Micro-wear patterns found on the teeth of longextinct specimens of the primate species australopithecine may provide evidence about their diets. For example, on the basis of tooth micro-wear patterns, Walker dismisses Jolly's hypothesis that australopithecines ate hard seeds. He also disputes Szalay's suggestion that the heavy enamel of australopithecine teeth is an adaptation to bone crunching, since both seed cracking and bone crunching produce distinctive micro-wear characteristics on teeth. His conclusion that australopithecines were frugivores (fruit eaters) is based upon his observation that the tooth microwear characteristics of east African australopithecine specimens are indistinguishable from those of chimpanzees and orangutans, which are commonly assumed to be frugivorous primates.
However, research on the diets of contemporary primates suggests that micro-wear studies may have limited utility in determining the foods that are actually eaten. For example, insect eating, which can cause distinct micro-wear patterns, would not cause much tooth abrasion in modern baboons, who eat only soft-bodied insects rather than hard-bodied insects. In addition, the diets of current omnivorous primates vary considerably depending on the environments that different groups within a primate species inhabit; if australopithecines were omnivores too, we might expect to find considerable population variation in their tooth micro-wear patterns. Thus, Walker's description of possible australopithecine diets may need to be expanded to include a much more diverse diet.
According to the passage, Walker and Szalay disagree on which of the following points?
The structure and composition of australopithecine teeth
The kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from the micro-wear patterns on australopithecine teeth
The idea that fruit was a part of the australopithecine diet
The extent to which seed cracking and bone crunching produce similar micro-wear patterns on teeth
The function of the heavy enamel on australopithecine teeth
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
答案是 D. The extent to which seed cracking and bone crunching produce similar micro-wear patterns on teeth。
文中表明,Walker 拒绝了 Jolly 的假设,即南猿食用硬种子,同时他也反驳了 Szalay 的暗示,即南猿牙齿厚重的釉质是为了捣碎骨头的适应性变化,因为种子破碎和骨头啃咬会在牙齿上产生不同的微穿孔痕迹。因此 Walker 对南猿的饮食结论是基于他观察到东非南猿标本的牙齿微穿孔痕迹与黑猩猩和猩猩没有区别,并且这两种灵长类动物被普遍认为是食果动物。所以 D 选项最能体现 Walker 与 Szalay 的分歧,Walker 称种子碎裂和啃咬会产生类似的牙齿微穿孔痕迹,而 Szalay 的暗示则相反。
B其实偷换了概念,原文说的是牙齿上的heavy enamel,B直接替换成了micro-wear patterns
He also disputes Szalay's suggestion that the heavy enamel of australopithecine teeth is an adaption to bone crunching...
把原文看清楚。。。
He also disputes Szalay's suggestion that the heavy enamel of australopithecine teeth is an adaption to bone crunching...
定位到第一段中间,He also disputes Szalay's suggestion that the heavy enamel of australopithecine teeth is an adaptation to bone crunching, since both seed cracking and bone crunching produce distinctive micro-wear characteristics on teeth. 读懂大概意思很重要,即使不知道里面的词汇。大意为M不同意S的观点,Au牙上的什么东西是因为弄骨头的进化,因为种子和骨头会产生不同的特征。题目问的disagree,内容说的是他俩对那个牙上的什么东西有不同观点。所以选E