordingly, zig-zag HSB evolved convergently not only in fossil canids and hyaenids, but also in other carnivoran lineages with tendencies to consume hard food items (Stefen 2001).

On the other hand, the number and variability of scratches showed no clear trend with increasing HSB specialization (Figs. 5C, D, G, H, 6C, D, G, H). The only results that supported the hypothesis of an increase in larger features with HSB specialization are the number of large scratches on p4 specimens (Fig. 6D). Feature orientation, which was not analyzed in this study, could distinguish HSB patterns on the basis of scratch distribution. Differences in the proportion of parallel scratches are expected not only in teeth that occlude more precisely (e.g., carnassial teeth) versus teeth that occlude in between other teeth (e.g., carnivoran second to fourth premolars), but also in the teeth of durophagous species on which scratches are more randomly distributed (Van Valkenburgh et al. 1990). Nevertheless, the overlap in the number of large and small scratches of extant Crocuta and Lycaon specimens indicates that such counts do not differentiate between modern bone-cracking and soft-meat hypercarnivores in the context of this study (Fig. 5C, D, G, H). Therefore, the trends that are present across different categories of HSB specialization are more in line with microwear features (i.e., large pits) clearly associated with durophagy, supporting the interpretation of evolutionary specialization of HSB as being in close association with an increase of hard foods in the diet (Stefen 1999; Ferretti 2007; Goillot et al. 2009).

Fig. 6.

Plots of mean values and 95% confidence intervals for binned HSB categories in p4 (A–D) and m1 (E–H) specimens. Mean values are connected in fossil samples to show trend. Abbreviations: a, acute-angled undulating HSB; u, undulating HSB; z, zig-zag HSB.


If we apply this close association between a hard-food rich diet and increasingly derived HSB to the examination of evolutionary patterns of HSB change in fossil hyaenids and canids, the resulting trend shows that zig-zag HSB in both lineages appeared prior to the large-bodied bone-cracking ecomorphologies typically recognized from craniodental morphology (Fig. 7). The borophagine genera Aelurodon, Epicyon, and Borophagus, and the hyaenid genera Pachycrocuta, Adcrocuta, and Crocuta are commonly categorized as bone-crackers (Werdelin 1989; Van Valkenburgh and Koepfli 1993; Wang et al. 1999). However, zig-zag HSB evolved no later than in the canid Microtomarctus and the hyaenid Ictitherium (Fig. 7). This difference in the timing of the appearance of robust craniodental morphology, and the more continuous increase of hard foods in the diet implied by HSB specialization, indicate a mosaic mode of character evolution. In other words, the suite of morphological features present in the derived bone-cracking canids and hyaenids, including both microstructural and macrostructural characteristics, evolved in stages. Microstructural changes occurred prior to macrostructural ones, as a response to increasingly durophagous diets as inferred from microwear patterns (Figs. 6, 7). Such a mode of adaptive change may be pervasive especially in the gradual evolution of the hyaenids, as evidence of mosaic morphological evolution has also been found in overall craniodental morphology, exemplified by the intermediate biomechanical adaptations of the transitional bone cracker Ikelohyaena abronia (Tseng and Stynder 2011).

Interestingly, while p4 and m1 shared similar numbers of microscopic scratch features, m1 tended to have a much larger number of both large and small pits (Fig. 5A, B, E, F). Larger numbers of microwear features on m1 may reflect the important function of the tooth as a main flesh-shearing tool, which is also used by the extant Crocuta crocuta in cracking hard food items (Van Valkenburgh 1996). It is also likely that at least some of the microscopic pits resulted from corrosion by stomach acids, as regurgitation is relatively common in Crocuta crocuta (Kruuk 1972; Van Valkenburgh 1996). Nevertheless, microwear patterns from both p4 and m1 support a close relationship with HSB specialization, and evolutionary trends show that the entire cheek dentition was eventually specialized for increased durophagy in both borophagine canids and hyaenids (Fig. 7). Tooth crown attrition in modern hyaenids, derived fossil hyaenids and borophagine canids shows that all cheek teeth can be heavily worn, indicating their use in durophagy (personal observation).

