13 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 The Impact of Hybridization on Upper First Molar Shape in Robust Capuchins (Sapajus nigritus x S. libidinosus) Emma Ayres Kozitzky 1* 1 New York University Hybridization, once viewed as rare and universally detrimental (Dobzhansky, 1940; Mayr, 1963), is increasingly viewed as a frequent and innovative evolutionary phenomenon (Ackermann et al., 2019; Arnold, 1997; Taylor & Larson, 2019). Adaptive hybridization and fertile hybrid populations have been observed in a wide array of animals and plants, such as Galápagos finches (Grant & Grant, 2020), toads (C. Chen & Pfennig, 2020), butterflies (Jiggins et al., 2008), and poplar trees (Chhatre et al., 2018). There is an especially rich body of litera- ture on ancient and contemporary primate hybridi- zation. Genetic analyses have demonstrated that hybridization events occurred in many primate lineages during their course of evolution (de Ma- nuel et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2018; Kuhlwilm et al., 2019; Svardal et al., 2017; Tung & Barreiro, 2017; Zichello, 2018), including hominins (Browning et al., 2018; L. Chen et al., 2020; Durvasula & Sankara- raman, 2020; Green et al., 2010; Huerta-Sánchez et al., 2014; Reich et al., 2011; Slon et al., 2018). A gro- wing number of primate taxa are proposed to have hybrid origins (Burrell et al., 2009; Detwiler, 2019; Rogers et al., 2019; Roos et al., 2019; Thinh et al., 2010; Tosi et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2015). Hybridi- zation continues to shape genetic and phenotypic variation in present-day primate populations in both natural and anthropogenic contexts (Alberts & Altmann, 2001; Bergman et al., 2008; E. L. Bynum et al., 1997; Cortés-Ortiz et al., 2007; Gligor et al., 2009; Jolly et al., 2011; Malukiewicz et al., 2015; Mather, 1992). While genetic analysis has been crucial for ex- ploring primate hybridization, there is a growing interest in understanding the impact of hybridiza- tion on morphology. Studies of hybrid primate morphology offer unique insight into the effect of ABSTRACT To better understand the impact of hybridization on development and morphology, I ana- lyze an understudied phenotype in hybrid morphology research: tooth shape. I apply a 2D geometric morphometric approach to compare variation in first upper molar cusp tip positions and crown outline shape among 31 crested capuchins (Sapajus nigritus), 37 bearded capuchins (S. libidinosus), and 44 hy- brids (S. nigritus x S. libidinosus). A principal components analysis shows that group membership ac- counts for a significantly greater proportion of variance along the first major axis of M1 shape variation than does allometry. While most hybrids have S. nigritus-like M1s, several possess a transgressive M1 shape not observed in either parental species. Procrustes distances are greater in hybrids compared to the parental capuchins, and two-block partial least squares analyses show that hybrids exhibit weaker integration between cusp tip positions and crown outline shape. These results demonstrate that hybridi- zation generates novel M1 shapes and support the hypothesis that destabilized development results in elevated phenotypic variance in hybrids. Further studies of dental shape in hybrid primates will gener- ate important data for on-going efforts to detect potential hybrids in the hominin fossil record and to understand the evolutionary outcomes of anthropogenic hybridization. *Correspondence to: Emma Ayres Kozitzky Department of Anthropology Center for the Study of Human Origins New York University New York, NY 10003 eak475@nyu.edu This paper was the recipient of the Albert A. Dahl- berg prize awarded by the Dental Anthropology As- sociation in 2020. Keywords: geometric morphometrics; molar shape; hybridization; robust capuchins 14 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 rapid genetic recombination on phenotypic devel- opment and variation. Many studies have evaluat- ed soft tissue phenotypes in contemporary hybrid populations using traits that are easy to observe in the field and can be measured non-invasively, such as pelage color and distribution, head shape, and tail carriage (Alberts & Altmann, 2001; N. Bynum, 2002; Kelaita & Cortés-Ortiz, 2013; Phillips-Conroy & Jolly, 1986). Researchers have also studied the relationship between hybrid ancestry and hard tissue phenotype, such as skeletodental size, shape, and non-metric trait variation (Ackermann et al., 2006; Ackermann & Bishop, 2010; Boel, 2016; Che- verud et al., 1993; Eichel & Ackermann, 2016; Ito et al., 2015; Kohn et al., 2001; Phillips-Conroy, 1978). The proximate aims of hybrid morphology re- search are to elucidate how hybrid morphology quantitatively and qualitatively differs from paren- tal morphology and if different kinds of hybrids share diagnosable traits indicative of their hybrid ancestry (Ackermann, 2010; Ackermann et al., 2019). The data derived from hybrid morphology re- search has important broader implications for pri- mate conservation and paleoanthropology. Primate conservation biologists observe that the frequency of hybridization will likely increase as primate habitats are disturbed or destroyed by anthropo- genic interference (Detwiler et al., 2005; Ma- lukiewicz, 2019; Thompson et al., 2018). Rare, en- dangered primates may reproduce with more com- mon heterospecifics if conspecific mates are diffi- cult to find. Extensive admixture between diver- gent taxa may result in loss of genetic and pheno- typic diversity and ultimately fuse two lineages (Seehausen et al., 2008), or it may generate novel diversity and prevent inbreeding depression (Arnold & Meyer, 2006). By studying the variation in hybrid phenotypes, conservation biologists may be able to understand if the outcomes of anthropo- genic hybridization are harmful, neutral, or adap- tive for endangered primate populations. Paleoanthropologists acknowledge that hybrid hominins are likely present in the fossil record. Fossil evidence demonstrates that multiple hom- inin taxa cohabited Africa and Eurasia throughout the Pliocene and Pleistocene and could have hy- bridized where their ranges overlapped (Détroit et al., 2019; Grün et al., 2020; Herries et al., 2020; Spoor et al., 2015). The genetic evidence for hybrid- ization events throughout hominin evolution is substantial (Durvasula & Sankararaman, 2020; Ja- cobs et al., 2019; Sankararaman et al., 2016; Skov et al., 2020; Villanea & Schraiber, 2019). The hybrid ancestry of several fossilized hominin individuals has been confirmed by ancient DNA analyses (Fu et al., 2015; Slon et al., 2018). However, ancient DNA preservation is rare in most of the hominin fossil record, so analyses of hard tissue phenotypes in extant hybrid primates can be used to assess the feasibility of using morphological indicators to identify hybrid hominin fossils (Ackermann et al., 2019). The identification of hybrid hominin fossils remains an outstanding issue for reconstructing hominin phylogenetic relationships, as most the commonly used phylogenetic frameworks assume evolutionary relationships are hierarchical rather than reticulate (Holliday, 2003). Quantitative genetic theory states that in first- generation (F1) hybrids, phenotypic trait measure- ments controlled by additive genetic variation will be the midparental value (MPV), or the averaged parental measurements (Falconer & Mackay, 1997). Tests of this theory indicate that while some F1 hybrid primate phenotypes exhibit the expected MPV (Hamada et al., 2012), other traits in the same population may deviate from the expected pheno- type (Ackermann et al., 2006; Cheverud et al., 1993; Eichel & Ackermann, 2016). Positive deviations from the MPV in F1 populations is referred to as heterosis, or hybrid vigor, while negative devia- tions are evidence of dysgenesis, or hybrid break- down. Later-generation hybrids with higher genet- ic input from one parental taxon are expected to be more phenotypically like that parent, but some hybrids resemble one parent more than the other, regardless of parental genetic contribution (Boel et al., 2019; Ito et al., 2015). First- and later-generation hybrid populations sometimes exhibit transgres- sive phenotypes not observed in either parental population, such as extreme trait size, novel combi- nations of parental traits, or the presence of non- metric craniodental anomalies (Ackermann et al., 2014; Ackermann & Bishop, 2010; Jolly et al., 1997). Research on hybrid morphology in primates has documented a complex array of phenotypic out- comes that vary within and among hybrid popula- tions (Alberts & Altmann, 2001). Importantly, these outcomes are not universally maladaptive (Charpentier et al., 2012) and may help hybrid populations occupy ecological niches unavailable to either parental population, thereby resulting in novel evolutionary lineages (Arnold, 1997; Zinner et al., 2011). The high morphological variability observed within and among hybrid populations is thought to be the result of destabilized development (Clarke, 1993). The uniquely adapted developmen- 15 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 tal regimes of two distinct parental taxa are unlike- ly to merge seamlessly in offspring and could re- sult in perturbations during hybrid morphogene- sis. This is supported by the observation that devi- ations from predicted F1 midparental phenotypes tend to be more pronounced with increasing genet- ic distance between parental populations (Bernardes et al., 2017; Z. J. Chen, 2013; Stelkens & Seehausen, 2009). Researchers have tested the hy- pothesis that hybrids experience destabilized de- velopment using tests of morphological integration and fluctuating asymmetry (Alibert et al., 1994; Jackson, 1973; Klingenberg, 2003; Klingenberg & McIntyre, 1998). Tightly integrated trait complexes and highly symmetric bilateral trait measurements are hypothesized to reflect stable, canalized devel- opment. So, if hybridization results in develop- mental destabilization, hybrids are expected to ex- hibit weaker trait integration and greater fluctuat- ing asymmetry between bilateral traits than paren- tal taxa. Some hybrids do meet these expectations (Ackermann et al., 2014; Leary et al., 1985; Neff & Smith, 1979), but others do not differ from ob- served levels of parental trait integration or fluctu- ating asymmetry (Jackson, 1973; Pallares et al., 2016). In some cases, hybrid samples exhibit stronger trait