Talk:Canine tooth

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dentistry High‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I changed the text to say "Most species that develop them normally have four per individual...". I can't be sure from what i found whether there are any 2-, 6- or 8-canine species.

Hard to tell from Google; abstr of "Phylogeny, form and function of canine teeth in the horse" was hit 36 searching

"Canine teeth" or "Canine tooth"

(note the accidental & ineffective lower-case "or"!), and the first hit not about humans, house pets, or the giant ground sloth. With [cattle] it seems to be an arbitrary choice of terminology! But with [[http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/weirdwhitetails/wt_ww1201vampire/ whitetail deer, a few individuals occasionally have canines where most have nothing.

There are certainly 2-canine species (most deer, for example). There are no living species with more than four canines, however. Anaxial 10:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eucynodontia suggests that differention of teeth came between reptiles and mammals, but there were also dinosaurs with canines.

Plenty of work to do here!

--Jerzy (t) 22:23, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

These are also called cuspids — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Eyeteeth" - perhaps descriptive?

As seen here, the unerupted permanent "eye teeth" literally appear to be closer to the eye than the others. Is it possible the term reflects simple observation of skulls? I can't put an unverified speculation into the article, but I am skeptical that the term "eye teeth" is purely based on superstition. Mike Serfas 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OED and the three dictionaries at [1] that give etymologies all just say it's because it's the tooth under the eye, which seems straightforward enough. The superstition thing sounds like the usual fake-etymology crap to me, I'm deleting it until someone can come up with a cite (from a scholarly source). Unfortunately this leaves the Pubmed references you added with no place to go in the article (unless you think these rare cases are worth mentioning on their own?). DopefishJustin 08:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bicuspid & Tricuspid valves in the heart?

"Cuspid" redirects here. I searched for "cuspid" trying to find out what the bicuspid and tricuspid heart valves referred to. Should there be a disambiguation page? Thanks. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 05:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, because I don't know much about this topic - I only watch this article in case of vandalism. However I've added a note about where to find information on the heart valves. Graham87 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I edited the link to "Mitral valve" to say "Bicuspid valve". "Bicuspid valve" redirects to "Mitral Valve" anyway, but calling it the "Bicuspid valve" makes it clear how that link relates to this page. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 00:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep roots

According to the article, "their roots sink deeply into the bones." Is that why maxillary canines can easily evolve into horns on many ruminants?Lestrade (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Narwhals

I've commented out a sentence about narwhals, which seems out of place in an article that begins with "In mammalian oral anatomy". It probably should be either rewritten and moved to the "In non-mammals" section or deleted altogether. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But narwhals ARE mammals. Speaking of narwhals: The caption of the image on the left claims that walruses have the longest canines at 1 meter. Should that title not go to the narwhals, whose tusk can reach up to 3 meters? Or are they not counted because only the males have tusks and typically only one? 194.191.244.215 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me? Technically, it is a canine tooth, but I think people often forget that whales, dolphins, and many other sea creatures are in fact mammals because they more resemble fish, so to many RS's it probably never crossed their minds. The miracle of evolution, because it's not random but animals evolve based on their environmental needs. All these sea-dwelling mammals evolved from animals that once walked on land. Seals came from a dog-like ancestor. Whales, ironically enough, evolved from an ancestor of the horse, which have canine teeth themselves (an unusual trait among most ungulates; maybe there's some Jungian archetype in the biblical stories of the unicorn?). I suppose all we need is a good RS to add it to the article, but then again I don't know if it really adds anything other than some trivia. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]