There have been few published studies exploring the relationship between microstructure and microwear patterns. Maas (1991) conducted experiments to examine the relationship between prism structure, shear force, and abrasive particle size, and found that the size and number of microscopic scratches can be confounded by the type of prism arrangement present in the enamel of a given species. Teaford et al. (1996) found that enamel crystallite and prism microstructure and microwear data provided complementary information that allowed a more nuanced reconstruction of the paleodiets of Oligocene anthropoids. However, no study has specifically looked at microwear and microstructure across types of Hunter Schreger Bands. The findings from the current study, even though narrow in scope, provide evidence that such microstructure-microwear comparisons at the HSB level are also informative. Even so, care should still be taken in interpreting or extrapolating the results of this study to other durophagous taxa. Dental wear patterns observed on the enamel likely resulted from complex interactions among body size, masticatory musculature, behavior, etc., in addition to morphology and microstructure. The interactions among these physical and physiological factors still need to be clarified with carefully designed studies.

Multiple trials of microwear analysis conducted in this study showed that larger features tend to be less variable within each tooth across examinations than smaller features (Fig. 4). Smaller features may be more variable simply because a larger number of them can occur within the defined areas sampled on each tooth. Such a trend may also reflect an inherent source of error based on the inability of the observer to discern increasingly miniscule features (Palmeirim 1998), and software-based microwear analytical methods have been proposed in order to make counting of features more objective (Ungar 1995; Scott et al. 2005). Application of a software-based approach may clarify the high variability and lack of correlation of microscopic scratches to HSB patterns found by the current study, but the general agreement of results with previous microwear studies of carnivorans indicates that a consistent trend in microwear features is present, regardless of the type of method employed (see below). Along the same lines, agreement of results based on different levels of magnification (SEM, confocal microscopy, high-magnification stereomicroscopy, low-magnification stereomicroscopy) shows that dietary signals for durophagy are present across multiple levels of scale, at least in carnivorans (Van Valkenburgh 1990; Goillot et al. 2009; Schubert et al. 2010; this study).

More recently, the application of microwear texture analysis to the carnassial teeth of Crocuta crocuta has provided promising results for correlating bone consumption with enamel surface complexity (Schubert et al. 2010). Results from texture analysis supported the main findings of Van Valkenburgh et al. (1990), which were based on Scanning Electron Microscope images. Taken together, the durophagous C. crocuta tends to show a larger number of pits and the wider range of feature sizes, as well as more variable scratch directions relative to the main occlusal axis (Van Valkenburgh et al. 1990; Schubert et al. 2010). Results from the current study are consistent with these findings, and indicate that HSB microstructure specialization is likely to be positively correlated to additional characteristic features of durophagous taxa found using SEM and texture analysis as well. One caveat to be noted here is that this and other studies cited above were all conducted on carnivoran mammals, and therefore caution should be taken when discussing durophagy in other taxa. Microwear patterns for similar diets may differ in unrelated taxa, and such differences need to be quantified before any direct comparisons are made.

Fig. 7.

Intra-dentition evolution of HSB micro structure in fossil Canidae (A) and Hyaenidae (B). Phylogenies for fossil canids based on Wang (1994) and Wang et al. (1999), and for hyaenids based on Werdelin and Solounias (1991). Progressively more derived HSB patterns are indicated by darker shades of grey. Abbreviations: a, acute-angled undulating HSB; u, undulating HSB; z, zig-zag HSB.


In conclusion, a sample of fossil hyaenid and canid specimens were examined for HSB microstructure and microwear features, and a connection between the number of pits and the degree of HSB specialization was found. By contrast, the correlation between HSB and microscopic scratches was not as strong. In general, patterns on p4 are more pronounced than those on m1. The first appearance of zig-zag HSB in borophagine canids and hyaenids occurred prior to the evolution of robust craniodental morphology. The association between increasing HSB specialization and more microwear features is indicative of a durophagous diet, and both indicate that hard foods were already being incorporated in the diet of less specialized hyaenids and borophagines. Therefore, the present adaptations for durophagy seen in spotted hyenas have evolved in a mosaic manner, with microstructural adaptations appearing before macrostructural modifications.


