Body Size and Scaling of Long Bone Geometry, Bone Strength, and Positional Behavior in Cercopithecoid Primates

Jungers, William L.; Burr, David B.; Cole, Maria S.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0092-0_17

Cited by 37 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Cercopithecidae family, Jungers et al [17] compared the osteometrical measurements and the cross-sectional geometry of the limb bones of colobines and cercopithecines. They found that the cercopithecines were larger than the colobines in many cross-sectional parameters at the mid-length of the humerus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Folia Primatol 2003;74: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Next, the principal component analysis (PCA) from the correlation matrix demonstrated the general tendency of the composites of parameters. Parameters were divided by an analogue of body mass [6,10].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Folia Primatol 2003;74: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] paper [10], the limb bone characteristics in the external osteometry were discussed in relation to locomotor behaviour and functional differentiation. Though the crosssectional parameters in primates were also examined as a preliminary, the number of samples for the cross-sectional geometry in the previous paper was 33, which is not enough to discuss the robustness among many locomotor types of primates, clearly.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Differentiation between Fore- and Hindlimb Bones and Locomotor Behaviour in Primates

Kimura¹

2003

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primate appendicular limb bones were measured on the cross-sectional geometry at the mid-length of the humerus and femur and on the external dimensions of long bones of the same individuals. Cross sections were directly measured by means of computer tomography or direct sectioning. The morphometry of bones and locomotor behaviour is discussed from the viewpoint of the functional differentiation between the fore- and hindlimbs. The primate group which daily adopted a relatively terrestrial locomotor type demonstrates robust forelimb bones compared with the group which adopted a fully arboreal locomotor type. In contrast, the arboreal group showed relatively large and long hindlimb bones. The difference resembled the previously reported comparison between terrestrial and arboreal groups among wholly quadrupedal mammals. Humans were more similar to the arboreal group than to the terrestrial group. Parameters of the cross-sectional geometry showed a slightly positive allometry in total primate species. Slopes of the parameters were explained by the influence of muscle force.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differentiation between Fore- and Hindlimb Bones and Locomotor Behaviour in Primates

Kimura¹

2003

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Human (Stock and Pfeiffer, 2001;Weiss, 2003) and non-human primates (Walker, 1974;Bello-Hellegouarch et al, 2012) load their upper and lower limbs in a variety of ways during locomotion, which in turn, influences mobility and limb bone morphology differently than other mammals (Raichlen, 2006;Patel et al, 2013;Ruff et al, 2013). Some examples include increased measures of long bone length and robusticity, a relative lack of diaphyseal curvature compared to more mobile terrestrial mammals, longer strides in conjunction with a lower stride frequency, and larger distal limb segments necessary for manipulation of the hands and feet (Alexander and Maloiy, 1984;Swartz, 1990;Kimura, 1991;Polk et al, 1997;Jungers et al, 1998;Yamanaka et al, 2005;Drapeau and Streeter, 2006;Macintosh et al, 2015). Despite bearing relatively greater mass distally compared to cursorial specialists, both the upper and lower limbs of the athletic loading groups considered in this study displayed greater geometric differences from one another at midshaft and more proximal segments of their limbs than those distally.…”

Section: Limb Optimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenotypic plasticity and constraint along the upper and lower limb diaphyses of Homo sapiens

Nadell

Shaw

2015

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

show abstract

“…Cross-sectional geometric properties, as one means of quantifying in vivo adjustment, are frequently used in functional comparisons of human and non-human primate postcrania (Burr et al, 1982(Burr et al, , 1989Carlson, 2002Carlson, , 2005 Carlson et al, 2006, in press; Jungers, 1989, 1993;Demes et al, 1991;Jungers et al, 1998, Ohman, 1993Polk et al, 2000;Ruff, 1987Ruff, , 1989Ruff, , 2002Ruff and Runestad, 1992;Schaffler et al, 1985;Stock and Pfeiffer, 2001;Sumner and Andriacchi, 1996;Sumner et al, 1989; Terranova, 1995a, b;Yamanaka et al, 2005). Efforts to quantify bone deformation during quadrupedal locomotion indicate the importance of using caution when inferring locomotor performance from crosssectional properties alone (Demes et al, 1998(Demes et al, , 2001Lieberman et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primate Locomotion

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural characteristics of limbs bones provide insight into how an animal dynamically loads its limbs during life. Cause-and-effect relationships between loading and the osteogenic response it elicits are complex. In spite of such complexities, cross-sectional geometric properties can be useful indicators of locomotor repertoires. Typical comparisons use primates that are distinguished by broad habitual locomotor differences, usually with samples garnered from several museum collections. Intraspecific variability is difficult to investigate in such samples because behavior or life histories, which are tools for interpreting intraspecific variability, are limited. Clearly intraspecific variation both in morphology and behavior/life history exists. Here we expand an ongoing effort towards understanding intraspecific variation Keywords: cross-sectional geometry, functional morphology, Pan troglodytes, locomotor behavior 2 Functional morphologists rely on comparative approaches as well as experimental techniques in the laboratory (i.e., kinetics, kinematics, electromyography, strain analysis) in order to understand form-function relationships in the postcranium of animals. Shared or unique components of activity patterns provide a framework against which morphological commonalities or differences are evaluated. Often times, comparative studies construct samples from specimens of museum collections (Green et al., 2007;Haeusler and McHenry, 2007;Marchi, 2007;Ruff, 2002Ruff, , 2008. While museum specimens may be numerous and accessibletwo criteria necessary for amassing large samples that rigorous statistical analyses favor -they also necessitate a seldom-appreciated tradeoff, namely, that while behavior and life history may vary among group individuals, this variation must be ignored in order to compare groups.Clearly, however, individuals within populations can vary substantially in behavioral or life history variables (Goodall, 1986;Hunt, 1992), which may in turn contribute to intragroup variability in morphological characteristics and reproductive fitness.Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) offer a unique opportunity among animals to address functional morphology questions. Observational studies of free-ranging chimpanzee communities provide a detailed portrait of individual life histories (Boesch and BoeschAchermann, 2000;Goodall, 1986; Morbeck, 1999; Nishida, 1990; Morbeck et al., 2002).Studies encompassing the last 45 years at several locations [i.e., Gombe Stream National Reserve (Tanzania), Kibale National Park (Uganda), Mahale Mountains National Park (Tanzania), and Taï Forest National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)] document activity profiles of female and male chimpanzees of all ages in all sorts of situations or settings. Skeletal collections have slowly accumulated in the same communities, and thus frequently, individual specimens can be associated with contextual information, e.g., life history, activity, and habitat data. Such a 3 sample is ideal for investigating form-function relationships in the primate p...

show abstract

Body Size and Scaling of Long Bone Geometry, Bone Strength, and Positional Behavior in Cercopithecoid Primates

Cited by 37 publications

References 67 publications

Differentiation between Fore- and Hindlimb Bones and Locomotor Behaviour in Primates

Differentiation between Fore- and Hindlimb Bones and Locomotor Behaviour in Primates

Phenotypic plasticity and constraint along the upper and lower limb diaphyses of Homo sapiens

Primate Locomotion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About