Understanding the comparative catarrhine context of human pelvic form: A 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Lycett, Stephen J.; Cramon‐Taubadel, Noreen von

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.01.011

Cited by 38 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While numerous studies concerned with the pelvis of primates have provided a very comprehensive characterization of the morphology of the femur (Clark et al, 1987;Noble et al, 1988;Husmann et al, 1997;Harmon, 2007), remarkably less attention has been focused on analysing the size, shape, and position of the acetabulum in the hip bone. Because joint morphology must reflect the types of motion permitted (Jungers, 1991;Lycett and von Cramon-Taubadel, 2013), it is reasonable to predict a tight biomechanical relationship between the size and shape of articular surfaces in primate postcranial joints and the most frequently used postures and movements. Despite this prediction, however, only a limited number of studies have analysed the morphological characteristics of the primate acetabulum from an anthropological perspective (Schultz, 1969;MacLatchy and Bossert, 1996;Canillas et al, 2011;Hogervorst et al, 2011;Bonneau, 2013;Hammond et al, 2013a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morphometrics is the study of shape variation and its covariation with other variables (Bookstein, 1991;Dryden and Mardia, 1998), where "shape" describes the geometric properties of an object that are invariant to location, scale, and orientation (Slice, 2005). The use of landmark-based GM has increased rapidly in the anthropological sciences in recent years (e.g., Bruner, 2004;Mitteroecker et al, 2005;Oettle et al, 2005;Bastir et al, 2006;Martin on-Torres et al, 2006;Perez et al, 2006;Kimmerle et al, 2007;Bigoni et al, 2010;Bytheway and Ross, 2010;Neubauer et al, 2010;Coquerelle et al, 2011;Arias-Martorell et al, 2012;Harvati and Hublin, 2012;Lycett and von Cramon-Taubadel, 2013). However, large areas of many biological objects, such as joint surfaces like the acetabulum (Niewoehner, 2005), have few or no identifiable landmarks and their structural information is represented only by surfaces, curves, or outlines, which have for some time limited the implementation of GM methods for their study (Oxnard, 1978).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A geometric morphometric analysis of acetabular shape of the primate hip joint in relation to locomotor behaviour

San-Millán

Kaliontzopoulou

Rissech

et al. 2015

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A geometric morphometric analysis of acetabular shape of the primate hip joint in relation to locomotor behaviour

San-Millán

Kaliontzopoulou

Rissech

et al. 2015

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Within biological anthropology, GM studies of shape differences across species include work on the forelimb (Taylor and Slice, 2005;Young, 2006Young, , 2008Tallman, 2012;Rein and Harvati, 2013), hindlimb (Harmon, 2007;Harcourt-Smith et al, 2008;Jungers et al, 2009;Turley et al, 2011;Cooke andTallman, 2012), skull (O'Higgins andJones, 1998;Lockwood et al, 2002;Singleton, 2002;Harvati, 2003;Baab and McNulty, 2009;Bastir et al, 2010;Harvati et al, 2010;Terhune, 2013), and spine (Russo, 2010). However, very little GM work has encompassed interspecific comparisons of pelvic shape (but see Berge, 1996;Bouhallier et al, 2004;Bouhallier and Berge, 2006;Lewton, 2012;Lycett and von Cramon-Taubadel, 2013). There have been few intraspecific GM analyses in humans, and these have focused only on clinical (Brown et al, 2013) and forensic (Gonzales et al, 2009;Bytheway and Ross, 2010) aspects of pelvic anatomy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pelvic Form and Locomotor Adaptation in Strepsirrhine Primates