I thank Xiaoming Wang (LACM) and my Ph.D. committee for discussion and guidance. Judy Galkin, Jeanne Kelly, and Jin Meng (AMNH) helped with access to and cleaning agents for studying the AMNH collection; Pat Holroyd and Susumu Tomiya (UCMP), Chris Conroy and Eileen Lacey (MVZ), Robert Purdy and Matthew Carrano (NMNH), Jeff Indeck (PPHM), Zhanxiang Qiu and Zhongyun Liu (IVPP), and Shanqin Chen and Wen He (HMV) all assisted in the study of collections in their care. Juan Liu (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada) helped with access to the UAMZ collection for microstructure photography. Mark V.H. Wilson (University of Alberta) provided microscopes for analysis. Brian Beatty (New York College of Osteopathic Medicine, New York, USA), John Rensberger (University of Washington, Seattle, USA), and the editor Felix Marx (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) provided constructive comments that improved the manuscript. This research was funded by a National Science Foundation (U.S.) Graduate Research Fellowship and a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DEB-0909807), and an AMNH Collection Study Grant.



W. Anyonge 1996. Microwear on canines and killing behavior in large carnivores: saber function in Smilodon fatalis. Journal of Mammalogy 77: 1059–1067. Google Scholar


H. Chai , J.J.-W. Lee , P. Constantino , P.W. Lucas , and B. Lawn 2009. Remarkable resilience of teeth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 7289–7293. Google Scholar


D.J. Daegling and F.E. Grine 1994. Bamboo feeding, dental microwear, and diet of the Pleistocene ape Gigantopithecus blacki. South African Journal of Science 90: 527–532. Google Scholar


D.P. Domning and B.L. Beatty 2007. Use of tusks in feeding by dugongid sirenians: Observations and tests of hypotheses. Anatomical Record 290: 523–538. Google Scholar


M.P. Ferretti 1999. Tooth enamel structure in the hyaenid Chasmaporthetes lunensis lunensis from the late Pliocene of Italy, with implications for feeding behavior. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19: 767–770. Google Scholar


M.P. Ferretti 2007. Evolution of bone-cracking adaptations in hyaenids (Mammalia, Carnivora). Swiss Journal of Geoscience 100: 41–52. Google Scholar


C. Goillot , C. Blondel , and S. Peigne 2009. Relationships between dental microwear and diet in Carnivora (Mammalia)—Implications for the reconstruction of the diet of extinct taxa. Palaeogeogruphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 271: 13–23. Google Scholar


J.L. Green 2009. Dental microwear in the orthodentine of the Xenarthra (Mammalia) and its use in reconstructing the palaeodiet of extinct taxa: the case study of Nothrotheriops shastensis (Xenarthra, Tardigrada, Nothrotheriidae). Zoological Journal of Linnean Society 156: 201–222. Google Scholar


N. Hagura and S. Onodera 1987. A secular and experimental study of the microwear of the carnassial teeth in dogs (Canis fumiliaris). Journal of the Mammal Society of Japan 12: 41–55. Google Scholar


S.C. Joomun , J.J. Hooker , and M.E. Collinson 2008. Dental wear variation and implications for diet: An example from Eocene perissodactyls (Mammalia). Palaeogeogruphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 263: 92–106. Google Scholar


T.M. Kaiser and G. Brinkmann 2006. Measuring dental wear equilibriums —the use of industrial surface texture parameters to infer the diets of fossil mammals. Palaeogeogruphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 239: 221–240. Google Scholar


W. v. Koenigswald 1980. Schmelzmuster und Morphologie in den Molaren der Arvicolidae (Rodentia). Adhandlungen der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden Gesellschaft 539: 1–129. Google Scholar


H. Kruuk 1972. The Spotted Hyena: a Study of Predation and Social Behavior. 335 pp. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar


M.C. Maas 1991. Enamel structure and microwear an experimental study of the response of enamel to shearing force. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 85: 31–50. Google Scholar


