Weidenreich 1937

[p.31]
LOWER CANINE [figs. 5-56;60;62;261;265;266;283;285;287;288]
Eight lower canines are on hand two of which represent isolated specimens while the remaining seven are in situ. As already pointed out above, the identification of this tooth type & its distinction from the UC is not too difficult. Five canines represents the large type (male) & three the small one (female)

The LC is a very large tooth & exceeds in size & robustness the adjacent dentition both on mesial (fig.285) & distal (fig.54) sides. Similar to the UC the crown shows in mesial (fig.50m) or distal view (figs.50d;52d;266) a wedge-like [spt baji/pasak] feature w/ a sharp cutting edge [tepi, pinggir], w/ the buccal surface strongly convex in both sagittal & trasversal directions (fig.50m,d,o) & the lingual surface (figs50m;52d) slightly concave.

Like the UC the base of the crown is surrounded on all sides by a distinctly projecting band which is very strongly developed in some cases (figs52d;53b-l;55b). On the mesial & distal sides this band [pita] forms triangular prominences [bg yg menonjol] w/ deep depressions within the center of their bases (figs50m-d). The apex continues into the cutting edge & clearly rises higher on the mesial than on the distal side (fig.50m-d). These marginal prominences are separated from the buccal surface by fine relatively deep furrows which are in all cases more pronounced on the distal than on the mesial side (figs.50;53;54;55d;266). There is not slightest [ramping, tipis] doubt that we are dealing here also w/ a surprisingly well formed cingulum. The buccal surface itself is slightly ribbed [ber-jalur2, bergaris] in longitudinal & in transversal directions (figs.50-55). The lingual surface is characterised by a broad & projecting rim [pinggir, lingkar] shows three characteristic features. Firstly, its distal of the surface to be deepened w/ only the median part elevated more or less ridge-like (figs50l;51l;56l;261). This rim is in direct connection w/ the basal tubercle thus giving the latter the appearance of being an indistinct swelling of the basal part of the rim. The rim shows 3 characteristics features. Firstly, its distal section is striated by showing fine wrinkles alternating w/ impression on the deepened part of the surface. Secondly, the median section shows a small circumscribed knob-like [spt tombol] protuberance [benjol] corresponding to the tip of the cutting edge. Thirdly, a very fine brim [pinggir] is placed upon the distal & median section of the rim itself thus forming the cutting edge proper [tepat, pantas]. All these peculiarities are only recognizable in perfect specimens (figs.50l;51l;52l;261). The cutting edge is furthermore remarkable by its special shape. It does not taper [meruncing] as a whole to the tip but instead courses horizontally, except its middle which is marked by a small pointed elevation continuing downward into the more or less distinct median ridges of the buccal & lingual surfaces (figs.52;265a,b). Furthermore, the LC is characterized by a slight inflection of the entire crown distinctly toward the distal side (figs53l;54;56). Corresponding to this particularity the ridges & furrows of the lingual surfaces run in the same distal direction (figs50l;53l;56). All these features combined give the LC of Sinanthropus the appearance of being an incisor rather than a canine.

The root of the LC resembles very closely that of the UC (compare figs53;55;60 w/ figs42;43). It’s high & robust & particularly well developed in BL direction. The greatest breadth which exceeds that of the crown is found in the upper third of the root. The root is somewhat abruptly tapering off toward the apex, the latter being bent distinctly lingaulward & at the same time either mesially or distally. The mesial & distal surfaces of the root show longitudinal furrows like those of the UC (figs53;55;60), this furrow being clearly deeper impressed [memperkesan] on the mesial than on the distal surface. As in the case of the UC, there is no constriction at the boundary between crown & root, the separated contours being merely indicated by the projection of the cingulum. The so caused stoutness [kebayakan, kegemukan] of the tooth is very evident in figures 53,54,60. Occasionaly the boundary of the enamel reaches higher upward on the mesial than on the distal surface. With the exception of the slightly distal inflection of the crown as mentioned above, a distinct deviation of the longitudinal axes of crown & root is not recognizable, the tooth as a whole is faintly curved w/ a buccal convexity. This curvature, however, never reaches a remarkable degree

The LC of recent man (fig.63) appears to be very small & slender tooth w/ a narrow & high crown & the cutting edge tapering off to the tip from both sides when compared w/ Sinanthropus. A cingulum is completely absent & the same is true for marginal basal prominences. Only the lingual surface may reveal some peculirities [kekhasan] resembling the feature in question in Sinathropus canine. This surface is usually rather plain & does not show distinct patterns, the center may occasionally be slightly deepened w/ a monor median elevation & the border faintly folded inward. In certain other cases, however, this relief may be more pronounced & the border more developed w/ the surface itself deeper than is usual. In addition, a median knob-like swelling may occasionally be observed in the region of the tip. With the exception of the size (height & robustness) the roots do not exhibit essential differnces in structure between recent man & Sinanthropus.

