Canis dirus craniometrics: Tables

author

TABLE 1. Summary of Canis dirus cranial material used in the course of this study. Pit deposit information and dates in years before present condensed from O'Keefe et al., 2009; for calibration information see that reference and Meachen et al., 2014. The quoted pit ages are median ages in the windows of deposition, and constraint on the duration and time of each window is currently poor for most pits. For further discussion see O'Keefe et al., 2009.


Pit Number	Pit Age	N, Fracture	N, Wear	N, Skulls
61/67	13.8 kya	1120	106	17
13	17.9 kya	797	37	16
2051	26.1 kya	568	115	22
91	28 kya	367	75	18

TABLE 2. Fracture and Wear Data. Table shows number of teeth examined for fracture in each pit, number of broken teeth found, and percentage. For wear data, N = the number of worn teeth identified, SW denotes slight wear, SMW slight to moderate wear, MW, medium wear, MHW, medium to heavy wear, H, heavy wear. Weighted wear percent is the average wear score for each pit. These data are plotted in Figures 1 and 2.


Pit	Teeth, N	Teeth, Broken	Broken %	SW	SMW	MW	MHW	H	N	Weighted Wear %
61/67	1120	25	2.23	39	29	28	8	2	106	2.104
13	797	55	6.90	5	16	12	3	1	37	2.432
91	367	27	7.36	17	23	20	9	6	75	2.520
2051	568	12	2.11	40	38	20	11	6	115	2.174

TABLE 3. Pairwise comparisons among pits for tooth fracture and tooth wear. P values calculated from correspondence analysis and Wilcoxon nonparametric rank sums test; values were very similar for both tests. For raw percentages and wear values see Figures 1 and 2. Single stars indicate significance below the 0.05 level; double stars indicate significance below the 0.01 level.


Comparison	61/67-2051	61/67-13	61/67-91	13-91	2051-91	2051-13
Tooth Fracture	p<.8743	p<.0001**	p<.0001**	p<.7778	p<.0001**	p<.0001**
Tooth Wear	p<.8464	p<.0455*	p<.0180*	p<.9306	p<.0275*	p<.0518

TABLE 4. Description of landmarks used in this study. See Figure 3 for locations.


	Landmark	Description
1	prosthion	Premaxilla between medial incisors
2	nasion	Farthest posterior extent of nasals on midline
3	bregma	Frontal/parietal suture at midline
4	inion	Posterior tip of sagittal crest
5	opisthion	Posterior border of foramen magnum at midline
6	basion	Inferior border of foramen magnum at midline
7	staphylion	Posterior tip of palatines at midline
8	pal/max sut	Palatine-maxillary suture at midline
9	incisivon	Midline suture at anterior border of incisive foramina
10	postI3	Posterior border of I3 alveolus
11	antC1	Anterior margin of C1 alveolus
12	postC1	Posterior margin of C1 alveolus
13	antP1	Anterior margin of P1 alveolus
14	antP4	Anterior margin of P4 alveolus
15	P4/M1	Posterior margin P4 alveolus/anterior margin M1 alveolus
16	postM2	Posterior margin M2 alveolus
17	prm/max/nas	Posterior end of dorsal premaxillary process
18	orbitinf	Inferior margin of orbit
19	postorb	Tip of postorbital process
20	opticinf	Inferior border of optic canal
21	par/tmpzyg	Location on parietal-temporal suture directly above posterior root of zygomatic process
22	porion	Superior margin of external auditory meatus
23	antbulla	Posterior border of pharyngotympanic tube
24	prm/maxC1	Location of premaxilla-maxilla suture on medial margin of C1 alveolus
25	prm/maxinc	Location of the premaxilla-maxilla suture on lateral margin of incisive foramen
26	M2postmed	Closest point of M2 alveolus to the midline
27	M1med	Closest point of M1 alveolus to the midline

TABLE 5. Centroid size pairwise comparisons.Significance of pairwise comparisons among pits based on one-way Student's T tests among means. For distributions see Figure 4. Single stars indicate significance below the 0.05 level; double stars indicate significance below the 0.01 level.


Comparison	61/67-2051	61/67-13	61/67-91	13-91	2051-91	2051-13
Size	p<.3300	p<.0669	p<.0735	p<.0021**	p<.3493	p<.0092**

TABLE 6. Results of a permutation test on Procrustes shape coordinates. Reported values are summed Procrustes distances among all landmarks for each pairwise pit comparison, as listed. All pits are significantly different in aggregate. For visualization of landmark locations among mean shapes from each pit, see Supplementary Animations 1, 2, 3. Single stars indicate significance below the 0.05 level; double stars indicate significance below the 0.01 level.