integration and bilateral trait sym- metry than parents, indicating that hybrid devel- opment is more stable than parental development (Alibert et al., 1994; Boel et al., 2019; Debat et al., 2000). Despite growing interest in primate hybrid mor- phology, the relationships among hybrid ancestry, development, and phenotype remain unclear and difficult to predict. However, one of the most po- tentially informative anatomical regions for this research has also been one of the most understud- ied: the dentition. Several lines of evidence suggest that in-depth analyses of dental phenotypic varia- tion will produce valuable data for hybrid mor- phology research. Anomalous dental non-metric traits are observed at high frequencies in some hy- brid populations, such as supernumerary teeth, crown rotation and/or malformation, and dental crowding (Ackermann et al., 2010, 2014; Acker- mann & Bishop, 2010; Goodwin, 1998; Heide- Jorgensen & Reeves, 1993). Intergeneric hybrids of Theropithecus gelada and Papio hamadryas (“geboon”) exhibit combinations of parental traits in their dentitions, such as T. gelada-like enamel crenulation on P. hamadryas-like low-crowned mo- lars, resulting in novel dental phenotypes (Jolly et al., 1997). Most of the geboon hybrids also exhibit- ed maxillary cheektooth dimensions that exceeded the parental means. However, hybrids of more closely related baboon species P. hamadryas and P. anubis were not easily differentiable from parental species based on both metric and non-metric den- tal traits (Phillips-Conroy, 1978). Similarly, dental non-metric trait expression did not discriminate between closely related Macaca fuscata, M. cyclopis, and their hybrids (Boel et al., 2019). Further anal- yses of dental size, shape, and non-metric trait ex- pression in extant primate hybrids would elucidate if hybrid primates exhibit shared patterns of dental trait variation. Dental phenotypic analyses of hybrids also could help to understand if deviations from typical parental development generate the high variability observed in hybrid populations. Mammalian den- tal development is well-studied, and models of dental development have been tested in both ex- tinct and extant primates (Evans et al., 2016; Hlus- ko et al., 2016; Jernvall & Jung, 2000; Ortiz et al., 2018; Paul et al., 2017). The iterative nature of den- tal development results in predictable patterns of dental trait integration both within the same tooth crown and among metameres. The patterning cas- cade model claims that the duration of tooth germ growth and the spatiotemporal distribution and strength of embryonic signaling centers within the germ constrain possible cusp configurations and crown size in the fully formed tooth (Jernvall, 2000). So, differences between parental and hybrid cusp configurations and accessory cusp expression likely reflect deviations in underlying patterning cascade pathways. Similarly, the inhibitory cascade model states that mammalian mandibular molar number and relative size are dictated by embr- yonic signaling strength and duration of odontoge- nesis, so differences between hybrid and parental molar size relationships and molar number likely reflect differences in this developmental pathway as well (Kavanagh et al., 2007). Indeed, in a hybrid baboon population, supernumerary mandibular molars are positively correlated with increased molar row length, which suggests that dental deve- lopment is prolonged in the hybrids compared to parents (Ackermann et al., 2014). Data derived from studies of hybrid dentitions is especially useful for conservation biologists and paleoanthropologists. Results derived from studies of hybrid skulls and postcrania are not easily ap- plied in living primate populations, but the teeth of primates in hybrid zones can be evaluated, photo- graphed, or molded and cast during trapping ex- peditions (Kelaita & Cortés-Ortiz, 2013; Phillips- Conroy, 1978). While skeletal data is certainly use- 16 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 ful for paleoanthropologists interested in determin- ing the feasibility of identifying hybrid ancestry using fossil morphology, teeth tend to be better preserved and comprise most of the hominin fossil record (Bailey, 2002; Gómez-Robles et al., 2007; Martinón-Torres et al., 2012; Wood & Abbott, 1983). The genus Sapajus is an excellent study taxon for hybridization research. The robust capuchin clade underwent rapid radiation and expansion during the Pleistocene, and species often interbreed where their ranges meet (Lima et al., 2018; Lynch Alfaro, Boubli, et al., 2012), making them an appropriate analog for understanding hominin hybridization. A sample of hybrids of Sapajus nigritus and S. libidi- nosus are housed at the Smithsonian National Mu- seum of Natural History (NMNH). Sapajus nigritus and S. libidinosus shared a common ancestor ap- proximately 2.6 Ma and belong to different clades within the genus, the former belonging to a more ancient clade endemic to the Atlantic Forest of Bra- zil, and the latter belonging to a recently evolved clade adapted to Brazilian dry shrublands (Lima et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2015). Both species are listed as ‘near threatened’ by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and both are known to occupy habitats disturbed by agricultural practices (Melo, Alfaro, et al., 2015; Melo, Fialho, et al., 2015). It is possible that anthropogenic hybridization could result in the loss of genetic and phenotypic diversi- ty among robust capuchin species (Lynch Alfaro et al., 2014; Martins et al., 2017). A morphological analysis of hybrid robust capuchins would estab- lish if phenotypic diversity is impacted by hybridi- zation. Here, I apply 2D geometric morphometric (2DGM) techniques to study variation in first up- per molar (M1) crown outline shape and cusp tip configuration among Sapajus nigritus, S. libidinosus, and their hybrids. Dental shape has been used to study population affinity and to characterize ex- tinct and extant primate taxa (Bailey et al., 2016; Gamarra et al., 2016; Gómez-Robles et al., 2007, 2015; Rizk et al., 2013), including robust capuchins (Delgado et al., 2015), but has not yet been used to study patterns of morphological variation among hybrids and their parental taxa. The primary aims of this study are to explore variation and the fac- tors driving variation in M1 morphology in hybrids compared to S. nigritus and S. libidinosus; to deter- mine if M1 morphology can discriminate between hybrids and parental taxa; and to evaluate if hy- brids exhibit evidence of destabilized dental devel- opment compared to parental taxa. Based on previ- ous hybrid morphology research, I tested the fol- lowing predictions: 1) M1 shape is statistically distinct among S. nigri- tus, S. libidinosus, and their hybrids. 2) The mean shape of hybrid M1s is the midparen- tal value (the mean shape of the combined pa- rental sample). 3) There is more variability in M1 shape within the hybrid sample than within either parental sam- ple. 4) Hybrids exhibit weaker covariation between cusp tip configuration and crown outline shape than parental taxa. Materials and Methods My sample includes Sapajus nigritus (n = 31), S. libidinosus (n = 37), and a hybrid sample of S. nigri- tus x S. libidinosus (n = 44). The dental sample com- prises 112 right M1s (Table 1). Only specimens with unworn or minimally worn M1s were included. I used a Nikon D500 DSLR digital camera fitted with a macro lens and attached to a copy stand to photograph M1 occlusal surfaces. I positioned the M1 cementoenamel junction (CEJ) parallel to the lens and included a scale placed at the same level as the occlusal plane (Bailey, 2004; Gómez-Robles et al., 2007). While directly referencing the speci- men, I marked each of the four main M1 cusp tips (the paracone, protocone, metacone, and hy- pocone) on the digital images using the GNU Im- age Manipulation Program version 2.10.12 (The GIMP Development Team, 2019). If a specimen exhibited slight wear, I marked the cusp tip in the center of the wear facet. I uploaded the photographs to TpsDig2 version 2.31 to digitize a series of 2D landmarks (points of biological homology among specimens) and semi- landmarks (non-homologous points of morpholog- ical interest; Bookstein, 1997). Landmarks 1 through 4 were placed on the tips of the paracone, protocone, metacone, and hypocone (Figure 1). These landmarks capture variation in the position Female Male Total Sapajus nigritus 16 15 31 S. nigritus x S. libidinosus 21 23 44 S. libidinosus 21 16 37 Total 58 54 112 Table 1. Number of M1s included in this study. 17 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 of the main cusps relative to each other and rela- tive to the crown outline. In order to examine vari- ation in the shape of M1 crown outlines, I placed 30 semilandmarks around the perimeter of the occlu- sal surface, starting at the point of maximum cur- vature where the buccal and mesial margins inter- sect. I drew a closed curve around the crown out- line, and then appended 29 additional equidistant semilandmarks to the curve (see Figure 1). Finally, I exported all landmark and semilandmark coordi- nates as a .tps file to RStudio version 1.2.5033 for analysis. All geometric morphometric analyses were per- formed using the R package geomorph (Adams et al., 2020). First, I defined semilandmarks 5 through 34 as sliding semilandmarks. Sliding semi- landmarks can move along the crown outline be- tween neighboring semilandmarks to optimize their position with respect to the average shape of the entire sample. This process removes random variation from the coordinate data introduced by the initial arbitrary placement of semilandmarks around the crown margin and converts semi- landmarks 5 through 34 to homologous points sta- tistically comparable to landmarks 1 through 4 (Gunz & Mitteroecker, 2013). Next, I performed a generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA) on the land- mark and sliding semilandmark coordinates to remove the effects of specimen size, orientation, and position, leaving only variation related to shape. The GPA superimposes specimens by trans- lating, scaling, and rotating the coordinates to gen- erate an average shape, or consensus configura- tion, for the entire sample (Bookstein, 1997; Zelditch et al., 2012). I used the results of the GPA for all subsequent analyses. To explore and compare major axes of M1 shape variation among