Talk:Dentition

Premolars vs Molars
I believe that there are no molars in "milk" teeth - only premolars. The molars erupt at a later date. Is this the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.230.17 (talk) 26 May 2007
 * in milk dentition pre molars are absent and molars are present —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.252.44.17 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

list of dentition patterns of North American mammals
I found a table on the internet from a good source that seems to have the dentition patterns of all the mammals of North America.
 * 1) Is this a good place to put such a list?
 * 2) Can I put something like that from a webpage into wikipedia?
 * 3) Do I need to reference where I got it?
 * 4) Do I need to paraphrase the text part that lists the names of the species?

-Crunchy Numbers 03:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) From what I gather is on the table, yes. (2) Yes, if the webpage is a reliable source. (2a) Yes, reference would be helpful. (2b) Paraphrasing would be better and perhaps mandatory to avoid copyright issues, though prose would be preferred to mere lists. I am interested to see this webpage. - Dozenist talk  03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it meets the reliable source criteria. I prefer not to put the link here now that I see the author says no one can use his information anywhere else on the web.

What I could do is start with one species from each dentition configuration and find a reliable source that verifies for each, hopefully for more than one at a time. Then I could start a table here with that. Other species could be added to the table as they are found. He doesn't own the information after all.

We could also have tables for mammals from the rest of the world.

Email me if you would like to see the link. I tried to send it to you but couldn't. -Crunchy Numbers 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cats, horses, rabbits and sheep but no dogs. You do have these in North America I gather? :) Gmackematix (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dental Formulae
It is more accurate to say that the primitive, rather than the maximum, dental formula for placental mammals is 3/3 1/1 4/4 3/3. Cetaceans, for example, frequently have many more teeth than the "maximum" referred to in the current verbage. In a similar way, we should be sure to say that the primitive dental formula for marsupials is 5/4 1/1 3/3 4/4. Tomwithanh 05:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bat-eared foxes have 48 teeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.66.174 (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This "formula" was a bit confusing since it looks like you're using mathematical notation, period for lazy multiplication and a horizontal line for division, when really it's just ASCII art for two lines of teeth. The (I-C-P-M)/(I-C-P-M) notation makes it even worse, since the forward slash suggests that the horisontal line between the two rows of teeth really was for division, followed by a multiplication sign that actually is for multiplication. And then the minus signs... It says in one place "written in the form of a fraction", which makes it even more confusing. It's not written in the form of a fraction, but represented by a symbol which unfortunately resembles a fraction. Since I've never studied the subject I don't want to make the edit in the article, but I would suggest that ", written in the form of a fraction," is simply deleted. And unless the (I-C-P-M)/(I-C-P-M) notation is standard in text-books on the subject, I would suggest the removal of that as well.80.216.110.188 (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Will Citations adjacent to dental formula create confusions?
The citations are given adjacent to the dental formula for some animals. But these may create chaos and confusions as it may be thought that the number given to citations are a part of dental formula. This is not much felt in electronic mode, but in printable version, it creates very big problem. Look at the way citations and dental formula combines as if they where a single formula http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dentition&printable=yes. Shouldn't we need additional column or alternative way for keeping citations and formula apart from each other. (Please not that people with little knowledge about dental formula also come to Wikipedia for learning and to them this can definitely create problems.) V al chem ishnu ʘ 17:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dental Eruption Sequence
About the dental formulae listed, I assume that whoever originally gave the info was referring to the eruption sequence on the bottom jaw, correct? Or is something missing?RuneMan3 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC) RuneMan3 (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)RuneMan3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuneMan3 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dentition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824022120/http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/pregastric/dentalanat.html to http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/pregastric/dentalanat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Dental formula section is a mess
The "Dental formula" section is a mess, with 4 or 5 different notations being used but not clearly distinguished from each other. It starts out using colons to separate the tooth types, but uses letters with no numbers (e.g., "I:C:P:M"). Then a numerical example is given, but it uses periods to separate the tooth types ("2.1.2.3"). Setting aside the different separator, it appears that the previously used letters are just placeholders for the numbers. Then a deciduous formula is introduced (back to colons), but now there's a "d" and lowercase letters to indicate tooth types ("di:dc:dp"). So, are the "i", "c", and "p" also placeholders for numbers? Who knows. We just have to keep reading… Then it basically starts all over using capital letters separated by periods ("I.C.P.M / I.C.P.M."). Then the "catarrhine primates" examples use lower- and uppercase letters (respectively, for deciduous and permanent teeth), along with super- and subscripted numbers (for top and bottom), and hyphen separators (which are converted into minus signs inside the 'math' elements), ending with an out-of-the-blue multiplication by 2 ("$$(di^2-dc^1-dm^2) / (di_2-dc_1-dm_2) \times 2 =20.$$") — and then period separators in the alternate vertical-fraction versions (""). Madness! This should all either be standardized to use one method throughout the article (periods seem to be the most-used option, currently) or the various methods should be clearly introduced before they are used (e.g., "Periods can also be used instead of colons"). Since I don't know anything about this field, I don't think I can make the changes myself. But if no one comments in reply to this, I may have to… - dcljr (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that I've found multiple online sources that use Yet Another form, consisting of separate fractions for each tooth type (e.g., "I2/2 C1/1 P2/2 M3/3"). - dcljr (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Correcting notation
I found this in the article: "$(di^2-dc^1-dm^2) / (di_2-dc_1-dm_2) \times 2 =20.$ This can also be written as . Superscript and subscript denote upper and lower jaw, i.e. do not indicate mathematical operations; the numbers are the count of the teeth of each type. The dashes (-) in the formula are likewise not mathematical operators, but spacers" I changed it to this: "$(di^2\text{-}dc^1\text{-}dm^2) / (di_2\text{-}dc_1\text{-}dm_2) \times 2 =20.$ This can also be written as . Superscript and subscript denote upper and lower jaw, i.e. do not indicate mathematical operations; the numbers are the count of the teeth of each type. The dashes (-) in the formula are likewise not mathematical operators, but spacers" Notice that it says "the dashes", and then what it shows in parentheses is a hyphen, not a minus sign. Nonetheless where the formula was displayed, twice, what was shown was a minus sign, not a hyphen.

Contrast the two:

\begin{align} & (di^2-dc^1-dm^2) / (di_2-dc_1-dm_2) \times 2 =20 \\[10pt] & (di^2\text{-}dc^1\text{-}dm^2) / (di_2\text{-}dc_1\text{-}dm_2) \times 2 =20 \end{align} $$ A callous indifference to this distinction is seen appallingly often in Wikipedia articles (but usually it's in non-TeX notation and people use hyphens instead of minus signs, writing, for example 5-3 instead of 5 − 3). Michael Hardy (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

evolution of different animals with dental floss. 102.89.22.227 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)