Pairwise Pit Comparisons	Total Procrustes Distance	P value, alpha <
UCMP vs. p13	0.0189778	0.000**
UCMP vs. p61	0.0187161	0.000**
UCMP vs. p91	0.0267971	0.000**
p13 vs. p61	0.0154740	0.004**
p13 vs. p91	0.0191137	0.000**
p61 vs. p91	0.0226563	0.000**

TABLE 7. Proportions of total Procrustes distance accounted for by the factors centroid size, individual pits, and all pits.


Factor	Procrustes sum of squares	Percentage of total
Total	0.0012216192	100.0%
Ln(centroid size)	0.0000400096	3.3%
All Pits	0.0001652656	13.5%
Pit 61	0.0000373441	3.1%
Pit 13	0.0000259306	2.1%
Pit UCMP	0.0000761901	6.2%
Pit 91	0.0000838070	6.9%
Size + Pits	0.0001933500	15.8%

TABLE 8. One-way ANOVAs of principal components by pit derived from ordination of the covariance matrix of three-dimensional landmark data. First five components are shown; they account for 47% of the variance in the data set. Ninety percent of the variance was accounted for by 28 principal components. Regression results for correlation with centroid size are also shown. For plots of PCs 1 and 4 see Figure 6; for plots of PCs 2 and 3 see Figure 7. Shape transitions along each principal component are visualized in Supplementary Animations 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Single stars indicate significance below the 0.05 level; double stars indicate significance below the 0.01 level.


PC	Percent Explained	One-way ANOVA, by Pit	Means, T 61/67-2051	61/67-13	61/67-91	13-91	2051-91	2051-13	Regression, Centroid size
PC I	14.42	F ratio 0.8770 p < 0.4574	0.4361	0.4564	0.6867	0.2509	0.7162	0.1224	F ratio 4.8319 p < 0.0312*
PC II	13.09	F ratio 20.1406 p < 0.0001**	0.0119*	0.3909	0.0001**	0.0003**	0.0001**	0.0009**	F ratio 1.5024 p < 0.2244
PC III	7.75	F ratio 3.9191 p < 0.0121*	0.0590	0.9496	0.1868	0.2162	0.0012**	0.0547	F ratio 1.5624 p < 0.2154
PC IV	6.81	F ratio 6.0364 p < 0.0010**	0.0046**	0.0173*	0.0001**	0.1061	0.1468	0.7706	F ratio 4.1100 p < 0.0464*
PC V	5.60	F ratio 4.9423 p < 0.0036**	0.0019**	0.9834	0.440	0.4348	0.0164*	0.0021**	F ratio 0.0775 p < 0.7815

TABLE 9. Interlandmark Distances. Significance of pairwise comparisons of wireframe distances among pits based on one-way Student's T tests among means. Single stars indicate significance below the 0.05 level; double stars indicate significance below the 0.01 level. Illustrated in Figures 8 and 9.


Comparison	61/67-2051	61/67-13	61/67-91	13-91	2051-91	2051-13
Prosthion-Nasion	0.2964	0.0001**	0.1639	0.0035**	0.6697	0.0006**
Prosthion-Staphylion	0.3797	0.0066**	0.9458	0.0071**	0.4118	0.0393*
Staphylion-Basion	0.8047	0.0054**	0.048*	0.3555	0.0194*	0.0016**
antC1-postC1	0.2661	0.0031**	0.0002*	0.4126	0.0027**	0.0354*
P4/M1-PostM2	0.0197*	0.0084**	0.0198*	0.6880	0.9104	0.5972
postC1-antP4	0.0329*	0.0217	0.0022**	0.4585	0.2469	0.7275
postC1-PrMxC1	0.0080**	0.0419*	0.0403*	0.9646	0.5838	0.6286
Staphylion-postmedM2	0.1439	0.4394	0.0005**	<0.0001**	0.0199*	0.0259*
Prosthion-C1mxpremx	0.1411	0.1356	0.0855	0.0018**	0.0012**	0.8909
P4/M1-postmedM2	0.1411	0.1356	0.0855	0.0018**	0.0012**	0.8909
antC1-PrMxC1	0.2067	0.9331	0.0776	0.0687	0.0021**	0.2487
Prosthion-antC1	0.0696	0.0671	0.2301	0.0030**	0.0023**	0.8728
Pros-M1med	0.0736	0.2629	0.2344	0.0230*	0.0026**	0.5580

{{{_source.title}}} {{#_source.showPrice}} {{{_source.displayPrice}}} {{/_source.showPrice}}

Article Search