S. nigritus, S. libidinosus, and their hybrids, I conducted a principal components anal- ysis (PCA). To visualize variation in shape space, I plotted PC 1 against PC 2 and PC 2 against PC 3. I included 95% confidence ellipses for each taxon to illustrate within-taxon variability. Then, to test the effect of allometry on M1 shape, I constructed twelve linear models using results from the PCA (Table 2a). Each model tested the association be- tween scores on PCs 1, 2, and 3 with taxonomic designation, logarithm-transformed centroid size, or a combination of both variables. The best-fitting model for PCs 1, 2, and 3 were selected using the function for Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) in the R package bbmle (Bolker et al., 2020). I used warp grids representing the mean shape for each taxon to visually evaluate if and how M1 shape varies among groups. To statistically evalu- ate the extent to which M1 shape is morphological- ly distinct among these groups by maximizing in- tergroup differences, I extracted the first ten PCs derived from the PCA (encompassing the majority of shape variation within the sample) for a discrim- inate function analysis (DFA). Then I used the re- sults from the DFA for a cross-validated assign- ment test. I measured within- and between-group variance using pairwise Procrustes distances (the Euclidean distance between two sets of shape coordinates; Spoor et al., 2015). A Procrustes distance equal to zero represents a pair of individuals with identical M1 shape, while increasing distance reflects in- creasing dissimilarity in shape. I evaluated statisti- cal differences in Procrustes distances among taxa using pairwise t-tests using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. I performed a two-block partial least squares analysis (2B PLS) to evaluate the level of covaria- tion between the position of cusp tips (block 1: landmarks 1 through 4) and the shape of the crown outline (block 2: sliding semilandmarks 5 through 34), and implemented a permutation procedure (n = 1,000 permutations) to test the r-PLS correlation coefficients generated by the 2B PLS for statistical significance. Because calculation of the r-PLS statis- tic is dependent on sample size, I employed a standardized z-score converted to pairwise effect sizes to compare the strength of integration among groups (Adams & Collyer, 2016). Large pairwise effect sizes indicate that the level of morphological integration differs between the two samples. Figure 1. The landmark (1-4) and semi- landmark (5-34) configuration used to analyze variation in M1 cusp tip position and crown outline shape. M: mesial; D: distal; B: buccal; L: lingual. 18 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Results Mean M1 shape in parental and hybrid taxa The mean shapes for S. nigritus, S. libidinosus, and the hybrids compared to the pooled-sample con- sensus configuration are shown in Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c, respectively. Differences in mean shape are magnified by a factor of three to assist in visual interpretation. The average crown outline shape in S. nigritus is rhomboid, while that of S. libidinosus is more ovoid. The average crown outline in the hy- brid sample is more mesiobuccally skewed than either parental taxon and has a waisted lingual margin. The two parental taxa exhibit similar inter- cusp distances relative to the crown outline, but the mean S. nigritus paracone, metacone and hy- pocone (landmarks 1, 3, and 4, see Figure 1) are buccally displaced compared to the consensus cusp tips. The average hybrid protocone, paracone, and metacone (landmarks 1 through 3, see Figure 1) are slightly mesially displaced compared to the con- sensus configuration. The average hybrid M1 shape differs from the expected midparental shape. The midparental M1 crown outline does not have the waisted lingual margin that is present in the hy- brid mean outline, and the hybrid protocone, para- cone, and metacone are mesially displaced com- pared to the expected midparental M1 cusp config- uration. Principal components analysis The first three PCs account for approximately half (48.1%) of the variation in M1 shape among S. nigri- tus, S. libidinosus, and S. nigritus x S. libidinosus. Principal component 1 explains 20.8% of shape variation, while PC 2 explains 16.6% (Figure 3a). The warp grids representing M1 shape at extreme ends of variation along each PC illustrate that M1s with low PC 1 scores have a mesiobuccally skewed rhomboid crown outline which tapers distally and a waisted lingual margin. The cusp tips are dis- placed towards the buccal margin. First molars with high PC 1 scores have squared, symmetrical outlines and roughly equidistant cusp tips. Along PC 2, M1s with low scores have mesiobuccally skewed rhomboid outlines with cusp tips dis- placed towards the buccal margin, while M1s with high scores have more symmetrical crown outlines, increased buccolingual distance between the two mesial cusps and between the two distal cusps, and lingual displacement of the lingual cusps. There is substantial overlap among the three taxa, but hybrids tend to have low PC 1 scores and high PC 2 scores, while the parental taxa tend to have high PC 1 scores and low PC 2 scores. The 95% confidence ellipse for hybrids is much broader than those of the parental taxa, reflecting greater variation in shape space. Principal component 3 accounts for 11.2% of M1 shape variation (Figure 3b). First molars with low PC 3 scores have symmetrical and ovoid crown outlines and a rhomboid cusp tip configuration. High scores on PC 3 correspond to M1s with mesi- obuccally skewed, rhomboid crown outlines with a waisted lingual margin, wide intercusp spacing, and all cusp tips displaced towards the periphery. There is very little separation among taxa in PC 2 vs. PC 3 shape space. The range of variation among S. nigritus individuals is almost entirely subsumed within the range of the hybrids. S. libidinosus tends to cluster on the low end of PC 2 away from S. nig- ritus and the hybrids. Based on shape and size of the 95% confidence ellipses projected onto tangent space for each taxon, the hybrids exhibit the high- est variation in M1 shape along PCs 2 and 3. Regression analysis and allometry The regression analysis demonstrated that taxo- nomic designation explains more variation in PC 1 scores than does M1 size (Tables 2a and 2b). Ap- proximately 20% (p < 0.001) of variation in PC 1 scores is explained by taxonomic designation. A post-hoc pairwise t-test using Bonferroni adjust- ment for multiple comparisons showed that hy- brids had significantly lower scores on PC 1 than Figure 2. Pooled sample consensus M1 shape (gray) compared to mean M1 shape (blue) among (a) S. nigritus, (b) hybrids, and (c) S. libid- inosus. Figure 2d illustrates the mean parental M1 shape (S. nigritus and S. libidinosus com- bined, light gray) and the transformation of the mean parental M1 shape into the mean hybrid shape (blue). All comparisons are magnified by a factor of 3 to aid in visual interpretation. M: mesial; D: distal; B: buccal; L: lingual. 19 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Figure 3. Scatter plots of (a) PC 1 against PC 2 scores, and (b) PC 2 scores against PC 3 scores derived from the PCA of M1 shape. The warp grids illustrate the transformation of the consensus configuration (gray) into the shape of M1s with the lowest (blue) and highest (red) scores along PCs 1 and 2. Ellipses represent 95% confidence intervals for each group. Note that, while there is considerable overlap among the groups, the hybrids tend to exhibit lower PC 1 and higher PC 2 scores than the parental taxa, correspond- ing to M1s with skewed crown outlines, a waisted lingual margin, and wider intercusp distances. M: me- sial; D: distal; B: buccal; L: lingual. 20 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Table 2. Results of the regression analysis assessing the effect of taxonomic designation and allometry on variation in the first three principal component (PC) scores. a) The best-fitting model for each PC is in bold. b) The best-fitting model for each PC is in bold. Model # Model Terms R2 p-value 1 PC 1 ~ log(centroid size) 0.02 0.20 2 PC 1 ~ taxon 0.20 <0.001 3 PC 1 ~ taxon + log(centroid size) 0.22 <0.001 4 PC 1 ~ taxon * log(centroid size) 0.22 <0.001 5 PC 2 ~ log(centroid size) 0.06 0.008 6 PC 2 ~ taxon 0.11 0.002 7 PC 2 ~ taxon + log(centroid size) 0.17 <0.001 8 PC 2 ~ taxon * log(centroid size) 0.18 <0.001 9 PC 3 ~ log(centroid size) 0.01 0.29 10 PC 3 ~ taxon 0.07 0.02 11 PC 3 ~ taxon + log(centroid size) 0.09 0.02 12 PC 3 ~ taxon * log(centroid size) 0.09 0.08 PC Model # AIC dAIC df Weight 1 2 -567.3 0.0 4 0.526 3 -566.7 0.6 5 0.383 4 -563.8 3.5 7 0.091 1 -546.3 21.1 3 <0.001 2 7 -586.3 0.0 5 0.653 8 -584.6 1.7 7 0.284 6 -581.3 5.0 4 0.054 5 -577.4 8.9 3 0.007 3 10 -619.6 0.0 4 0.478 11 -619.3 0.3 5 0.416 12 -615.6 4.0 7 0.066 9 -614.6 5.0 3 0.040 21 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 both S. nigritus and S. libidinosus (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively), but no significant difference in PC 1 scores between S. nigritus and S. libidinosus (p = 0.99; Figure 4a). More complex models testing the effect of taxonomic designation on the relation- ship between PC 1 scores and M1 size were non- significant. Change in M1 shape along the main axis of variation is not driven by size alone. How- ever, the next-best-fitting model according to AIC suggested that the average PC 1 score estimated from M1 size varies by taxon. A more complex model is required to explain variation in PC 2 scores. First molar size and taxo- nomic designation only explain 6% (p = 0.008) and 11% (p = 0.002) of variation in PC 2 scores, respec- tively, and a comparison of the two models indi- cates that PC 2 ~ taxon is a better fit than PC 2 ~ log(centroid size) (F = 5.93, p = 0.02). A post-hoc comparison of differences in PC 2 scores by taxon indicates that S. libidinosus has significantly lower PC 2 scores than the hybrids (p = 0.001; Figure 4b); all other pairwise comparisons are non-significant. A multivariate model combining the effect of taxo- nomic designation and M1 centroid size explains 17% (p < 0.001) of variation in PC 2 scores and is a significantly better fit than PC 2 ~ taxon. There is no significant increase in explanatory power with the addition of an interaction term describing change in the slope of the relationship between M1 shape and size