Western gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) are known to climb significantly more often than eastern gorillas (Gorilla beringei), a behavioral distinction attributable to major differences in their respective habitats (i.e., highland vs. lowland). Genetic evidence suggests that the lineages leading to these taxa began diverging from one another between approximately 1 and 3 million years ago. Thus, gorillas offer a special opportunity to examine the degree to which morphology of recently diverged taxa may be "fine-tuned" to differing ecological requirements. Using three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics, we compared talar morphology in a sample of 87 specimens including western (lowland), mountain (highland), and grauer gorillas (lowland and highland populations). Talar shape was captured with a series of landmarks and semilandmarks superimposed by generalized Procrustes analysis. A between-group principal components analysis of overall talar shape separates gorillas by ecological habitat and by taxon. An analysis of only the trochlea and lateral malleolar facet identifies subtle variations in trochlear shape between western lowland and lowland grauer gorillas, potentially indicative of convergent evolution of arboreal adaptations in the talus. Lastly, talar shape scales differently with centroid size for highland and lowland gorillas, suggesting that ankle morphology may track bodysize mediated variation in arboreal behaviors differently depending on ecological setting. Several of the observed shape differences are linked biomechanically to the facilitation of climbing in lowland gorillas and to stability and load-bearing on terrestrial substrates in the highland taxa, providing an important comparative model for studying morphological variation in groups known only from fossils (e.g., early hominins). Anat Rec, 298:277-290, 2015. V C 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

No abstract

ObjectivesBonobos and chimpanzees do not differ from one another in overall frequencies of arboreality versus terrestriality as much as once thought. Thus, at a broad level, one would predict that there is little difference in foot morphology among Pan taxa. However, behavioral data suggest that bonobos more often use smaller diameter substrates (<10 cm) when climbing whereas western chimpanzees frequently climb larger diameter (>15 cm) substrates. This study tests the hypothesis that if Pan medial cuneiform and talus morphology reflects these substrate preferences, then the morphology of these bones should favor hallucial grasping in bonobos and an inverted foot set in western chimpanzees.Materials and MethodsThree‐dimensional geometric morphometric (3DGM) methods were used to explore shape variation in 126 talus and 127 medial cuneiform 3D surface models acquired from 108 chimpanzees (24 western, four Nigeria‐Cameroon, 33 central, 32 eastern, and 15 captive unknowns) and 22 bonobosResultsThe shapes of the talus and medial cuneiform in Pan covary as a functional unit emphasizing hallucial grasping with a less inverted foot set in bonobos and a more inverted foot set with a less abducted hallucial set in western chimpanzees. Other chimpanzee subspecies fall between these two extremes.DiscussionBonobo and western chimpanzee medial cuneiform and talus shapes are consistent with their differing preferences for using smaller and larger diameter substrates, respectively, when vertically climbing. These results suggest that even among closely related taxa, foot, hand, and other postcranial anatomy may be fine‐tuned for specific locomotor behaviors or preferences.

Structured Abstract Objectives To assess the potential of predicting adult facial types at different stages of mandibular development. Setting and Sample Population A total of 941 participants from the Bolton‐Brush, Denver, Fels, Iowa, Michigan and Oregon growth studies with longitudinal lateral cephalograms (total of 7166) between ages 6‐21 years. Material and Methods Each participant was placed into one of three facial types based on mandibular plane angle (MPA) from cephalograms taken closest to 18 years of age (range of 15‐21 years): hypo‐divergent (MPA < 28°), normo‐divergent (28°≤ MPA ≤ 39°) and hyper‐divergent (MPA > 39°). Cephalograms were categorized into 13 age groups 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18‐21. Twenty‐three two‐dimensional anatomical landmarks were digitized on the mandible and superimposed using generalized Procrustes analysis, which projects landmarks into a common shape space. Data were analysed within age categories using stepwise discriminant analysis to identify landmarks that distinguish adult facial types and by jackknife cross‐validation to test how well young individuals can be reclassified into their adult facial types. Results Although each category has multiple best discriminating landmarks among adult types, three landmarks were common across nearly all age categories: menton, gonion and articulare. Individuals were correctly classified better than chance, even among the youngest age category. Cross‐validation rates improved with age, and hyper‐ and hypo‐divergent groups have better reclassification rates than the normo‐divergent group. Conclusions The discovery of important indicators of adult facial type in the developing mandible helps improve our capacity to predict adult facial types at a younger age.

Early in the 20th century, a series of studies were initiated across North America to investigate and characterize childhood growth. The Craniofacial Growth Consortium Study (CGCS) combines craniofacial records from six of those growth studies (15,407 lateral cephalograms from 1,913 individuals; 956 females, 957 males, primarily European descent). Standard cephalometric points collected from the six studies in the CGCS allows direct comparison of craniofacial growth patterns across six North American locations. Three assessors collected all cephalometric points and the coordinates were averaged for each point. Twelve measures were calculated from the averaged coordinates. We implemented a multilevel double logistic equation to estimate growth trajectories fitting each trait separately by sex. Using Bayesian inference, we fit three models for each trait with different random effects structures to compare differences in growth patterns among studies. The models successfully identified important growth milestones (e.g., age at peak growth velocity, age at cessation of growth) for most traits. In a small number of cases, these milestones could not be determined due to truncated age ranges for some studies and slow, steady growth in some measurements. Results demonstrate great similarity among the six growth studies regarding craniofacial growth milestone estimates and the overall shape of the growth curve. These similarities suggest minor variation among studies resulting from differences in protocol, sample, or possible geographic variation. The analyses presented support combining the studies into the CGCS without substantial concerns of bias. The CGCS, therefore, provides an unparalleled opportunity to examine craniofacial growth from childhood into adulthood.