Did Triadobatrachus Jump? Morphology and Evolution of the Anuran Forelimb in Relation to Locomotion in Early Salientians

Sigurdsen, Trond; Green, David M.; Bishop, Phillip J.

doi:10.3158/2158-5520-5.1.77

Cited by 16 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Triadobatrachu s is believed to have inhabited riparian forests or woodlands in or near floodplains, a suitable environment for a walker/hopper (Sigurdsen et al., ; Lires et al., ; Ascarrunz et al., ). Many additional distinct anatomical features involved in the locomotion of modern anurans appear by the Early Jurassic, as found in Prosalirus bitis (Shubin and Jenkins, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The medial rotation of the manus has been associated with this landing position (Figs. and ) for it helps orient the hands medially to receive the reaction forces (Jenkins and Shubin, ; Essner et al., ; Sigurdsen et al., ). Basal anurans are aquatic or lack a medial rotated manus and land on their belly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are anuran features, though not as fully developed in T. massinoti as they are in living anurans. Sigurdsen et al (2012) focused on the anatomical features of the T. massinoti forelimbs noting that its short humerus is shared with extant anurans where it facilitates both the take-off and landing phases of a jumping.…”

Section: Limb Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Locomotion for anurans always involves all four limbs; thus they are all quadrupeds. In most anurans, long hind limbs allow jumping and the forelimbs are well organized for landing (Emerson, ; Jenkins and Shubin, ; Sigurdsen et al., ). In addition to the three main types of locomotion—walking, jumping, and swimming (Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Morphological Variation in Anuran Limbs: Constraints and Novelties

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anurans have three primary types of locomotion: walking, jumping, and swimming. Additionally, they may dig, climb, grasp, etc. All adult anurans have four limbs, with four fingers on the hands and five toes on the feet. We summarized and updated knowledge on the interspecific variation within anuran limbs, then discuss how developmental constraints (e.g., in size) and novelties may have influenced anuran diversification through the locomotion. We analyze morphological variation from limb bud stages up to the final limb form resulting from certain skeletal organization and growth. We find limited morphometric variations in the skeleton of different developmental modules (i.e., skull, trunk, urostyle, limbs) indicate that the anuran body shape is largely constrained. We identify specializations of the stylopodium, zeugopodium, and proximal carpals/tarsals that have evolved to facilitiate saltatorial locomotion. We show that the anuran prepollex and prehallux are not vestigial digits and that they have come to serve specialized function. Medial rotation of the manus in anurans appears to have evolved to help distribute the force of impact upon landing at the end of a jump. Additional skeletal elements in anuran limbs are intercalary elements and sesamoids. The intercalary elements appear within neobatrachians and are integrated with digital pads in lineages capable of locomotion on smooth vertical surfaces. They have allowed arboreal anurans to occupy a wide range of arboreal habitats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limb Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Morphological Variation in Anuran Limbs: Constraints and Novelties

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frogs are characterized by a shortened trunk and tail, elongated ilia and elongated hind limbs. This morphology has been interpreted as being associated with a jumping life style and thus it has been suggested that jumping evolved early in the evolution of the lineage (Gans and Parsons, 1966;Shubin and Jenkins, 1995; Jenkins and Shubin, 1998) and many recent studies have attempted to infer locomotion in basal frogs (Prikryl et al, 2009; Essner et al, 2010;Reilly and Jorgensen, 2011;Sigurdsen et al, 2012;Venczel and Szentesi, 2012; Jorgensen and Reilly, 2013). However, kinematic and electromyographic studies indicate strong similarities between the mechanics of swimming and jumping in some frogs (Emerson and De Jongh, 1980;Peters et al, 1996; but see Nauwelaerts and Aerts, 2003), implying that morphological features associated with these two locomotor modes may not be that different.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do all frogs swim alike? The effect of ecological specialization on swimming kinematics in frogs