among taxa (F = 1.12, p = 0.33). So, variation in shape along PC 2 is partly driven by size, but the average PC 2 score estimated from M1 size differs by taxon. As with PC 1, taxonomic designation explains the most variation in PC 3 scores rather than M1 size. However, the amount of variation in PC 3 scores explained by taxonomic designation is small (R2 = 0.07, p = 0.02), and a post-hoc comparison average PC 3 scores by taxon indicates that the on- ly significant difference among taxa is between S. libidinosus and the hybrids (p =0.016, Figure 4c). Comparisons with more complex models account- ing for different size/shape relationships by taxon do not add significant explanatory power. Discriminant function analysis Results for the discriminant function analysis are illustrated in Figure 5. The DFA maximized differ- ences in between-group variation, but there is little separation among parental species and their hy- brids along linear discriminant functions (LDs) 1 and 2. Along LD 2, there is some separation be- tween S. libidinosus, which clusters at the positive end, and S. nigritus and hybrids, which both clus- ter toward the negative end. Most of the hybrids have negative loadings on LD 1 and LD 2. The results of the cross-validated assignment test are presented in Table 3. The percentage of individuals correctly classified to their a priori as- signed taxon ranges from only slightly better than chance in S. nigritus (61.3%) to moderate in S. libidi- nosus (73.0%). In the hybrid group 70.5% were cor- rectly assigned as such. Both S. nigritus and S. libid- inosus misclassified individuals were more fre- quently assigned to the hybrid group than to the wrong parental taxon, reflecting higher variation in M1 shape among hybrids. Procrustes distances within and among taxa The mean pairwise Procrustes distances in M1 shape are listed in Table 4, and frequency distribu- tions of pairwise Procrustes distances within and between taxa are visualized in Figure 6. The aver- age distance for the entire sample is 0.06. Within- taxon shape variability is highest for the hybrids (distance = 0.059) compared to the parental taxa (S. nigritus = 0.055, S. libidinosus = 0.053). All three taxa have significantly different mean Procrustes distances (p < 0.001). The between-taxa compari- sons show a greater degree of similarity between S. libidinosus and S. nigritus M1 shape (distance = 0.058) than between each parental taxon and the hybrids, and there is approximately equal distance between the parental taxa and the hybrids (S. nigri- tus vs. hybrids = 0.061, S. libidinosus vs. hybrids = 0.062). S. nigritus S. nigritus x S. libidinosus S. libidinosus % Correct S. nigritus 19 8 4 61.3 S. nigritus x S. libidinosus 5 31 8 70.5 S. libidinosus 4 6 27 73.0 Table 3. Results of the cross-validated assignment test. The number of individuals correctly assigned to their a priori designated taxon are in bold. 22 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Figure 4. Box-and-whisker plots and scatterplots of comparing the relationship among taxonomic des- ignation, log-transformed M1 centroid size, and scores for (a) PC 1, (b) PC 2, and (c) PC 3. The p-values for significant differences in PC scores between groups are indicated above the brackets. The red dashed regression line on each scatterplot represents a simple PC score ~ log(centroid size) model. in- dicates the line of best fit for the pooled sample (PC 2 ~ log(Centroid size)). Based on Akaike’s infor- mation criterion, the variation in PC 1 and 3 scores is best explained by taxonomic designation (Table 2b), while average PC 2 scores estimated from log(Centroid size) significantly differ among taxa (indicated by separate lines of best fit for each taxon; PC 2 ~ taxon + log(Centroid size)). 23 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Figure 5. Scatter plot of LDs 1 and 2 derived from the linear discriminant function analysis, in which among-group differences in M1 shape are maximized. Ellipses represent 95% confidence intervals for each group. First molar shapes along the low end of LDs 1 and 2 are shown in blue, while shapes for M1 on the high end of LDs 1 and 2 are illustrated in red. M: mesial; D: distal; B: buccal; L: lingual. S. nigritus S. nigritus x S. libidinosus S. libidinosus S. nigritus 0.055 S. nigritus x S. libidinosus 0.061 0.059 S. libidinosus 0.058 0.062 0.053 Table 4. Mean pairwise Procrustes distances within and between taxa. A Procrustes distance value of 0 means that there is no difference in M1 shape between two individuals. 24 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Figure 6. Frequency distributions of (a) within-group, and (b) between-group pairwise Procrustes distances, reflecting degree of similarity in M1 shape between specimen pairs. Vertical dashed lines represent the mean pairwise Procrustes distance for each group. Note that the hybrids exhibit elevated within-group Procrustes distances, reflecting the higher morphological variability in this group compared to the parental taxa. Also, between-group comparisons between one parental taxon and the hybrids exhibit higher mean Procrustes dis- tances compared to the pairwise distances between parental taxa. 25 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Covariation between cusp tip configuration and crown outline shape The results of the 2B PLS analysis are summarized in Table 5. There is a strong and statistically signifi- cant correlation between cusp tip configuration (block 1) and crown outline shape (block 2) for the combined sample (r-PLS = 0.66, p = 0. 001). There are differences in covariation between blocks 1 and 2 among the three taxonomic groups. The two pa- rental taxa exhibit high and significant correlations between blocks 1 and 2 (S. nigritus r-PLS = 0.76, p = 0. 002; S. libidinosus r-PLS = 0.75, p = 0.001), while the hybrids exhibit weaker correlation between cusp configuration and crown outline shape (r-PLS = 0.63, p = 0.015). Effect sizes for each sample indi- cate that the hybrids, compared to the parental taxa, exhibit weaker integration than expected based on its permutated sampling distribution. However, pairwise statistical comparisons indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in the strength of integration among groups (although at p = 0.07, the difference in integration between the hybrids and S. libidinosus does ap- proach significance; Table 5b). Discussion The impact of hybridization on primate hard tissue morphology is difficult to predict. While traits un- der additive genetic control are expected to exhibit the midparental state in F1 hybrid populations, studies reveal that F1 morphology often deviates from expectations (Ackermann et al., 2006; Ito et al., 2015). Frequently, F1 hybrid trait morphology is polytypic and individuals exhibit novel pheno- types not observed in either parental population (Bergman et al., 2008; Fuzessy et al., 2014; Jolly et al., 1997). Many commonly measured phenotypic traits are not under additive genetic control. Hy- bridization may affect non-additive trait expres- sion, resulting in heterosis or dysgenesis (Z. J. Chen, 2013). The recombination of two divergently adapted parental genomes in hybrids may disrupt the interaction and expression of non-additive genes that control complex physiological and met- abolic networks, including growth and develop- ment. This ultimately relaxes the constraints ob- served in parental developmental pathways and is associated with increased morphological variabil- ity in hybrids. Deviations from expected midpa- Table 5. Results of the two-block partial least squares analysis. a) The r-PLS value reflects the degree of covariation between configuration of the cusp tips (block 1, landmarks 1 through 4) and the shape of the crown outline (block 2, sliding semilandmarks 5 through 34). Larger effect sizes are associated with stronger observed covariation between cusp tip and crown outline shape than expected based on the permutated sampling distribution. b) Matrix of pairwise differences in 2B PLS effect size measuring difference in the strength of integration between samples in the lower triangle with corresponding p-values in the upper triangle. r-PLS p-value Effect size S. nigritus 0.76 0.002 3.01 S. nigritus x S. libidinosus 0.63 0.015 2.26 S. libidinosus 0.75 0.001 3.94 Taxa pooled 0.66 0.001 -- S. nigritus S. nigritus x S. libidinosus S. libidinosus S. nigritus -- 0.78 0.47 S. nigritus x S. libidinosus 0.79 -- 0.07 S. libidinosus 0.60 1.44 -- 26 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 rental morphology in F1 hybrids are positively as- sociated with increasing parental genetic diver- gence (Allen et al., 2020; Bernardes et al., 2017; Stelkens & Seehausen, 2009). For example, there are fewer instances of cranial and postcranial trait heterosis in hybrids of recently diverged tamarin subspecies than between crosses of more anciently diverged tamarin subspecies (Cheverud et al., 1993; Kohn et al., 2001). Similarly, non-metric indi- cators of disrupted skeletodental development tend to be more frequently observed in primates with increasing parental divergence (Ackermann et al., 2014; Boel et al., 2019). Beyond the first generation, hybrid morphology is expected to more closely resemble that of the parental population into which the hybrids have backcrossed (Falconer & Mackay, 1997). Continu- ous trait values in the backcrossed offspring of an F1 hybrid and an individual from the parental population are predicted to be the average of the parental value and the MPV. Some novel pheno- types observed in F1 hybrids persist in later- generation hybrids regardless of parental genetic contribution. Macaca fuscata x M. cyclopis macaques have enlarged, M. fuscata-like sinus size even in backcrossed individuals who derive most of their ancestry from M. cyclopis (Ito et al., 2015), and transgressive non-metric dental traits are observed in backcrossed P. cynocephalus x P. anubis individu- als (Ackermann et al., 2014). The morphology of individuals in multigenerational hybrid zones de- pend on a combination of physiological, reproduc- tive, and ecological selective pressures (Charpentier et al., 2008; Fourie et al., 2015; Jolly et al., 2011; Mourthe et al., 2019). These selection pressures structure the distribution of hybrid phe- notypes across contact zones. For example, hybrids from the contact zone between P. anubis and P. cynocephalus in Amboseli, Kenya exhibit a continu- ous distribution of