G. Merceron , C. Blondel , M. Brunet , S. Sen , N. Solounias , L. Viriot , and E. Heintz 2004. The Late Miocene paleoenvironment of Afghanistan as inferred from dental microwear in artiodactyls. Palaeogeogruphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 207: 143–163. Google Scholar


G. Merceron , G. Escarguel , J.-M. Angibault , and H. Verheyden-Tixier 2010. Can dental microwear textures record inter-individual dietary variations? PLoS ONE 5 (3): e9542. Google Scholar


A. Osi and D.B. Weishampel 2009. Jaw mechanism and dental function in the late Cretaceous basal eusuchian Iharkutosuchus. Journal of Morphology 270: 903–920. Google Scholar


J.M. Palmeirim 1998. Analysis of skull measurements and measurers: can we use data obtained by various observers? Journal of Mammalogy 79: 1021–1028. Google Scholar


S. Peigne , C. Goillot , M. Germonpre , C. Blondel , O. Bignon , and G. Merceron 2009. Predormancy omnivory in European cave bears evidenced by a dental microwear analysis of Ursus spelaeus from Goyet, Belgium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 15390–15393. Google Scholar


C.R. Peters 1982. Electron-optical microscopic study of incipient dental microdamage from experimental seed and bone crushing. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 57: 283–301. Google Scholar


M.A. Purnell , P.J.B. Hart , D.C. Baines , and M.A. Bell 2006. Quantitative analysis of dental microwear in threespine stickleback: a new approach to the analysis of trophic ecology in aquatic vertebrates. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 967–977. Google Scholar


J.M. Rensberger and C. Stefen 2006. Functional differentiations of the microstructure in the upper carnassial enamel of the spotted hyena. Palaeontographica Abt. A 278: 149–162. Google Scholar


J.M. Rensberger and X. Wang 2005. Micro structural reinforcement in the canine enamel of the hyaenid Crocuta crocuta, the felid Puma concolor, and the late Miocene canid Borophagus secundus. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 12: 379–403. Google Scholar


S.K. Robson and W.G. Young 1990. A comparison of tooth microwear between an extinct marsupial predator, the Tasmanian tiger Thylacinus cynocephalus (Thylacinidae) and an extant scavenger, the Tasmanian devil Sacrophilus harrisii (Dasyuridae: Marsupialia). Australian Journal of Zoology 37: 575–589. Google Scholar


H.G. Rodrigues , G. Merceron , and L. Viriot 2009. Dental microwear patterns of extant and extinct Muridae (Rodentia, Mammalia): ecological implications. Naturwissenschaften 96: 537–542. Google Scholar


G.D. Sanson , S.A. Kerr , and K.A. Gross 2007. Do silica phytoliths really wear mammalian teeth? Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 526–531. Google Scholar


B.W. Schubert , P.S. Ungar , and L.R.G. DeSantis 2010. Carnassial microwear and dietary behaviour in large carnivorans. Journal of Zoology 280: 257–263. Google Scholar


R.S. Scott , P.S. Ungar , T.S. Bergstrom , C.S. Brown , F.E. Grine , M.F. Teaford , and A. Walker 2005. Dental microwear texture analysis shows within-species diet variability in fossil hominins. Nature 436: 693–695. Google Scholar


G. Semprebon and F. Rivals 2007. Was grass more prevalent in the pronghorn past? An assessment of the dietary adaptations of Miocene to Recent Antilocapridae (Mammalia: Artiodactyla). Palaeogeogruphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 253: 332–347. Google Scholar


N. Solounias and G. Semprebon 2002. Advances in the reconstruction of ungulate ecomorphology with application to early fossil equids. American Museum Novitates 3366: 1–49. Google Scholar


C. Stefen 1997. Chapter 7. Differentiations in Hunter-Schregerbands of carnivores. In: W.v. Koenigswald and P.M. Sander (eds.), Tooth Enamel Microstructure , 123–136. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Google Scholar


C. Stefen 1999. Enamel microstructure of recent and fossil Canidae (Carnivora: Mammalia). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19: 576–587. Google Scholar