Lewton

2014

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pelvic girdle is a complex structure with a critical role in locomotion, but efforts to model the mechanical effects of locomotion on its shape remain difficult. Traditional approaches to understanding form and function include univariate adaptive hypothesis-testing derived from mechanical models. Geometric morphometric (GM) methods can yield novel insight into overall three-dimensional shape similarities and differences across groups, although the utility of GM in assessing functional differences has been questioned. This study evaluates the contributions of both univariate and GM approaches to unraveling the trait-function associations between pelvic form and locomotion. Three-dimensional landmarks were collected on a phylogenetically-broad sample of 180 pelves from nine primate taxa. Euclidean interlandmark distances were calculated to facilitate testing of biomechanical hypotheses, and a principal components (PC) analysis was performed on Procrustes coordinates to examine overall shape differences. Both linear dimensions and PC scores were subjected to phylogenetic ANOVA. Many of the null hypotheses relating linear dimensions to locomotor loading were not rejected. Although both analytical approaches suggest that ilium width and robusticity differ among locomotor groups, the GM analysis also suggests that ischiopubic shape differentiates groups. Although GM provides additional quantitative results beyond the univariate analyses, this study highlights the need for new GM methods to more specifically address functional shape differences among species. Until these methods are developed, it would be prudent to accompany tests of directional biomechanical hypotheses with current GM methods for a more nuanced understanding of shape and function. Anat Rec, 298:230-248, 2015. V C 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Key words: adaptation; geometric morphometrics; pelvis; primates; locomotion; functionThe identification of adaptation to biological function has been a goal of evolutionary biology since the time of Darwin. Within the field of biological anthropology, adaptations to diet and/or locomotion have been examined via hypothesis-testing of craniodental anatomy (Lieberman and Crompton, 2000;Ravosa et al., 2000;Daegling and McGraw, 2001;Spencer, 2003;Vinyard et al., 2003;Terhune, 2013), shoulder anatomy (Taylor, 1997), long bone morphology (Fleagle, 1976;Polk, 2002), and hand and foot anatomy (Orr, 2005;Patel, 2010;Tocheri et al., 2011). However, systematic hypothesistesting of pelvic adaptations has been relatively limited because the mechanical rules that govern pelvic shape are not well understood.Among other requirements, identifying morphological adaptations necessitates a clear association between a morphological trait and its presumed function, as well as evidence that the trait performs the function (e.g., Kay and Cartmill, 1977;Anthony and Kay, 1993). The comparative method is used to distinguish form-function correlations in broad samples of extant taxa (Felsenstein, 1985;Harvey and Pagel, 1991;Ross...

show abstract

“…Body shape in general and the shape of the torso specifically are thought to reflect many of these specializations. In particular, the shape of the pelvis has been inferred to affect and reflect positional behaviors (e.g., Benton, ; Cartmill & Milton, ; Leutenegger, ; Lewton, ; Lycett & von Cramon‐Taubadel, ; Middleton, Winkler, Hammond, Plavcan, & Ward, ; Morgan et al, ; Sarmiento, ; Schultz, ; Straus, ; Ward, ; Waterman, ). Given these expectations, and because the pelvis is a major component of the torso, pelvic form—especially the morphology of the ilium—should be correlated with variation in thoracic shape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three‐dimensional anatomy of the anthropoid bony pelvis

Ward

Maddux

Middleton

2018

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A three-dimensional consideration of the articulated pelvis in anthropoids reveals determinants of pelvic variation not previously appreciated by studies of isolated hipbones. This study provides no support for the hypothesis that the ape pelvis is mediolaterally broader than that of monkeys in relative terms, as would be expected if iliac shape is related to hypothesized differences in thoracic breadth and shoulder orientation. Instead, apes, especially great apes, have relatively narrow sacra and longer lower pelves, related to their shorter, stiffer lumbar spines and torsos. This difference, coupled with strong positive allometry of iliac breadth and negative allometry of key pelvic lengths, along with some variation in ischial morphology in certain taxa, explains much of the variation in pelvic form among anthropoid primates.

show abstract

Understanding the comparative catarrhine context of human pelvic form: A 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Cited by 38 publications

References 76 publications

A geometric morphometric analysis of acetabular shape of the primate hip joint in relation to locomotor behaviour

A geometric morphometric analysis of acetabular shape of the primate hip joint in relation to locomotor behaviour

Pelvic Form and Locomotor Adaptation in Strepsirrhine Primates

Three‐dimensional anatomy of the anthropoid bony pelvis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About