phenotypes ranging from more P. anubis-like to intermediate to more P. cynocepha- lus-like, while the phenotypic distribution of hy- brids in the P. anubis x P. hamadryas contact zone in Awash, Ethiopia is bimodal with very few interme- diate phenotypes (Alberts & Altmann, 2001; Wan- go et al., 2019). Phenotypically intermediate hy- brids in Awash also exhibit reproductive behaviors intermediate to those observed in parental taxa, and are therefore thought to be at a reproductive disadvantage when backcrossing with P. anubis or P. hamadryas compared to hybrids with predomi- nantly parental phenotypes and behaviors (Bergman et al., 2008). Hybrids in recently formed anthropogenic contact zones show more continu- ous phenotypic distributions and symmetrical con- tribution of parental genes into the contact zone (Malukiewicz, 2019). So, a biologically relevant understanding of phenotypic outcomes in hybrid populations requires information regarding a vari- ety of endogenous and exogenous variables. This study assumes that the NMNH is correct in its taxonomic designations of the specimens used. However, the hybrids and parental taxa studied here have not been genotyped, as is preferable in analyses examining the relationship between phe- notype and degree of hybridity (Ackermann et al., 2006; Boel et al., 2019; Cheverud et al., 1993; Hama- da et al., 2012). The assumption that the parental taxa are not themselves admixed may be particu- larly problematic for robust capuchins, as Sapajus species have a complex history of hybridization in secondary contact zones (Lima et al., 2018). In ad- dition, there may be cryptic hybrids in the sample with a high degree of genetic admixture but no phenotypic indication of hybridity (Ackermann, 2010; Kelaita & Cortés-Ortiz, 2013). Regardless, the results of the analyses presented here, combined with results from previous research, allow for so- me predictions to be made regarding the genetic makeup of the robust capuchin hybrids. My analyses indicate that, while hybrid M1 shape largely falls within the range of variation observed in S. nigritus and S. libidinosus, some as- pects of hybrid M1 shape are unique compared to parental morphology. While PC 1 typically cap- tures the allometric component of shape variation (Zelditch et al., 2012), in this study taxonomic des- ignation explained a greater proportion of varia- tion in PC 1 scores than did molar size (Table 2). Hybrids significantly differed from S. nigritus and S. libidinosus on the main axis of M1 shape variation in the PCA. Hybrids had significantly lower PC 1 scores than both parental taxa and higher PC 2 scores than S. libidinosus, corresponding to M1s with increased buccolingual distance between cusps and a waisted lingual crown margin (see Figures 3 and 4). However, hybrids and S. nigritus did not exhibit significantly different PC 2 or PC 3 scores. So, some hybrids exhibit a unique molar morphotype compared to parents, while others cluster with S. nigritus. This was reflected by the reasonably accurate classifications generated by the DFA assignment test (Table 3). Sapajus nigritus had the lowest correct assignment (61.3%), with more individuals misclassified as hybrids than S. libidinosus (Table 3). Sapajus libidinosus specimens also were more often misclassified as hybrids than S. nigritus but exhibited the highest percentage of 27 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 correctly classified individuals (73.0%). The results of the PCA and DFA support recent revisions in capuchin taxonomy. Based on genetic and morphological data, the capuchins are pro- posed to contain two genera: the gracile Cebus cap- uchins and the robust Sapajus capuchins (Lynch Alfaro, de Sousa e Silva-Júnior, et al., 2012). The IUCN recognizes eight Sapajus species that can be subdivided into a more ancient clade that evolved in the Brazilian Atlantic forest and a clade that re- cently left the Atlantic Forest to spread throughout the Amazon (Lima et al., 2018). Sapajus nigritus belongs to the more ancient clade, and retains mor- phological features indicative of arboreal living, such as longer limbs and tails. Sapajus libidinosus belongs to the Amazonian clade but has recently evolved morphological traits for terrestrial life in the dry shrublands of the Brazilian Cerrado- Caatinga, including thickened molar enamel and shorter, more robust limbs (Wright et al., 2015). Sapajus libidinosus is therefore the most morpholog- ically derived robust capuchin species (Wright et al., 2015). The results of the PCA and DFA present- ed here indicate that S. nigritus and S. libidinosus exhibit statistically significant differences in M1 shape. Hybrids cluster more with S. nigritus rather than with the more derived S. libidinosus. Based on the tendency of the hybrids and S. nigritus to clus- ter along PCs 2 and 3, I would expect the hybrids to exhibit greater genetic affinity with S. nigritus. Tail length has been shown to track degree of hy- bridity in macaques (Hamada et al., 2012), so it would be interesting to test this in S. nigritus x S. libidinosus hybrids. Mean hybrid M1 shape in this study is not the MPV (see Figure 2). Compared to the expected shape, the observed hybrid M1 mean shape exhib- its buccolingual expansion and a waisted lingual margin. However, the MPV is expected only in F1 hybrids and only for traits under additive genetic control (Falconer & Mackay, 1997). It is highly un- likely that wild hybrid populations contain only F1 individuals (Kelaita & Cortés-Ortiz, 2013; Phillips- Conroy & Jolly, 1986). Additionally, it is known that the genetic architecture controlling M1 size and shape is partly non-additive (Hardin, 2019; Hlusko et al., 2016). Combined, these observations indicate that the deviation from the expected mid- parental M1 shape observed in this study are likely caused by the disruption of non-additive gene ex- pression or epigenetic interactions in later- generation S. nigritus x S. libidinosus hybrids. This suggests that the morphological impact of hybridi- zation persists beyond early hybrid generations, as has been demonstrated in baboons and macaques (Ackermann et al., 2014; Ito et al., 2015). The S. nigritus x S. libidinosus hybrids exhibit evidence of destabilized dental development. Measured by pairwise Procrustes distances, hy- brids exhibit statistically significant elevation of within-taxon variation in M1 shape compared to both parental taxa. This variation may be driven by relaxed constraints during dental development (Fuzessy et al., 2014). Indeed, hybrids exhibit lower mean correlation between cusp tip configuration and crown outline shape (r-PLS = 0.63) compared to S. nigritus and S. libidinosus (r-PLS = 0.76 and r- PLS = 0.75, respectively). Hybrids tend to have wider intercusp distances and cusps positioned closer to the crown periphery than the parental taxa. Cusp tips correspond to the position of em- bryonic signaling centers in developing tooth germs. The distance between cusp tips is controlled by the relative strengths of activator and inhibitor molecules excreted by each signaling center and the duration of germ growth. Increased inhibitory signaling and/or prolonged germ growth are ex- pected to result in fully formed teeth with widely spaced cusp tips (Guatelli-Steinberg et al., 2013; Jernvall, 2000). So, the wide intercusp distances and weaker correlation of cusp configuration and crown outline shape observed in S. nigritus x S. libidinosus hybrids are likely the result of pro- longed dental development and/or deviation in levels of signaling molecules compared to those observed in parental dental development. Similar- ly, Ackermann et al. (2014) found that the presence of supernumerary distomolars is associated with increased molar row length in F1 hybrid P. cyno- cephalus x P. anubis individuals, suggesting that dental development is prolonged in hybrids com- pared to parents. Among other papionin hybrids, Papio hamadryas x P. anubis hybrids exhibit unique molar size relationships compared to parental taxa, suggesting that developmental pathways control- ling hybrid baboon molar size may be destabilized compared to unadmixed baboons (Phillips-Conroy, 1978). However, based on frequencies of dental non-metric trait expression and fluctuating asym- metry of bilateral cranial traits, there is no evidence for destabilized dental development in early- generation M. fuscata x M. cyclopis macaques (Boel et al., 2019). It is possible that these observations support the prediction that the degree of develop- mental destabilization observed in hybrids is asso- ciated with parental divergence. Sapajus nigritus and S. libidinosus shared a common ancestor around 2.6 Ma (Lima et al., 2018); P. cynocephalus 28 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 and P. anubis diverged approximately 1.5 Ma while P. hamadryas and P. anubis diverged approximately 800 ka (Rogers et al., 2019); and M. fuscata and M. cyclopis are estimated to diverge as recently as 170 ka (Chu et al., 2007). A comparison of dental phe- notypic variation and integration among these dif- ferent hybrid populations would confirm the rela- tionship between the degree of parental divergence and destabilized development in hybrids. While non-metric dental anomalies are observed at high frequencies in some mammalian hybrid populations, this pattern is not shared by all extant primates. This calls into question the suggestion that certain dental non-metric traits, especially su- pernumerary distomolars or dental crowding, are evidence of significant hybrid ancestry in extinct hominins (Ackermann, 2010; Ackermann et al., 2019). However, continuous dental trait variation remains understudied, even though non-metric dental traits are often correlated with continuous trait variation (Ortiz et al., 2018) and a Homo sapiens fossil with substantial H. neanderthalensis ancestry exhibits extremely large upper third molars (Fu et al., 2015). The results presented here suggest that transgressive M1 morphology that falls outside of the range of variation observed in well-defined hominin taxa may be indicative of hybrid ancestry in hominin fossils. Further analyses comparing molar shape variation in other extant primate hy- brids would confirm if this is a valid prediction. In terms of primate conservation, this study did not indicate that hybridization reduced phenotypic variation among hybrids of S. nigritus and S. libidi- nosus. Rather, hybridization generated novel phe- notypes