C. Stefen 2001. Enamel structure of arctoid Carnivora: Amphicyonidae, Ursidae, Procyonidae, and Mustelidae. Journal of Mammalogy 82: 450–462. Google Scholar


C. Stefen and J.M. Rensberger 1999. The specialized structure of hyaenid enamel: description and development within the lineage—including percrocutids. Scanning Microscopy 13: 363–380. Google Scholar


M.F. Teaford , M.C. Mass , and E.L. Simons 1996. Dental microwear and micro structure in early Oligocene primates from the Fayum, Egypt: Implications for diet. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 101: 527–543. Google Scholar


Z.J. Tseng 2011. Variation and implications of intra-dentition HunterSchreger band pattern in fossil hyaenids and canids (Carnivora, Mammalia). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31: 1163–1167. Google Scholar


Z.J. Tseng and D. Stynder 2011. Mosaic functionality in a transitional ecomorphology: skull biomechanics in stem Hyaeninae compared to modem South African carnivorans. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 102: 540–559. Google Scholar


Z.J. Tseng and X. Wang 2011. Do convergent ecomorphs evolve through convergent morphological pathways? Cranial shape evolution in fossil hyaenids and borophagine canids (Carnivora, Mammalia). Paleobiology 37: 470–489. Google Scholar


P.S. Ungar 1995. A semiautomated image analysis procedure for the quantification of dental microwear II. Scanning 17: 57–59. Google Scholar


B. Van Valkenburgh 1996. Feeding behavior in free-ranging, large African carnivores. Journal of Mammalogy 77: 240–254. Google Scholar


B. Van Valkenburgh 2007. Déjà vu: the evolution of feeding morphologies in the Carnivora. Integrative and Comparative Biology 47: 147–163. Google Scholar


B. Van Valkenburgh and K.-P. Koepfli 1993. Cranial and dental adaptations to predation in canids. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 65: 15–37. Google Scholar


B. Van Valkenburgh , M.F. Teaford , and A. Walker 1990. Molar microwear and diet in large carnivores: inferences concerning diet in the sabretooth cat, Smilodon fatalis. Journal of Zoology 222: 319–340. Google Scholar


A. Walker , H.N. Hoeck , and L. Perez 1978. Microwear of mammalian teeth as indicator of diet. Science 201: 908–910. Google Scholar


X. Wang , R.H. Tedford , and B.E. Taylor 1999. Phylogenetic systematics of the Borophaginae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 243: 1–391. Google Scholar


L. Werdelin 1989. Constraint and adaptation in the bone-cracking canid Osteoborus (Mammalia: Canidae). Paleobiology 15: 387–401. Google Scholar


L. Werdelin 1996. Carnivoran ecomorphology: a phylogenetic perspective. In: J.L. Gittleman (ed.), Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution, 582–624. Cornell University Press, New York. Google Scholar


V.S. Williams , P.M. Barrett , and M.A. Purnell 2009. Quantitative analysis of dental microwear in hadrosaurid dinosaurs, and the implications for hypotheses of jaw mechanics and feedings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 11194–11199. Google Scholar


Appendix 1

Premolar specimens used in the study. Abbreviations: HSB, Hunter-Schreger Bands; a, acute-angled undulating HSB; u, undulating HSB; z, zig-zag HSB; SL, large scratches; SS, small scratches; PL, large pits; PS, small pits.




Appendix 2

Molar specimens used in the study. Borophagus specimens are corresponding upper fourth premolars. Abbreviations: HSB, Hunter-Schreger Bands; a, acute-angled undulating HSB; u, undulating HSB; z, zig-zag HSB; SL, large scratches; SS, small scratches; PL, large pits; PS, small pits.




Appendix 3

Specimens examined for evolution of Hunter-Schreger Band enamel microstructure.

