% pubman genre = article
@article{item_3568919,
title = {{Maxillary morphology of chimpanzees: Captive versus wild environments (advance online)}},
author = {Hanegraef, Hester and Spoor, Fred},
language = {eng},
issn = {0021-8782; 1469-7580},
doi = {10.1111/joa.14016},
year = {2024},
abstract = {{Morphological studies typically avoid using osteological samples that derive from cap-{\textless}br{\textgreater}tive animals because it is assumed that their morphology is not representative of wild{\textless}br{\textgreater}populations. Rearing environments indeed differ between wild and captive individu -{\textless}br{\textgreater}als. For example, mechanical properties of the diets provided to captive animals can{\textless}br{\textgreater}be drastically different from the food present in their natural habitats, which could{\textless}br{\textgreater}impact cranial morphology and dental health. Here, we examine morphological differ-{\textless}br{\textgreater}ences in the maxillae of wild versus captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) given the{\textless}br{\textgreater}prominence of this species in comparative samples used in human evolution research{\textless}br{\textgreater}and the key role of the maxilla in such studies. Size and shape were analysed using{\textless}br{\textgreater}three-dimensional geometric morphometric methods based on computed tomogra-{\textless}br{\textgreater}phy scans of 94 wild and 30 captive specimens. Captive individuals have on average{\textless}br{\textgreater}larger and more asymmetrical maxillae than wild chimpanzees, and significant differ-{\textless}br{\textgreater}ences are present in their maxillary shapes. A large proportion of these shape differ-{\textless}br{\textgreater}ences are attributable to static allometry, but wild and captive specimens still differ{\textless}br{\textgreater}significantly from each other after allometric size adjustment of the shape data. Levels{\textless}br{\textgreater}of shape variation are higher in the captive group, while the degree of size variation is{\textless}br{\textgreater}likely similar in our two samples. Results are discussed in the context of ontogenetic{\textless}br{\textgreater}growth trajectories, changes in dietary texture, an altered social environment, and{\textless}br{\textgreater}generational differences. Additionally, sample simulations show that size and shape{\textless}br{\textgreater}differences between chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan paniscus) are exaggerated when{\textless}br{\textgreater}part of the wild sample is replaced with captive chimpanzees. Overall, this study con-{\textless}br{\textgreater}firms that maxillae of captive chimpanzees should not be included in morphological or{\textless}br{\textgreater}taxonomic analyses when the objective is to characterise the species.{\textless}br{\textgreater}}},
journal = {{Journal of Anatomy}},
}