
Juan Cisneros
An illustration by Brazilian paleontologist Juan Carlos Cisneros depicts the mammal-like creature known as Tiarajudens eccentricus displaying its teeth to scare off a carnivorous dinocephalian.
Back in 260 million B.C., the mammal-like creature known as Tiarajudens eccentricus looked as fearsome as any predator —possessing rows of teeth that went all the way back into its palate, with two saber teeth sticking out in the front. But paleontologists say this dog-sized monster lived on a strictly vegetarian diet. So why did it have all those menacing choppers?
In this week's issue of the journal Science, researchers from Brazil and South Africa examine the strange case of Tiarajudens, a newly identified type of distant mammalian relative known as a therapsid, and they go on to suggest possible solutions to the dental dilemma.
First, about those saber teeth: Although they weren't used for spearing prey, they could have been brandished to keep predators away. Or perhaps the teeth helped chop up the Paleozoic salad fixings before Tiarajudens chewed it up.

Juan Cisneros
A reconstruction shows the head of Tiarajudens eccentricus.
Another possibility is that the teeth were actually used by one male against another in the competition for mates. The researchers noted that musk deer use their own saber teeth for just that purpose. Other types of Paleozoic animals, such as dinocephalians, apparently butted heads to fight over mates. Tiarajudens' teeth may have enabled an alternate form of ritualized combat.
"Some other Paleozoic animals also had enlarged canines, but they were all carnivores. This is the first case of a saber-toothed herbivore at that time," research team leader Juan Carlos Cisneros, a paleontologist at Brazil's Federal University of Piaui, told me in an email. "Other herbivores with long canines appeared much later in the Cenozoic, including fossil deer. ... Some researchers have proposed that these fossil deer (which did not possess antlers) used their canines for male-male combat, like modern saber-toothed deer do."
Cisneros said he and his colleagues from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul found the Tiarajudens skull in March 2009 during a field campaign in southern Brazil. During the two years that followed, the research team cleaned the fossilized pieces, glued them together and analyzed how they were put together. The creature's name comes from "Tiaraju," the place in Brazil where the fossil was found; "dens," the Latin word for teeth; and "eccentricus" ... well, you can figure that one out yourself.
In addition to the saber teeth, the bunches of teeth in the palate make Tiarajudens eccentricus "extremely unusual," Cisneros told me.
"I would compare it with modern mammals, which have one row of enlarged teeth for mastication — except that no mammal has teeth in the palate, but the animal is so bizarre that no comparison is perfect!" he said.
Why so many teeth? "Tiarajudens, as far as we know, was the earliest therapsid capable of actual chewing," Cisneros said. "Its teeth are an answer to make possible the digestion of abundant but poorly nutritious food (fiber plants)."
Those molars in the palate provided extra chewing power, plus replacements as the teeth wore down.
Present-day ruminants, such as cows and sheep, also have to do a lot of chewing to digest their similarly high-cellulose fare. In fact, they've developed a complex set of stomach compartments to break down their food for multiple chewings. There's no sign that Tiarajudens had a similar digestive system, however.
Did Tiarajudens pass down any of its dazzling dentition to present-day species? Almost certainly not. "They are dead ends," Cisneros said. But the saber teeth and long rows of molars show how some of the same solutions arise over and over again in the course of evolution.

Juan Cisneros
A fossil from southern Brazil shows the skull of Tiarajudens eccentricus, including the remains of its saber teeth and palatal teeth.
"Both the saber teeth and the enlarged molar-like teeth in the palate represent convergence with other similar animals," Cisneros said. "These traits appeared and disappeared many times in therapsids."
The discovery by Cisneros and his colleagues "provides novel insights into early tooth differentiation" among therapsids, as well as the evolution of plant-eating "and its accompanying complex social interactions," Jörg Fröbisch, a paleontologist at the Humboldt Museum in Berlin, wrote in a Science commentary.
Therapsids have often been called "mammal-like reptiles," but Fröbisch told me that term isn't quite correct. "These animals are more closely related to mammals than to reptiles," he said. So maybe we have more in common with the toothsome Tiarajudens than we might think.
In addition to Cisneros, the authors of "Dental Occlusion in a 260-Million-Year-Old Therapsid With Saber Canines From the Permian of Brazil" include Fernando Abdala, Bruce S. Rubidge, Paula Camboim Dentzien-Dias and Ana de Oliveira Bueno.
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."