Hesperocyoninae: Hesperocyon gregarius: LACM-CIT100 (left and right), 94 (left and right), 621, 1400 (left and right), 1444, 1526, 4917 (left and right), LACM4932 (left and right), 4933 (left and right), USNM15937 (left and right), 450576, 450577; Paraenhydrocyon josephi: AMNH6910, F:AM27753; P. robustus: F:AM12884; Mesocyon brachyops: LACM-CIT1242, 1346, 1819 (left and right), LACM 5265; M. coryphaeus: UCMP1383 (left and right), 1307 (left and right), 1165 (left and right); “Mesocyon” temnodon: F:AM 102381; Sunkahetanka geringensis: LACM9406, 15910 (left and right); Osbornodon iamonensis: USNM8836; O. renjiei: F:AM63316 Borophaginae: Archaeocyon pavidus: F:AM63970, 50338, LACMCIT1338, UCMP76652 (left and right); Otarocyon macdonaldi: F:AM38986; Rhizocyon oregonensis: UCMP79365; Phlaocyon annectens: F:AM49006, 50299; P. leucosteus: AMNH8768; P. latidens: UCMP76296; Cormocyon sp.: LACM2739, 5424 (left and right), 2743; Paracynarctus kelloggi: UCMPl 1474; ?Cynarctus marylandica: USNM15561; Metatomarctus sp.: UCMP12604; Metatomarctus sp. A: UCMP38290; Microtomarctus conferta: LACM-CIT1232 (left and right); Protomarctus optatus: F:AM 61270; Tephrocyon sp.: UCMP19460, 19461; Tomarctus hippophaga: F: AM24270, 61156, LACM-CIT774; Tomarctus sp.: LACM 34061, UCMP24291, 24292 (left and right); Aelurodon mcgrewi: F:AM27153, 8307; A. asthenostylus: F:AM28355; A. ferox: USNM 352360 (left and right), V523, UCMP32241; Paratomarctus temerarius: F:AM50146; P. euthos: F:AM61101, 67121, Paratomarctus sp.: LACM1377 (left and right); Carpocyon webbi: F:AM27366B, 61335, 61336; Protepicyon raki: F:AM61738; Epicyon saevus: LACM59697 (left and right), 59813 (left and right), 127794, F: AM 61418, 67396, USNM128; E. haydeni: LACM143519, 127790 (left and right), PPHM1100, F:AM61498, 61476, 61552, USNM127; Borophagus sp.: LACM34060, 62702, 62703, UCMP30626; B. pugnator: F:AM61662; B. parvus: F:AM108396, LACM62698; B. secundus: 61690-5, three isolated AMNH specimens, UCMP30492, 30476; B. littoralis: LACM16734 (left and right)

Hyaenidae: Plioviverrops sp.: F:AM96607; Tungurictis spocki: F:AM26600; Thalassictis sp.: IVPP 65001; Ictitherium sp.: F:AM China 4-L94; HMV 0163 (left and right), 0432 (left and right); Hyaenictitherium hyaenoides: AMNH26371, HMV 0550 (left and right), 0552 (left and right), 0553, 0556, 0560, 0573 (left and right), 0169 (left and right), IVPP V14737 (left and right), V14738; H. wongi: F:AM China 11-L112, HMV 0751 (left and right), IVPP Baode Ex. 2, 30; Lycyaena sp.: F:AM China 38-B296, 45-L400, 26-B47, IVPP V2923; Chasmaporthetes lunensis: IVPP V15162; C. ossifragus: USNM10223; C. sp.: AMNH26369, LACM74046, LACMCIT164 (left and right); Palinhyaena reperta: AMNH26370; Pachycrocuta brevirostris: AMNH27756, 27757, HMV C0066 (left and right), C0193 (left and right), IVPP 193013, V13932 (left and right); Adcrocuta eximia: AMNH26373, 26374, F:AM China 10-L4, HMV 0543, 0577 (left and right), 1435 (left and right); Crocuta crocuta honanensis: IVPP L.21625; C. c. ultima: IVPP V2003, V15160, V15163, V15164 (left and right).

Zhijie Jack Tseng "Connecting Hunter-Schreger Band Microstructure to Enamel Microwear Features: New Insights from Durophagous Carnivores," Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57(3), 473-484, (1 September 2012).
Received: 15 March 2011; Accepted: 20 June 2011; Published: 1 September 2012
Back to Top