[p.33-34]
When compared w/ the LC of the great apes the Sinan specimen shows great differences even if [sekalipun, walaupun] such less specialized canines as those of female orang or chimp are taken to serve [menyajikan] as examples. All these canines are high & sharply pointed conical or pyramidal structures w/ the special patterns of the crown confined to a narrow basal band as illustrated in fig.245. Here only a heel-like projection may be observed to be enclosed [melingkungi] by a well developed & irregularly bordered cingulum, which combined correspond to the basal tubercle. On the mesial side this cingulum continues into a fine rim rising toward the tip of the tooth. The lingual surface is provided w/ a sharp ridge running from the tip toward the cingulum & dividing the surface into 2 slightly concave areas. The LC of Sinan w/ its incisor-like appearance therefore differs in principle from the lower canine of anthropoids.

[p.35]
In the great apes the crown & the root of the UC are not only more robust & higher than those of the lower dentition but there is also a striking difference in shape. The crown of the UC is longer in MD direction & narrower in BL diameter than that of the LC which is developed in exactly opposite directions. This difference is apparently a consequence of the quite different manner in which both canines function. The UC overlaps in longitudinal direction the distal surfaces of both the LC & the LP3 facing & more or less approaching each other, hence the greater length of this canine, whereas the lower tooth interlocks into the diastema between lateral UI (UI2) & UC rather in transversal direction & hence the greater breadth of this tooth. Such differences in length & breadth are characteristic for canines of all monkeys & great apes. In taking the breadth in percentage to the length, I arrived at the following values: ~~

In rare cases of male & female individuals of gorilla & orang, however, the length of the UC may be smaller than its breadth, & still more rarely the breadth of the lower canine smaller than its length. ~~

________________________________________
[22dec12St vbm]
UPPER CANINE (figs.38;39;42;43;254-257;259-262)
[p.28]
#The identification of UC is not difficult to make, even if they should be strongly worn, because of certain features peculiar to these teeth [p.28]
#The crown when viewed from the mesial or distal sides (figs.38;39m,d;256p;257m,d) looks like a wedge [baji, pasak], the edge being rather sharply defined & the buccal & lingual surfaces as a whole formed by strongly convex prominences [bg yg menonjol]. The base of the crown is surrounded on all sides by a relatively broad & salient [mudah terlihat, jelas] band which is distinctly set off [memulai, memasang, memulakan] from the buccal (39b) & lingual (39l) surfaces. On both mesial & distal sides this band descends to the edge to form a triangular prominence the base of which is rather depressed (figs.38;39;42m,d;255m,d;256p;257). The apex of this triangle continues into the edge & extends slightly further downward on the mesial than on the distal edge (figs38l&39l). The existence of a band & the marginal triangular prominences are of extraordinary significance as these formations represent a well developed cingulum. From this basic enclosure the tooth proper arises. Its buccal surface is strongly convex in transversal direction & slightly ribbed [bergaris] (figs.38;42;43o). From the triangular prominences it’s delimited [membatasi] occasionally on both sides by a very distinct furrow [alur, parit] (figs.39b; distal side). In certain cases the middle part is elevated to form a broad tapering ridge which ends into the tip (fig.42b). The lingual surface shows a more complicated pattern (figs.38;39l). The cingulum continues into the middle part by a basal tubercle moderately developed. The tubercle gradually decreases toward the tip of the tooth. On both sides it may been seen that the cingulum or better the marginal triangular prominences project considerably and that they are separated from the lingual surface proper by deep furrows [alur] (figs.38:39l). The surface itself exhibits a median broad & blunt ridge which is irregular in width & ends w/ a small knob-like & rather circumscribed [terbatas] swelling just immediately within the access of the tip. Between this median ridge & the above mentioned marginal furrow there is on the distal side a short irregular accessory ridge. Occasionally the lingual features is found to be different (figs.42;43l), namely the lingual tubercle is more developed & terminates in several small prolongation like those described in the central UI (compare figs.42l& fig.3), while the surface itself is covered by several more or less distinctly prominent ridges (fig.42l). The cutting of the canine edge tapers into a more or less pointed tip, the distal border of the edge being slightly more curved than the mesial one.