not observed in either parental popula- tion. It remains to be determined if expanded inter- cusp distances in these hybrids facilitate ecological niche separation from other robust capuchin popu- lations. Conclusions The dentition has been an anatomical region of interest in hybrid research, but previous work has predominantly studied non-metric dental trait var- iation rather than tooth shape. The results present- ed here suggest that a more in-depth analysis of the impact of hybridization on continuous dental phenotypes and development is warranted. The shape of the first upper molar is statistically dis- tinct among S. nigritus, S. libidinosus and their hy- brids, and hybrids exhibit morphological evidence of destabilized development, including elevated within-sample variance and weaker correlation between cusp tip configuration and crown outline shape. The same analyses used here applied to the rest of the postcanine teeth would likely uncover other significant differences between the hybrids and parental taxa. A more comprehensive under- standing of the impact of hybridization on dental development could be gained by further compari- sons of continuous trait integration between meta- meres and between occluding upper and lower molars; and by comparing levels of fluctuating asymmetry of continuous traits in left and right antimeres. The data derived from such studies would offer crucial information for attempts to diagnose hybrid ancestry from fossil morphology and to understand the evolutionary outcomes of hybridization among endangered primates in de- graded habitats. Acknowledgements I thank Darrin Lunde for his assistance with ac- cessing collections at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. I also thank Shara Bailey for her guidance throughout the conception of this project and for her feedback on this manu- script. REFERENCES Ackermann, R. R. (2010). Phenotypic traits of pri- mate hybrids: Recognizing admixture in the fossil record. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 19(6), 258–270. Ackermann, R. R., Arnold, M. L., Baiz, M. D., Ca- hill, J. A., Cortés‐Ortiz, L., Evans, B. J., Grant, B. R., Grant, P. R., Hallgrimsson, B., Humphreys, R. A., Jolly, C. J., Malukiewicz, J., Percival, C. J., Ritzman, T. B., Roos, C., Roseman, C. C., Schroeder, L., Smith, F. H., Warren, K. A., … Zinner, D. (2019). Hybridization in human evo- lution: Insights from other organisms. Evolution- ary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 28 (4), 189–209. Ackermann, R. R., & Bishop, J. M. (2010). Morpho- logical and molecular evidence reveals recent hybridization between Gorilla taxa. Evolution, 64 (1), 271–290. Ackermann, R. R., Brink, J. S., Vrahimis, S., & de Klerk, B. (2010). Hybrid wildebeest (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) provide further evidence for shared signatures of admixture in mammalian crania. South African Journal of Science, 106, 1–4. Ackermann, R. R., Rogers, J., & Cheverud, J. M. (2006). Identifying the morphological signatures of hybridization in primate and human evolu- tion. Journal of Human Evolution, 51(6), 632–645. Ackermann, R. R., Schroeder, L., Rogers, J., & Che- 29 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 verud, J. M. (2014). Further evidence for pheno- typic signatures of hybridization in descendant baboon populations. Journal of Human Evolution, 76, 54–62. Adams, D. C., Collyer, M., & Kaliontzopoulou, A. (2020). Geomorph: Software for geometric morpho- metric analyses. R package version 3.2.1. https:// cran.r-project.org/web/packages/geomorph/ geomorph.pdf Adams, D. C., & Collyer, M. L. (2016). On the com- parison of the strength of morphological integra- tion across morphometric datasets. Evolution, 70 (11), 2623–2631. Alberts, S. C., & Altmann, J. (2001). Immigration and hybridization patterns of yellow and anubis baboons in and around Amboseli, Kenya. Ameri- can Journal of Primatology, 53(4), 139–154. Alibert, P., Renaud, S., Dod, B., Bonhomme, F., & Auffray, J.-C. (1994). Fluctuating asymmetry in the Mus musculus hybrid zone: A heterotic effect in disrupted co-adapted genomes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sci- ences, 258(1351), 53–59. Allen, R., Ryan, H., Davis, B. W., King, C., Frantz, L., Irving-Pease, E., Barnett, R., Linderholm, A., Loog, L., Haile, J., Lebrasseur, O., White, M., Kitchener, A. C., Murphy, W. J., & Larson, G. (2020). A mitochondrial genetic divergence proxy predicts the reproductive compatibility of mammalian hybrids. Proceedings of the Royal Soci- ety B: Biological Sciences, 287(1928), 20200690. Arnold, M. L. (1997). Natural Hybridization and Evo- lution. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. Arnold, M. L., & Meyer, A. (2006). Natural hybridi- zation in primates: One evolutionary mecha- nism. Zoology, 109(4), 261–276. Bailey, S. E. (2002). Neandertal dental morphology: Implications for modern human origins [Ph.D. The- sis]. Arizona State University. Bailey, S. E. (2004). A morphometric analysis of maxillary molar crowns of Middle-Late Pleisto- cene hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 47(3), 183–198. Bailey, S. E., Benazzi, S., Buti, L., & Hublin, J.-J. (2016). Allometry, merism, and tooth shape of the lower second deciduous molar and first per- manent molar. American Journal of Physical An- thropology, 159(1), 93–105. Bergman, T. J., Phillips-Conroy, J. E., & Jolly, C. J. (2008). Behavioral variation and reproductive success of male baboons (Papio anubis × Papio hamadryas) in a hybrid social group. American Journal of Primatology, 70(2), 136–147. Bernardes, J. P., Stelkens, R. B., & Greig, D. (2017). Heterosis in hybrids within and between yeast species. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 30(3), 538– 548. Boel, C. (2016). The Craniodental Morphology of Hy- bridising Macaques, and Implications for the Detec- tion of Hybrids in the Human Fossil Record [Ph.D. Thesis]. University of New South Wales. Boel, C., Curnoe, D., & Hamada, Y. (2019). Cranio- facial Shape and Nonmetric Trait Variation in Hybrids of the Japanese Macaque (Macaca fusca- ta) and the Taiwanese Macaque (Macaca cyclopis). International Journal of Primatology, 40, 214–243. Bolker, B., R Development Core Team, & Giné- Vázquez, I. (2020). Bbmle (1.0.23.1) [Computer software]. Bookstein, F. L. (1997). Morphometric Tools for Land- mark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Browning, S. R., Browning, B. L., Zhou, Y., Tucci, S., & Akey, J. M. (2018). Analysis of Human Se- quence Data Reveals Two Pulses of Archaic Den- isovan Admixture. Cell, 173(1), 53–61. Burrell, A. S., Jolly, C. J., Tosi, A. J., & Disotell, T. R. (2009). Mitochondrial evidence for the hybrid origin of the kipunji, Rungwecebus kipunji (Primates: Papionini). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 51(2), 340–348. Bynum, E. L., Bynum, D. Z., & Supriatna, J. (1997). Confirmation and location of the hybrid zone between wild populations of Macaca tonkeana and Macaca hecki in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology, 43(3), 181–209. Bynum, N. (2002). Morphological variation within a macaque hybrid zone. American Journal of Phys- ical Anthropology, 118(1), 45–49. Charpentier, M. J. E., Fontaine, M. C., Cherel, E., Renoult, J. P., Jenkins, T., Benoit, L., Barthès, N., Alberts, S. C., & Tung, J. (2012). Genetic structure in a dynamic baboon hybrid zone corroborates behavioural observations in a hybrid population: Population structure in a baboon hybrid zone. Molecular Ecology, 21(3), 715–731. Charpentier, M. J. E., Tung, J., Altmann, J., & Al- berts, S. C. (2008). Age at maturity in wild ba- boons: Genetic, environmental and demographic influences: Maturation in a hybrid baboon popu- lation. Molecular Ecology, 17(8), 2026–2040. Chen, C., & Pfennig, K. S. (2020). Female toads en- gaging in adaptive hybridization prefer high- quality heterospecifics as mates. Science, 367 (6484), 1377. Chen, L., Wolf, A. B., Fu, W., Li, L., & Akey, J. M. (2020). Identifying and Interpreting Apparent Neanderthal Ancestry in African Individuals. 30 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Cell, 180(4), 677–687. Chen, Z. J. (2013). Genomic and epigenetic insights into the molecular bases of heterosis. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14(7), 471–482. Cheverud, J. M., Jacobs, S. C., & Moore, A. J. (1993). Genetic differences among subspecies of the saddle-back tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis): Evi- dence from hybrids. American Journal of Prima- tology, 31(1), 23–39. Chhatre, V. E., Evans, L. M., DiFazio, S. P., & Kel- ler, S. R. (2018). Adaptive introgression and maintenance of a trispecies hybrid complex in range-edge populations of Populus. Molecular Ecology, 27(23), 4820–4838. Chu, J. H., Lin, Y. S., & Wu, H. Y. (2007). Evolution and dispersal of three closely related macaque species, Macaca mulatta, M. cyclopis, and M. fus- cata, in the eastern Asia. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 43(2), 418–429. Clarke, G. M. (1993). The genetic basis of develop- mental stability. I. Relationships between stabil- ity, heterozygosity and genomic coadaptation. Genetica, 89(1), 15–23. Cortés-Ortiz, L., Duda Jr, T. F., Canales-Espinosa, D., García-Orduña, F., Rodríguez-Luna, E., & Bermingham, E. (2007). Hybridization in large- bodied New World primates. Genetics Society of America, 176, 2421–2425. de Manuel, M., Kuhlwilm, M., Frandsen, P., Sousa, V. C., Desai, T., Prado-Martinez, J., Hernandez- Rodriguez, J., Dupanloup, I., Lao, O., Hallast, P., Schmidt, J. M., Heredia-Genestar, J. M., Benazzo, A., Barbujani, G., Peter, B. M., Kuder- na, L. F. K., Casals, F., Angedakin, S., Aran- djelovic, M., … Marques-Bonet, T. (2016). Chim- panzee genomic diversity reveals ancient ad- mixture with bonobos. Science, 354(6311), 477– 481. Debat, V., Alibert, P., David, P., Paradis, E., & Auffray Jean-Christophe. (2000). Independence between developmental stability and canaliza- tion in the skull of the house mouse. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 267(1442), 423–430. Delgado, M. N., Galbany, J., Górka, K., & Pérez- Pérez, A. (2015). Taxonomic Implications of Mo- lar Morphology Variability in Capuchins. Inter- national Journal of Primatology, 36(4), 707–727. Détroit, F., Mijares, A. S., Corny, J., Daver, G., Za- nolli, C., Dizon, E., Robles, E., Grün, R., & Piper, P. J. (2019). A new species of Homo from the Late Pleistocene of the Philippines. Nature, 568 (7751), 181. Detwiler, K. M. (2019). Mitochondrial DNA Anal- yses of Cercopithecus Monkeys Reveal a Local- ized Hybrid Origin for C. mitis doggetti in Gom- be National Park, Tanzania. International Journal of Primatology, 40(1), 28–52. Detwiler, K. M., Burrell, A. S., & Jolly, C. J. (2005). Conservation Implications of Hybridization in African Cercopithecine Monkeys. International Journal of Primatology, 26(3), 661–684. Dobzhansky, T. (1940). Speciation as a Stage in Evolutionary Divergence. American Society of Naturalists, 74(753), 312–321. Durvasula, A., & Sankararaman, S. (2020). Recover- ing signals of ghost archaic introgression in Af- rican populations. Science Advances, 6(7), eaax5097. https://doi.org/10.1126/ sciadv.aax5097 Eichel, K. A., & Ackermann, R. R. (2016). Variation in the nasal cavity of baboon hybrids with im- plications for late Pleistocene hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 94, 134–145. Evans, A. R., Daly, E. S., Catlett, K. K., Paul, K. S., King, S. J., Skinner, M. M., Nesse, H. P., Hublin, J.-J., Townsend, G. C., & Schwartz, G. T. (2016). A simple rule governs the evolution and devel- opment of hominin tooth size. Nature, 530(7591), 477–480. Falconer, D., & Mackay, T. (1997). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Dover Publications. Fan, Z., Zhou, A., Osada, N., Yu, J., Jiang, J., Li, P., Du, L., Niu, L., Deng, J., Xu, H., Xing, J., Yue, B., & Li, J. (2018). Ancient hybridization and ad- mixture in macaques (genus Macaca) inferred from whole genome sequences. Molecular Phylo- genetics and Evolution, 127, 376–386. Fourie, N. H., Jolly, C. J., Phillips-Conroy, J. E., Brown, J. L., & Bernstein, R. M. (2015). Variation of hair cortisol concentrations among wild pop- ulations of two baboon species (Papio anubis, P. hamadryas) and a population of their natural hybrids. Primates, 56(3), 259–272. Fu, Q., Hajdinjak, M., Moldovan, O. T., Constantin, S., Mallick, S., Skoglund, P., Patterson, N., Rohland, N., Lazaridis, I., Nickel, B., Viola, B., Prüfer, K., Meyer, M., Kelso, J., Reich, D., & Pääbo, S. (2015). An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor. Nature, 524(7564), 216–219. Fuzessy, L. F., Silva, I. de O., Malukiewicz, J., Silva, F. F. R., Pônzio, M. do C., Boere, V., & Acker- mann, R. R. (2014). Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids. Evolutionary Bio- logy, 41(3), 480–493. Gamarra, B., Nova Delgado, M., Romero, A., Gal- 31 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 bany, J., & Pérez-Pérez, A. (2016). Phylogenetic signal in molar dental shape of extant and fossil catarrhine primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 94, 13–27. Gligor, M., Ganzhorn, J. U., Rakotondravony, D., Ramilijaona, O. R., Razafimahatratra, E., Zisch- ler, H., & Hapke, A. (2009). Hybridization be- tween mouse lemurs in an ecological transition zone in southern Madagascar. Molecular Ecology, 18(3), 520–533. Gómez-Robles, A., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Mar- tinón-Torres, M., Prado-Simón, L., & Arsuaga, J. L. (2015). A geometric morphometric analysis of hominin lower molars: Evolutionary implica- tions and overview of postcanine dental varia- tion. Journal of Human Evolution, 82, 34–50. Gómez-Robles, A., Martinón-Torres, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Margvelashvili, A., Bastir, M., Arsuaga, J. L., Pérez-Pérez, A., Estebaranz, F., & Martínez, L. M. (2007). A geometric morphome- tric analysis of hominin upper first molar shape. Journal of Human Evolution, 53(3), 272–285. Goodwin, H. T. (1998). Supernumerary teeth in Pleistocene, recent, and hybrid individuals of the Spermophilus richardsonii complex (Sciuridae). Journal of Mammalogy, 79(4), 1161– 1169. Grant, P. R., & Grant, B. R. (2020). Triad hybridiza- tion via a conduit species. Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, 117(14), 7888–7896. Green, R. E., Krause, J., Briggs, A. W., Marcic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M., Patterson, N., Li, H., Zhai, W., Fritz, M. H.-Y., Hansen, N. F., Durand, E. Y., Malaspinas, A.-S., Jensen, J. D., Marques- Bonet, T., Alkan, C., Prüfer, kay, Meyer, M., Burbano, H. A., … Siegemund..., M. (2010). A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Sci- ence, New Series, 328(5979), 710–722. Grün, R., Pike, A., McDermott, F., Eggins, S., Mor- timer, G., Aubert, M., Kinsley, L., Joannes- Boyau, R., Rumsey, M., Denys, C., Brink, J., Clark, T., & Stringer, C. (2020). Dating the skull from Broken Hill, Zambia, and its position in human evolution. Nature, 580, 372–375. Guatelli-Steinberg, D., Hunter, J. P., Durner, R. M., Moormann, S., Weston, T. C., & Betsinger, T. K. (2013). Teeth, morphogenesis, and levels of vari- ation in the human Carabelli trait. In G. R. Scott & J. D. Irish (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on dental morphology: Genetics, evolution, variation. (pp. 69–91). Cambridge University Press. Gunz, P., & Mitteroecker, P. (2013). Semi- landmarks: A method for quantifying curves and surfaces. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mam- malogy, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix- 24.1-6292 Hamada, Y., Yamamoto, A., Kunimatsu, Y., Toji- ma, S., Mouri, T., & Kawamoto, Y. (2012). Varia- bility of tail length in hybrids of the Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) and the Taiwanese macaque (Macaca cyclopis). Primates, 53(4), 397– 411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-012-0317-3 Hardin, A. M. (2019). Genetic contributions to den- tal dimensions in brown-mantled tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis) and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 168(2), 292–302. Heide-Jorgensen, M. P., & Reeves, R. R. (1993). De- scription of an anomalous monodontid skull from West Greenland: A possible hybrid? Ma- rine Mammal Science, 9(3), 258–268. Herries, A. I. R., Martin, J. M., Leece, A. B., Adams, J. W., Boschian, G., Joannes-Boyau, R., Edwards, T. R., Mallett, T., Massey, J., Murszewski, A., Neubauer, S., Pickering, R., Strait, D. S., Arm- strong, B. J., Baker, S., Caruana, M. V., Denham, T., Hellstrom, J., Moggi-Cecchi, J., … Menter, C. (2020). Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and early Homo erectus in South Africa. Science, 368(6486), eaaw7293. Hlusko, L. J., Schmitt, C. A., Monson, T. A., Brasil, M. F., & Mahaney, M. C. (2016). The integration of quantitative genetics, paleontology, and ne- ontology reveals genetic underpinnings of pri- mate dental evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(33), 9262–9267. Holliday, T. W. (2003). Species Concepts, Reticula- tion, and Human Evolution. Current Anthropolo- gy, 44(5), 653–673. Huerta-Sánchez, E., Jin, X., Asan, Bianba, Z., Peter, B. M., Vinckenbosch, N., Liang, Y., Yi, X., He, M., Somel, M., Ni, P., Wang, B., Ou, X., Huasang, Luosang, J., Cuo, Z. X. P., Li, K., Gao, G., Yin, Y., … Nielsen, R. (2014). Altitude adap- tation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNA. Nature, 512(7513), 194– 197. Ito, T., Kawamoto, Y., Hamada, Y., & Nishimura, T. D. (2015). Maxillary sinus variation in hybrid macaques: Implications for the genetic basis of craniofacial pneumatization. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 115(2), 333–347. Jackson, J. F. (1973). A Search for the Population Asymmetry Parameter. Systematic Biology, 22(2), 166–170. Jacobs, G. S., Hudjashov, G., Saag, L., Kusuma, P., Darusallam, C. C., Lawson, D. J., Mondal, M., Pagani, L., Ricaut, F.-X., Stoneking, M., Metspa- 32 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 lu, M., Sudoyo, H., Lansing, J. S., & Cox, M. P. (2019). Multiple Deeply Divergent Denisovan Ancestries in Papuans. Cell, 177(4), 1010–1021. Jernvall, J. (2000). Linking development with gen- eration of novelty in mammalian teeth. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(6), 2641–2645. Jernvall, J., & Jung, H.-S. (2000). Genotype, pheno- type, and developmental biology of molar tooth characters. American Journal of Physical Anthro- pology, 113(s 31), 171–190. Jiggins, C. D., Salazar, C., Linares, M., & Mavarez, J. (2008). Hybrid trait speciation and Heliconius butterflies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1506), 3047– 3054. Jolly, C. J., Burrell, A. S., Phillips-Conroy, J., E., Ber- gey, C., & Rogers, J. (2011). Kinda baboons (Papio kindae) and grayfoot chacma baboons (P. ursinus griseipes) hybridize in the Kafue river valley, Zambia. American Journal of Primatology, 73(3), 291–303. Jolly, C. J., Woolley-Barker, T., Beyene, S., Disotell, T. R., & Phillips-Conroy, J. E. (1997). Intergener- ic Hybrid Baboons. International Journal of Prima- tology, 18(4), 597–627. Kavanagh, K. D., Evans, A. R., & Jernvall, J. (2007). Predicting evolutionary patterns of mammalian teeth from development. Nature, 449(7161), 427– 432. Kelaita, M. A., & Cortés-Ortiz, L. (2013). Morpho- logical variation of genetically confirmed Alouatta Pigra × A. palliata hybrids from a natu- ral hybrid zone in Tabasco, Mexico. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 150(2), 223–234. Klingenberg, C. P. (2003). Developmental instabil- ity as a research tool: Using patterns of fluctuat- ing asymmetry to infer the developmental ori- gins of morphological integration. In M. Polak (Ed.), Developmental Instability: Causes and Conse- quences (pp. 427–442). Oxford University Press. Klingenberg, C. P., & McIntyre, G. S. (1998). Geo- metric Morphometrics of Developmental Insta- bility: Analyzing Patterns of Fluctuating Asym- metry with Procrustes Methods. Evolution, 52(5), 1363–1375. Kohn, L. A. P., Langton, L. B., & Cheverud, J. M. (2001). Subspecific genetic differences in the saddle-back tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis) post- cranial skeleton. American Journal of Primatology, 54(1), 41–56. Kuhlwilm, M., Han, S., Sousa, V. C., Excoffier, L., & Marques-Bonet, T. (2019). Ancient admixture from an extinct ape lineage into bonobos. Nature Ecology & Evolution. Leary, R. F., Allendorf, F. W., & Knudsen, K. L. (1985). Developmental instability and high me- ristic counts in interspecific hybrids of salmonid fishes. Evolution, 39(6), 1318–1326. Lima, M. G. M., de Sousa e Silva-Júnior, J., Černý, D., Buckner, J. C., Aleixo, A., Chang, J., Zheng, J., Alfaro, M. E., Martins, A., Di Fiore, A., Bou- bli, J. P., & Lynch Alfaro, J. W. (2018). A phylo- genomic perspective on the robust capuchin monkey (Sapajus) radiation: First evidence for extensive population admixture across South America. