Lab Write Up Essay

769 Words Mar 7th, 2013 4 Pages
Courtney Jablonowski
Dr. Peterson
Lab Report 1
June 17, 2012
The tooth formula is a shorthand technique that biologist use to keep track of the teeth on a particular jaw. The formula consisted of two lines, top jaw and bottom jaw, which were used to count how many incisors, canines, premolars, and molar teeth a species had. Species A, Odocoileus virginiaus (white-tailed deer), had a tooth formula of 0033/3133. On the top jaw, the deer had zero incisor and canine teeth but have three of both the premolars and molars. On the bottom jaw, the deer had three incisors, one canine, three premolars, and three molars. Species B, Canis latrans (coyote), had a tooth formula of 3142/3143. On the top jaw, the coyote had three
…show more content…
On molar three, the cusp sizes were very similar between the deer and coyote. The jaw length of a deer, 6.151 cm, is closest to a coyote, 5.507 cm, making the molars towards the back of the jaw more similar to each other than humans. Figure 1 gives a visual on the numbers for data and comparisons. The tooth sharpness of each animal depended on the type of diet each animal had (Figure 2). The premolars had a linear pattern between the three animals.

Figure 2: Different tooth types of deer, coyote, and humans compared by tooth sharpness (deg.).
Coyote’s had the sharpest premolars, deer’s in-between, and human’s with the dullest premolars. Figure 2 compares the degrees of each premolar and each time, the pattern was followed. The molars had no relationship between each animal. Molar one cusp one and two are most closely related in both deer and humans. Molar two cusps one and two are most closely related to deer and human out of the three animals. The cusps were similar but have about a ten-degree sharpness difference. The molars and cusps human’s and deer’s and human’s were similar but have about a twelve-degree difference between sharpness. In the second molar of the human, the cusps were less sharp than the deer. Figure 2 displays that there was no pattern between the molars of the three animals. Taking the calculated number of tooth width and dividing it by the matching jaw length found relative tooth width (Figure 3). Relative

Related Documents