whaaa??! where are it's feathers? :P
Oh, Randi, you sexy thing, you. It took its feathers off for you!
I knew that my sexiness was what caused the misconception that all ancient reptilian and mammalian like creatures had no feather!
A Dentist's dream come true! ;-D
I never cease to be amazed by nature's diverse adaptations of her creatures throughout Earth's history. It seems that she has tried every configuration and specialization in living things in an attempt to get things perfect, and still and always she will do so. Regards
I'd like to see more of the animals skeletal features. Obviously that might not exist, but one possibility they didn't touch on is the teeth could have been used to dig. If it's feet weren't the type useful for digging, the teeth might have been useful to get at roots. I know this isn't the likeliest answer, but it would be something to investigate. With enough tooth samples, you would have to find evidence of digging on the teeth from instances where a tooth scraped against a rock in the soil. It would leave a mark and suggest a function.
Yes, that was my thought, too. These saber tooth canines were probably used to dig up roots. There is much more energy in root systems than in the above ground vegetation, since this is how plants store up energy to carry them through the winter to the next year. This probably also helped the plants to reproduce, too, by plowing the ground. Good thinking.- RC
That's assuming the climate of the time had winter.
My guess is it used those teeth to dig up roots and rhizomes which would be more succulent than above ground forage.
Tiarajudens is such a weird looking and cool creature! (or rather, it was) Awesome article!
Many herbivores have developed elongated teeth. This is a very cool early example.
How is this so different than a walrus?...
Walruses use their tusks for harvesting molluscs, as well as for fighting and for show as secondary uses. Maybe primary, for the fighting.
saying this thing is a plant eater is like saying the higgs boson is trapezoidal in shape....pure fantasy
Why do you say that?
..........because conjecture about the past is based on almost no dead evidence and of living evidence and true observations none at all....conjecture about the past is entirely based on parallelisms with today's animals, however oftentimes the parallelism is entirely wrong and merely the result of habits and wishful thinking........who for example upon finding only the fossilized bill shaped toothless beak of a platypus and nothing else at some time in the future could ever imagine that it was a furred waterdwelling egg laying mammal and not simply a large waterfowl like a duck
Interesting thoughts. Thank you for responding civilly. Too many people on Newsvine seem to think a request for clarification is an attack.
I just read the original article in Science. This animal belongs to a group of extinct herbivorous animals (the anomodonts) and has leaf-shaped incisors (similar to teeth found in herbivorous dinosaurs and living iguanas) along with unique molar-like teeth, so the assumption of herbivory seems reasonable. Only the skull was described in this paper, (the post-cranial skeleton has not been prepared and described yet), but unless the remains of a lizard are found in the fossil's stomach area, I'm fine calling it an herbivore.
So the real question is: why didn't Noah take two of these on the ark? LOL
I just love the trolls that have nothing intelligent to contribute so they bash religion instead.
Are you that insecure in your convictions that you have to turn into a third rate internet troll?
east coast, are you that insecure in your faith that you have to respond to a snarky comment pointing out the implausibility of one of the stories in the Bible and resort to calling the person who posted it names?
east coast,
Don't get angry because WeirdMN posted a very plausible question. If religion IS mans history...it's a question that should be asked and answered.
What....aren't you curious why no dinosaurs ended up on the "ARK"?
The evolutionary line that includes mammals evolved jaws and teeth to grind and process food. The evolutionary line which includes crocodilians, birds, and dinosaurs used their stomachs to process food by evolving a muscular portion (gizzard) with which to use rocks to grind food. There was no grass or flowering plants back in the Permian, but there were other high fiber plants which would have required a lot of chewing. The long canines could have been primarily used for sexual battles by males or digging up roots (like pigs). Secondarily, they would have been dangerous defensive weapons. In any case they are not reptiles or mammals in the modern sense.
Is there anything special about the region in Brazil where these fossils were found that help prove the vegetarian theory? I would love more background on theories of why they are vegetarian.
The teeth tell all. Carnivores don't have grinders.
They found it wearing a "Meat is Murder!" t-shirt. ;o)
cool, no purple feathers...good artist. Vegan reptile? ok, but still a lot of maybees...I like dt's theory above that root rooting was an option...maybe animals grew long teeth by selection, either attractive or just an advantage over the dating competition..maybe...how many other species in that environement had teeth like that or close?...it does seem logical that selective emulation was at play..maybe...I always wondered why elephants and mastadons had tusks...apparently it did have an evolutionary advantage...and rhinos too....what sort of selection would favour a rihno's horn?...the obvious seems apparent, but cows still have horns should they not start to get smaller since they are no longer needed?...maybe...in the meantime, we are due to lose our little toes in about 10,000 years thanks to evolution...or so one of my high school bio teachers said back in the seventies...still, maybe..maybe not. That is my point. But for sure, this fossil had long teeth. Why is a very good educated guess. I hope the scientist finds more. His work is intruiging. And I would personally like to thank him for not trying to see feathers in the mud, expexially purple ones...haha.....
Feathers evolved in the dinosaurs which were Archosaurs. Hair evolved in the therapsids. The therapsids gave rise to mammals. The animal in question could not have had feathers because it was not in the group (dinosaurs) that evolved feathers.
Living species lose or gain features based on whether they affect successful reproduction. Those that are most "fit" reproduce. Those individuals that are less "fit" have fewer or no offspring. There does not appear to be any trend in human's feet over the last 100,000 years. There is no apparent advantage to not having little toes.
In 200 million years, when someone or thing finds our bones, I wonder what they will think of us? We know so little about these ancient creatures, and we assume and presume uses for the dentition, like that mentioned in this article. Some have mentioned other features like feathers and various body parts. What will our future finders think of buttons, zippers, dental fillings and the like? Will we be considered puny or gigantic? Our whole existence will be measured next to our finders' reality. It would be very interesting to hear the results of their surmises.
Zapper, you are assuming the first human skull they find has any teeth. What if the skull is from Appalachia? ;-)
what if it ate roots and things and used the saber teeth to dig for them, as well as defense similar to today's wild pigs?
This guy may have grinders, but he also has a nice set of protruding teeth in his front lower jaw that would give him leverage, while using those saber's. I can imagine three or four of these guys hanging down the front of a giraffe like so many saber tooth tigers. ..Bobby p.s. cant tell if his vision is carnivorous.
......the creature could easily be an opportunistic omnivore....and given the vagaries of the modern digital world the whole entire thing is as likely to be a HOAX as anything else