Abstract
Here, I study whether locomotor adaptations can be detected in limb bones using a univariate approach, and whether those results are affected by size and/or shared evolutionary history. Ultimately, it tests whether classical papers on locomotor adaptations should be trusted. To do that, I analyzed the effect of several factors (size, taxonomic group, and locomotor habit) on limb bone morphology using a set of 43 measurements of the scapula, long bones, and calcaneus, of 435 specimens belonging to 143 carnivoran species. Size was the main factor affecting limb morphology. Size-corrected analyses revealed artifactual differences between various locomotion-related categories in the analyses of raw data. Additionally, several between-group differences were new to the size-corrected analyses, suggesting that they were masked by the size-effect. Phylogeny had also an important effect, although it only became apparent after removing the effect of size, probably due to the strong covariation of both factors. Regarding locomotor adaptations, locomotor type was used to represent locomotor specialization, and utilized habitat as an indicator of the capacity to adopt different modes of locomotion (running, swimming, climbing, and digging) and thus maximize resource exploitation by being capable of navigating all the substrates in the habitat they use. Locomotor type produced better results than utilized habitat, suggesting that carnivorans use locomotor specialization to minimize locomotion costs. The characteristic limb bone morphology for each locomotor type studied is described, including several adaptations and trends that are novel to the present study. Finally, the results presented here support the hypothesis of a "viverrid-like", forest-dwelling carnivoran ancestor, either arboreal or terrestrial.
Highlights
Since the early descriptive studies of H
Regarding the aims of this work, it has been demonstrated that locomotor adaptations in the carnivoran appendicular skeleton can be detected using univariate methods
Since both size and shared evolutionary history have a strong effect on limb bone morphology in Carnivora, I would recommend performing such analyses only after applying some sort of size correction and always using phylogenetically informed comparisons
Summary
Since the early descriptive studies of H. In recent decades, both univariate and scaling approaches have been slowly replaced with multivariate methodologies (e.g., Day & Jayne, 2007; Elissamburu & Vizcaíno, 2004; Meachen, Dunn, & Werdelin, 2016; Meloro, 2011; Meloro, Elton, Louys, Bishop, & Ditchfield, 2013; Samuels, Meachen, & Sakai, 2013; van Valkenburgh, 1987), since the advent of geometric morphometrics in the early 1990s (e.g., Adams, Rohlf, & Slice, 2004; Martín-Serra, Figueirido, & Palmqvist, 2014a, 2014b; Martín-Serra, Figueirido, PérezClaros, & Palmqvist, 2015; Monteiro & Abe, 1999; Morgan, 2009; Schutz & Guralnick, 2007; Taylor & Slice, 2005) These methodologies focus on the study of bone shape as a whole (especially true in the case of geometric morphometrics), which in turn allows a deeper understanding of how bone morphology is related to function and size. If the locomotor adaptations described in those “classic” studies proved to be inaccurate, the locomotor habits of several extinct species could have been misinterpreted
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.