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 124, 137–150. Lynch Alfaro, J. W., Boubli, J. P., Olson, L. E., Di Fiore, A., Wilson, B., Gutiérrez-Espeleta, G. A., Chiou, K. L., Schulte, M., Neitzel, S., Ross, V., Schwochow, D., Nguyen, M. T. T., Farias, I., Janson, C. H., & Alfaro, M. E. (2012). Explosive Pleistocene range expansion leads to wide- spread Amazonian sympatry between robust and gracile capuchin monkeys. Journal of Bioge- ography, 39(2), 272–288. Lynch Alfaro, J. W., de Sousa e Silva-Júnior, J., & Rylands, A. B. (2012). How Different Are Robust and Gracile Capuchin Monkeys? An Argument for the Use of Sapajus and Cebus. American Jour- nal of Primatology, 74(4), 273–286. Lynch Alfaro, J. W., Izar, P., & Ferreira, R. G. (2014). Capuchin monkey research priorities and urgent issues. American Journal of Primatolo- gy, 76(8), 705–720. Malukiewicz, J. (2019). A Review of Experimental, Natural, and Anthropogenic Hybridization in Callithrix Marmosets. International Journal of Pri- matology, 40, 72–98. Malukiewicz, J., Boere, V., Fuzessy, L. F., Grativol, A. D., de Oliveira e Silva, I., Pereira, L. C. M., Ruiz-Miranda, C. R., Valença, Y. M., & Stone, A. C. (2015). Natural and Anthropogenic Hybridi- zation in Two Species of Eastern Brazilian Mar- mosets (Callithrix jacchus and C. penicillata). PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127268. Martinón-Torres, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Gómez-Robles, A., Prado-Simón, L., & Arsuaga, J. L. (2012). Morphological description and com- parison of the dental remains from Atapuerca- Sima de los Huesos site (Spain). Journal of Hu- man Evolution, 62(1), 7–58. Martins, W. P., Lynch Alfaro, J., & Rylands, A. B. (2017). Reduced range of the endangered crest- ed capuchin monkey ( Sapajus robustus ) and a possible hybrid zone with Sapajus nigritus. American Journal of Primatology, 79(10), e22696. 33 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 Mather, R. (1992). A field study of hybrid gibbons in central Kalimantan, Indonesia [Ph.D. Thesis]. University of Cambridge. Mayr, E. (1963). Animal species and evolution. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Melo, F. R., Alfaro, J. L., Miranda, J. M. D., Rímoli, J., Alonso, A. C., Santos, M. C. dos, Ludwig, G., Martins, W. P., & Martins, J. N. (2015, January 26). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Black- horned Capuchin. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/en Melo, F. R., Fialho, M. de S., Jerusalinsky, L., Laro- que, P. de O., Alfaro, J. L., Montenegro, M. M. V., Bezerra, B. M., & Martins, A. B. (2015, January 26). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Bearded Capuchin. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/en Mourthe, I., Trindade, R. A., Aguiar, L. M., Trigo, T. C., Bicca-Marques, J. C., & Bonatto, S. L. (2019). Hybridization Between Neotropical Primates with Contrasting Sexual Dichroma- tism. International Journal of Primatology, 40(1), 99–113. Neff, N. A., & Smith, G. R. (1979). Multivariate Analysis of Hybrid Fishes. Systematic Zoology, 28(2), 176–196. Ortiz, A., Bailey, S. E., Schwartz, G. T., Hublin, J.-J., & Skinner, M. M. (2018). Evo-devo models of tooth development and the origin of hominoid molar diversity. Science Advances, 4(4), eaar2334. https://doi.org/10.1126/ sciadv.aar2334 Pallares, L. F., Turner, L. M., & Tautz, D. (2016). Craniofacial shape transition across the house mouse hybrid zone: Implications for the genet- ic architecture and evolution of between- species differences. Development Genes and Evo- lution, 226(3), 173–186. Paul, K. S., Astorino, C. M., & Bailey, S. E. (2017). The Patterning Cascade Model and Carabelli’s trait expression in metameres of the mixed hu- man dentition: Exploring a morphogenetic model. American Journal of Physical Anthropolo- gy, 162(1), 3–18. Phillips-Conroy, J. E. (1978). Dental Variability in Ethiopian Baboons: An Examination of the Anubis- Hamadryas Hybrid Zone in the Awash National Park, Ethiopia [Ph.D. Thesis]. New York Univer- sity. Phillips-Conroy, J. E., & Jolly, C. J. (1986). Changes in the structure of the baboon hybrid zone in the Awash National Park, Ethiopia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 71(3), 337–350. Reich, D., Patterson, N., Kircher, M., Delfin, F., Nandineni, M. R., Pugach, I., Ko, A. M.-S., Ko, Y.-C., Jinam, T. A., Phipps, M. E., Saitou, N., Wollstein, A., Kayser, M., Pääbo, S., & Ston- eking, M. (2011). Denisova Admixture and the First Modern Human Dispersals into Southeast Asia and Oceania. The American Journal of Hu- man Genetics, 89(4), 516–528. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.09.005 Rizk, O. T., Grieco, T. M., Holmes, M. W., & Hlus- ko, L. J. (2013). Using geometric morphomet- rics to study the mechanisms that pattern pri- mate dental variation. Anthropological Perspec- tives on Tooth Morphologies: Genetics, Evolution, Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p, 126–169. Rogers, J., Raveendran, M., Harris, R. A., Mailund, T., Leppälä, K., Athanasiadis, G., Schierup, M. H., Cheng, J., Munch, K., Walker, J. A., Konkel, M. K., Jordan, V., Steely, C. J., Beckstrom, T. O., Bergey, C., Burrell, A., Schrempf, D., Noll, A., Kothe, M., … Baboon Genome Analysis Con- sortium. (2019). The comparative genomics and complex population history of Papio ba- boons. Science Advances, 5(1), eaau6947. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau6947 Roos, C., Liedigk, R., Thinh, V. N., Nadler, T., & Zinner, D. (2019). The Hybrid Origin of the Indochinese Gray Langur Trachypithecus cre- pusculus . International Journal of Primatology, 40 (1), 9–27. Sankararaman, S., Mallick, S., Patterson, N., & Reich, D. (2016). The combined landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in pre- sent-day humans. Current Biology, 26(9), 1241– 1247. Seehausen, O., Takimoto, G., Roy, D., & Jokela, J. (2008). Speciation reversal and biodiversity dynamics with hybridization in changing envi- ronments. Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 294X.2007.03529.x Skov, L., Coll Macià, M., Sveinbjörnsson, G., Maf- essoni, F., Lucotte, E. A., Einarsdóttir, M. S., Jonsson, H., Halldorsson, B., Gudbjartsson, D. F., Helgason, A., Schierup, M. H., & Stefans- son, K. (2020). The nature of Neanderthal intro- gression revealed by 27,566 Icelandic genomes. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020- 2225-9 Slon, V., Mafessoni, F., Vernot, B., de Filippo, C., Grote, S., Viola, B., Hajdinjak, M., Peyrégne, S., Nagel, S., Brown, S., Douka, K., Higham, T., Kozlikin, M. B., Shunkov, M. V., Derevianko, A. P., Kelso, J., Meyer, M., Prüfer, K., & Pääbo, S. 34 Dental Anthropology 2021 │ Volume 34│ Issue 01 (2018). The genome of the offspring of a Nean- derthal mother and a Denisovan father. Nature, 561(7721), 113–116. Spoor, F., Gunz, P., Neubauer, S., Stelzer, S., Scott, N., Kwekason, A., & Dean, M. C. (2015). Recon- structed Homo habilis type OH 7 suggests deep- rooted species diversity in early Homo. Nature, 519(7541), 83–86. Stelkens, R., & Seehausen, O. (2009). Genetic Dis- tance Between Species Predicts Novel Trait Ex- pression in Their Hybrids. Evolution, 63(4), 884– 897. Svardal, H., Jasinska, A. J., Apetrei, C., Coppola, G., Huang, Y., Schmitt, C. A., Jacquelin, B., Ramensky, V., Müller-Trutwin, M., Antonio, M., Weinstock, G., Grobler, J. P., Dewar, K., Wilson, R. K., Turner, T. R., Warren, W. C., Freimer, N. B., & Nordborg, M. (2017). Ancient hybridiza- tion and strong adaptation to viruses across Af- rican vervet monkey populations. Nature Genet- ics, 49(12), 1705–1713. Taylor, S. A., & Larson, E. L. (2019). Insights from genomes into the evolutionary importance and prevalence of hybridization in nature. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(2), 170–177. The GIMP Development Team. (2019). GNU Image Manipulation Program (2.10.12) [Computer soft- ware]. www.gimp.org Thinh, V. N., Mootnick, A. R., Geissmann, T., Li, M., Ziegler, T., Agil, M., Moisson, P., Nadler, T., Walter, L., & Roos, C. (2010). Mitochondrial evi- dence for multiple radiations in the evolution- ary history of small apes. BMC Evolutionary Biol- ogy, 10(1), 74. Thompson, K. A., Rieseberg, L. H., & Schluter, D. (2018). Speciation and the City. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33(11), 815–826. Tosi, A. J., Morales, J. C., & Melnick, D. J. (2000). Comparison of Y Chromosome and mtDNA Phylogenies Leads to Unique Inferences of Ma- caque Evolutionary History. Molecular Phyloge- netics and Evolution, 17(2), 133–144. Tung, J., & Barreiro, L. B. (2017). The contribution of admixture to primate evolution. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 47, 61–68. Villanea, F. A., & Schraiber, J. G. (2019). Multiple episodes of interbreeding between Neanderthal and modern humans. Nature Ecology & Evolu- tion, 3(1), 39–44. Wang, B., Zhou, X., Shi, F., Liu, Z., Roos, C., Gar- ber, P. A., Li, M., & Pan, H. (2015). Full-length Numt analysis provides evidence for hybridiza- tion between the Asian colobine genera Trachypithecus and Semnopithecus: A Numt Clari- fies a Colobine Hybridization Event. American Journal of Primatology, 77(8), 901–910. Wango, T. L., Musiega, D., Mundia, C. N., Alt- mann, J., Alberts, S. C., & Tung, J. (2019). Cli- mate and Land Cover Analysis Suggest No Strong Ecological Barriers to Gene Flow in a Natural Baboon Hybrid Zone. International Jour- nal of Primatology, 40(1), 53–70. Wood, B. A., & Abbott, S. A. (1983). Analysis of the dental morphology of Plio-Pleistocene homi- nids. I. Mandibular molars: Crown area meas- urements and morphological traits. Journal of Anatomy, 136(Pt 1), 197–219. PubMed. Wright, K. A., Wright, B. W., Ford, S. M., Fragaszy, D., Izar, P., Norconk, M., Masterson, T., Hobbs, D. G., Alfaro, M. E., & Lynch Alfaro, J. W. (2015). The effects of ecology and evolutionary history on robust capuchin morphological di- versity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 82, 455–466. Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., & Sheets, H. D. (2012). Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Zichello, J. M. (2018). Look in the trees: Hylobatids as evolutionary models for extinct hominins. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Re- views, 27(4), 142–146. Zinner, D., Arnold, M. L., & Roos, C. (2011). The strange blood: Natural hybridization in pri- mates. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 20(3), 96–103.