This is off topic, but let me come to the defence of the physical
anthropologist that Deb conversed with.
The anthropologist spoke of a human tooth as a 'deciduous molar'.
Deb says she told the "confused" anthropologist that there are no
deciduous molars.
In saying this, Deb is following the evolutionary position that the two
human molariform teeth are adaptively evolved from premolars.
I want to make the point that the physical anthropologist, in terms of
nomenclature, was by no means confused. She is in step with functional
terminology widely used by English speaking physical anthropologists -
and dental anatomists, clinical dentists, orthodontists, etc..
The two deciduous grinding teeth are called 'molars', whatever the
evolutionary origin of these molariform teeth might be.
Richard
On 5/10/2012 05:58, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> I go into this a little because it's a subject dear to my own heart; I am
> currently writing a textbook on equine dentistry, which I have been
> researching for years. I have a great admiration for all zooarchaeologists
> but I also know, from talking with some anthro/archaeo graduates, that
> they can be mixed up about some things. For example recently I had to
> demur (for the sake of peace) in a conversation in which someone trained
> in physical anthropology insisted to me that a certain human tooth
> represented a 'deciduous molar'. She is confusing 'molar' in the sense of
> 'cheek tooth' with 'molar' in its technical sense, i.e. molar vs.
> premolar. When I told her there are no deciduous molars, that only the
> premolar teeth are replaced, or again that there are 'one-tooth alveoli'
> vs. 'two-tooth alveoli', she was surprised and confused because she also
> has muddled the term 'pre' in 'premolar', confusing 'pre' meaning anterior
> in TIME with 'pre' meaning anterior in POSITION. I sympathize; it is easy
> for anyone to get mixed up when the information presented in most existing
> textbooks fails to convey an adequate mental picture. -- Dr. Deb
>
>
|