Testing the inhibitory cascade model in Mesozoic and Cenozoic mammaliaforms

“…The difference between cristae and links is a matter of degree, both in terms of evolutionary trends within a population over time and the morphological progression within the dental series, consequent of the ontogenetic inhibitory cascade expression in any individual (Kavanagh et al, 2007;Halliday and Goswami, 2013). The condition and relative wear of the dentition also alters the perception of the morphology and it is clearly seen to influence the descriptions and interpretation of the same features.…”

“…This model explains the relative size of mandibular molars by a balance of inhibitor and activator substances, and predicts evolutionary patterns in the dentition. The model has been tested from both paleontological [51,52] and comparative anatomical [53] perspectives.…”

“…The concept was soon applied to other tripartite skeletal phenotypes (13). However, the extent of the predictive power of the IC for taxa with less similar (14) and more heterodont (15)(16)(17)(18) dentitions suggests that either the IC mechanism does not characterize these other organisms' dental patterning as specifically or the characterization of the mechanistic output (the phenotype) is not accurately assessed. Despite empirical evidence for how primate dental patterning differs from dental patterning of the mouse (19,20), proponents of the mouse model continue to adhere tightly to it.…”