Lateral sequence walking in infant Papio cynocephalus: Implications for the evolution of diagonal sequence walking in primates

Abstract

One of the most distinctive aspects of primate quadrupedal walking is the use of diagonal sequence footfalls in combination with diagonal-couplets interlimb timing. Numerous hypotheses have been offered to explain why primates might have evolved this type of gait, yet this important question remains unresolved. Because infant primates use a wider variety of quadrupedal gaits than do adults, they provide a natural experiment with which to test hypotheses about the evolution of unique aspects of primate quadrupedalism. In this study, we present kinematic data on two infant baboons (Papio cynocephalus) in order to test the recent hypothesis that diagonal sequence, diagonal couplets walking might have evolved in primates because their limb positioning provides stability in a small branch environment (Cartmill et al. [2002] Zool J Linn Soc 136:401-420). To assess hindlimb position at the moment of forelimb touchdown, we measured hindlimb angular excursion and ankle position for 84 walking strides, across three different types of gaits (diagonal sequence, diagonal couplets (DSDC); lateral sequence lateral couplets (LSLC); and lateral sequence diagonal couplets (LSDC)). Results indicate that if a forelimb were to contact an unstable substrate, LSLC walking provides as much, and perhaps more, stability when compared to DSDC walking. Therefore, it appears that this moment in a stride was unlikely to be a particularly important selective factor in the evolution of DSDC walking. Further insight into this issue will likely be gained by observations of primate quadrupedalism in natural environments, where the use of lateral sequence gaits might be more common than currently known.

Interlimb Coordination in Human Crawling Reveals Similarities in Development and Neural Control With Quadrupeds

“…The most notable exception is nonhuman primates, which usually use diagonal sequence gaits (Hildebrand 1967(Hildebrand , 1976Vilensky and Larson 1989). The reason for this difference between nonhuman primates and other quadrupeds remains controversial (Cartmill et al 2007;Demes et al 1994;Kimura et al 1979;Larson et al 2000;Shapiro and Raichlen 2005;Vilensky and Larson 1989) and is beyond the scope of this study. Ipsilateral phase lag (vertical axis) for individual cycles was plotted for sample sequences during which there was a change in ipsilateral phasing by Ն10%.…”

Forelimb proportions and kinematics: how are small primates different from other small mammals?

“…Combined with a diagonal footfall pattern -hindlimb contact prior to contralateral forelimb contact (Hildebrand, 1967) -this enables the hindlimbs to carry most of the body weight at the moment of forelimb touchdown (Reynolds, 1985;Cartmill et al, 2002). Although the diagonal footfall pattern is less advantageous in terms of the static stability of locomotion relating the support polygon of the limbs to the location of the centre of body mass (Gray, 1944;Tomita, 1967;Shapiro and Raichlen, 2005;Wallace and Demes, 2007), it is superior to the lateral footfall pattern in terms of the dynamic stability of locomotion (control and transfer of moments imposed on the body axes). As the diagonally paired fore-and hindlimb make contact with the support concurrently, a dynamic weight shift from side to side (=balance) is possible at any moment of a stride cycle.…”

Kinematics of quadrupedal locomotion in sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps): effects of age and substrate size

“…An ontogenetic transition in limb phase preference has also been demonstrated for other mammals such as rodents (Eilam, 1997), cats (Peters, 1983) and primates (Hildebrand, 1967;Rollinson and Martin, 1981;Hurov, 1982;Vilensky and Gankiewicz, 1989;Nakano, 1996;Dunbar and Badam, 1998;Shapiro and Raichlen, 2005;Shapiro and Raichlen, 2006). These transitions are in part associated with neurological maturation (Muir, 2000), but there is also evidence that limb phases preferred by juveniles compensate for growth-related changes in limb proportions or the position of the body's center of mass (Hildebrand, 1967;Rollinson and Martin, 1981;Peters, 1983;Blumberg-Feldman and Eilam, 1995;Shapiro and Raichlen, 2006).…”

“…DSDC walking, along with a complex of other kinematic features, has been associated with adaptation to a small branch arboreal niche (Larson, 1998;Cartmill et al, 2002;Lemelin et al, 2003;Cartmill et al, 2007), but the potential biomechanical advantage provided by DSDC for walking on small diameter substrates remains unclear (Stevens, 2006;Shapiro and Raichlen, 2007;Stevens, 2007;Wallace and Demes, 2008), and adult sugar gliders prefer LSDC walking, even on very narrow substrates (Shapiro and Young, 2010). In addition, infant primates have been shown to differ from adults in their gait preferences as a means to enhance stability or reduce limb interference (Hildebrand, 1967;Rose, 1977;Rollinson and Martin, 1981;Hurov, 1982;Vilensky and Gankiewicz, 1989;Nakano, 1996;Dunbar and Badam, 1998;Shapiro and Raichlen, 2005;Shapiro and Raichlen, 2006). Ontogenetic transitions in limb phase have also been documented for other mammals such as cats (Peters, 1983) and rodents (Eilam, 1997).…”