#The root of the canine is conspicuously [menyolok] by its height & robustness. It’s particularly is well-developed in the BL diameter (figs.42;43m,d) w/ its greatest breadth below the middle.
#Toward the apex the root is rather abruptly constricted [terbatas], the apex itself being rounded & curved lingual-distalward.
#Both mesial & distal sides show shallow & narrow furrow [alur, galur] coursing [berjln?] along the middle part of the root; the mesial side is flat, the distal convex.
#As in the case of the incisors there is no distinct constriction in the region of the neck of the tooth, but instead the root merges w/ the crown & forms a prominent border only w/ the cingulum.
p.29
#Compared w/ the UC of recent man (fig.44) the Sinan specimen as a whole is not only very much longer & more robust but it also show striking [menyolok] differences in its proportion both crown & root.
#In recent man the crown is high & narrow(fig.44b,l) whereas in Sinan it’s relatively low & broad, thus giving the tooth a rather stout & firm appearance.
#The same holds [menganggap] good for the root here the slightly stake-like [spt tiang] character evident in recent man is replaced by a large & robust structure.
#Not less important than these general differences are those concerning the details of the crown.
#The cingulum & the marginal triangular prominences are completely absent; the two sides of the lingual surface which is bordered by very faint & blunt swellings present merely [hanya] traces of the originally so well developed features (fig.44l)
#The buccal surface is relatively flat & the lingual surface has lost its entire characteristic pattern, w/ only the basal tubercle & the median ridge slightly indicated.
#the cutting edge is crowned by a point which appears somewhat in the form of a superposed [menempatkan di atas] tip

[p.30]
#One of this given here in fig.246 a tooth specimen of female chimp. This canine is not only small & low but also show the ratio of height to length & breadth is much less expressed than in the case of the extremely elongated teeth of male individuals, esp in gorilla.
#The most peculiar structure of the tooth, however, is that the cingulum & triangular prominences reveal exactly the same feature characterizing Sinan (compare fig.246l,m w/ fig.39l,m)
#The only major difference to be observed concerns [mengenai, menyangkut] the cingulum band of the buccal surface & certain detail of the configuration of the lingual surface. As to former, however, it must be kept in the mind that the buccal cingulum is at times to be found as a well developed structure in anthropoids also, esp in the orang. W/ respect to the latter, in apes it forms a further projecting & sharper inclined edge which is somewhat shifted toward the mesial side, whereas in Sinan the median ridge is broad & indistinct [tdk jelas]

________________________________________________
The canine & premolar problem [25des12Sl vbm]
[p.51]
#~~ the shape of the UC & LC of Sinan differ from each other considerably

#Sinan occupies herewith a special position when compared w/ the anthropoid on the one hand & w/ recent man on the other, because the UC & LC of the former as well as the latter show a distinct tendency of becoming more or less equal in their entire appearance.

#It may be that the disparity [perbedaan] in the case of Sinan must be considered as the original primitive character peculiar to early lower primate for, indeed [sungguh, bahwasanya], it can still be found in their living representatives.

[p.52]
#Thus the tendency toward conformity [kesesuaian, kecocokan] may be considered as a convergency which occur independently in both anthropoid & hominids.

#Nevertheless, the fact that the UC of SInan reveal a typical anthropoid structure w/ respect to its entire appearance is evident by its marked resemblance to the LC of the fossil orang show above.

________________________________________________
UPPER MOLARS [p.61] [26des12R lab mikropal]
UM1 & UM2 (figs.109;110;111;113;114;119;120;122;127;275-278;330;345)
#It’s quite possible that germs without roots represent UM2, for all fragments of skulls or mandibles hitherto found in Locality 1 belongs to the individual w/ the UM1 already erupted or just erupting. Therefore, the recovery of germs of a UM1 would indicate the presence of very young individuals, a condition which has not been confirmed by other remains. Possibly, germ no.140 may represent a UM1 because it was found together w/ the but slightly worn Udm2 (no.139).
#The crown of the UM1 & UM2 are considerably broader than long. They display when viewed from the chewing surface, a usually a rectangular form w/ the buccal corners somewhat more angular & the lingual one more rounded off (fig.109o;113o) but also occasionally the reverse condition may occur (fig.330o)
#In some cases the rectangle is replaced by a more rhomboid figure w/ the paracone (fig.109) projecting strongly in mesial & buccal directions.
# The four cusps are well developed (figs.113b,l;114b,l;330) both mesial cusps (paracone & protocone) being slightly higher than the distal ones (metacone & hypocone)
#The rhomboid shape partly also depends upon the direction in which the cups leave their base. While the metacone & hypocone rise in more or less erect position, the metacone & more in particular the paracone bend inward (fig.330m,o). The buccal surface reveals in most of the cases (fig.113;114;119) a very characteristic relief, the outside of the paracone & occasionally also that of the metacone (fig.199b) bearing a moon shaped ridge demarcating the central part of the cups from the surface proper. This formation must be taken to be as a clear indication of a cingulum beyond which the cusps rise more or less like isolated peaks.
#The mesial surface (figs.113;114m;330) shows a very characteristic feature , the rim leading from the paracone to the protocone being distinctly crenated. This crenation continues into the lingual surface of the protocone in such a way that the latter to be covered w/ a very faint striation [goresan].

[p.62]
#the paracone is separated from the metacone by a deep transversal furrow which transgresses the buccal edge & descends to the buccal surface. A second, shorter & obliquely directed furrow separates the hypocone & from the metacone, the protocone continuing into the lingual surface.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s