Robovska-Havelkova

Aerts

Roĉek³

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frog locomotion has attracted wide scientific interest because of the unusual and derived morphology of the frog pelvic girdle and hind limb. Previous authors have suggested that the design of the frog locomotor system evolved towards a specialized jumping morphology early in the radiation of the group. However, data on locomotion in frogs are biased towards a few groups and most of the ecological and functional diversity remains unexplored. Here, we examine the kinematics of swimming in eight species of frog with different ecologies. We use cineradiography to quantify movements of skeletal elements from the entire appendicular skeleton. Our results show that species with different ecologies do differ in the kinematics of swimming, with the speed of limb extension and especially the kinematics of the midfoot being different. Our results moreover suggest that this is not a phylogenetic effect because species from different clades with similar ecologies converge on the same swimming kinematics. We conclude that it is important to analyze frog locomotion in a broader ecological and evolutionary context if one is to understand the evolutionary origins of this behavior. KEY WORDS: Anura, Kinematics, Locomotion, Swimming INTRODUCTIONFrog locomotion has attracted wide scientific interest because of the unusual and highly derived morphology of these animals (Barclay, 1946; Estes and Reig, 1973;Zug, 1978; Frost et al., 2006). Frogs are characterized by a shortened trunk and tail, elongated ilia and elongated hind limbs. This morphology has been interpreted as being associated with a jumping life style and thus it has been suggested that jumping evolved early in the evolution of the lineage (Gans and Parsons, 1966;Shubin and Jenkins, 1995; Jenkins and Shubin, 1998) and many recent studies have attempted to infer locomotion in basal frogs (Prikryl et al., 2009; Essner et al., 2010;Reilly and Jorgensen, 2011;Sigurdsen et al., 2012;Venczel and Szentesi, 2012; Jorgensen and Reilly, 2013). However, kinematic and electromyographic studies indicate strong similarities between the mechanics of swimming and jumping in some frogs (Emerson and De Jongh, 1980;Peters et al., 1996; but see Nauwelaerts and Aerts, 2003), implying that morphological features associated with these two locomotor modes may not be that different. This may, in turn, complicate inferences of locomotor modes from anatomy as is often done for extinct animals. Despite their rather uniform morphology, frogs are an ecologically diverse and speciose group with over 5000 known species (Frost et al., 2006). Moreover, animals with different ecologies have evolved different morphologies and show different levels of locomotor performance (Moen et al., 2013), suggesting that locomotion differs in animals with different ecologies. RESEARCH ARTICLETo date, most of our knowledge on frog locomotion is based on data for a limited set of derived frogs including ranoids [mostly ranids and bufonids (Calow and Alexander, 1973; Lutz and Rome, 1994;Kamel et al., 1996;Pet...

show abstract

Anuran Locomotion: Ontogeny and Morphological Variation of a Distinctive Set of Muscles

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adult morphological variation of muscles originating on the iliac shaft (M. iliacus externus, M. internus, and tensor fasciae latae) and vertebrae (M. longissimus dorsi, M. coccygeosacralis, and M. coccygeoiliacus) that are involved in postmetamorphic anuran locomotion was recorded in 41 neobatrachians and coded in 13 more based on the literature, for a total of 54 anuran species. In addition, we explored the spatial and temporal sequences in the ontogeny of these set of muscles from larval series of 19 neobatrachians whose adults differ in locomotion and lifestyle. Our findings suggest that: (1) jumping, swimming, and/or walking are capabilities that could have been achieved from novelties of limbs and protractor muscles of the femur rather than from changes in the axial musculoskeletal system; (2) the initial ontogenetic phase of the locomotion comprises the capability to escape, when the tail is still present; (3) the secondary phase of locomotion comprises changes in the axial skeleton and muscles integrated to the pelvis and might develop simultaneously with the new feeding mechanism of the recently metamorphosed frog.

show abstract

Did Triadobatrachus Jump? Morphology and Evolution of the Anuran Forelimb in Relation to Locomotion in Early Salientians

Cited by 16 publications

References 33 publications

Morphological Variation in Anuran Limbs: Constraints and Novelties

Morphological Variation in Anuran Limbs: Constraints and Novelties

Do all frogs swim alike? The effect of ecological specialization on swimming kinematics in frogs

Anuran Locomotion: Ontogeny and Morphological Variation of a Distinctive Set of Muscles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About