Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Tibial Shape and Presentation Among Catarrhine Taxa

Anatomical Record

Volumn 294, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 217-230

  Turley, Kevin ^a   Guthrie, Emily H ^a   Frost, Stephen R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Ankle homoplasty; Substrate preference; Tibial shape

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EXTANT SPECIES; FEMALE; GEOMETRY; GORILLA; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HYLOBATIDAE; MACACA FASCICULARIS; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; NONHUMAN; ORANG UTAN; PAN TROGLODYTES; PAPIO HAMADRYAS; PRIMATE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TIBIA;

ANIMALS; CERCOPITHECIDAE; FEMALE; FOSSILS; HUMANS; MALE; PHYLOGENY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TIBIA;

EID: 78651422768     PISSN: 19328486     EISSN: 19328494     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ar.21307     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aiello L, Dean C. 2002. An introduction to human evolutionary anatomy. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
2. Auger F, Jamison PL, Balslev-Jorgensen J, Lewin T, De Pena JF, Skrobak-Kaczynski J. 1980. Anthropometry of circumpolar populations. In: Milan FA, editor. The human biology of circumpolar populations. New York: Cambridge University Press. p 213-255.
3. Begun DR. 2007. How to identify (as opposed to define) a homoplasty: examples from fossil and living great apes. J Hum Evol 52: 559-572.
4. Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Cambridge University Press.
5. Bookstein FL. 1996. Standard formula for the uniform shape component in landmark data. In: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE, editors. Advances in morphometrics. New York: Plenum. p 153-169.
6. Bock WJ, von Wahlert G. 1965. Adaptation and the form-function complex. Evolution 19: 269-299.
7. Cobb SN, O'Higgins P. 2004. Hominins do not share a common postnatal facial ontogenetic shape trajectory. J Exp Zool 302B: 302-321.
8. Conroy GC, Rose MD. 1983. The evolution of the primate foot from the earliest primates to the miocene hominoids. Foot Ankle 3: 342-364.
9. Delson E, Terranova CJ, Jungers WL, Sargis EJ, Jablonski NG, Dechow PC. 2000. Body mass in cercopithecidae (Primates, Mammalia): estimation and scaling in extinct and Extant Taxa Anthrol Pap American Museum of Natural History Number 83.
10. DeSilva JM. 2009. Functional morphology of the ankle and the likelihood of climbing in early hominins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 6567-6572.
11. Fleagle JG. 1999. Primate adaptation and evolution. San Diego: Academic Press.
12. Frost SR, Marcus LF, Bookstein FL, Reddy DP, Delson E. 2003. Cranial allometry, phylogeography, and systematics of large-bodied papionins (Primates: Cercopithecinae) inferred from morphometric analysis of landmark data. Anat Rec 275A: 1048-1072.
13. Gebo DL. 1992. Plantigrady and foot adaptation in african apes: implications for hominid origins. Am J Phys Anthropol 89: 29-58.
14. Gebo DL, Schwartz GT. 2006. Foot bones from omo: implications for hominid evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol 129: 499-511.
15. Good P. 2000. Permutation tests: a practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypothesis. New York: Springer.
16. Hall BK. 1998. Evolutionary developmental biology. London, New York: Chapman & Hall.
17. Hall BK. 2005. Bones and cartilage. Elsevier Academic Press.
18. Harcourt-Smith WEH. 2002. Form and function in the hominoid tarsal skeletal structure. PhD thesis, University College London, London.
19. Jungers WL. 1988. Relative joint size and hominoid locomotor adaptations with implications for the evolution of hominid bipedalism. J Hum Evol 17: 247-265.
20. Katzmarzyk PT, Leonard WR. 1998. Climatic influences on human body size and proportions: ecological adaptations and secular trends. Am J Phys Anthropol 106: 483-503.
21. Kendall DG. 1984. Shape manifolds, procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull Lond Math Soc 16: 81-121.
22. Kraus B. 1961. The western apache: some anthropometric observations. Am J Phys Anthropol 19: 227-236.
23. Latimer B, Ohman JC, Lovejoy CD. 1987. Talocrural joint in African hominoids: implications for Australopithecus afarensis. Am J Phys Anthropol 74: 155-175.
24. Lewis OJ. 1989. Functional morphology of the evolving hand and foot. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Lieberman DE, Delvin MJ, Pearson OM. 2001. Articular area response to mechanical loading: effects of exercise, age, and skeletal location. Am J Phys Anthropol 116: 266-277.
26. Lockwood CJ, Fleagle GJ. 1999. The recognition and evaluation of homoplasty in primate and human evolution. Yearb Phys Anthropol 42: 189-232.
27. Lovejoy CO, Cohen MJ, White TD. 2000. The evolution of mammalian morphology: a developmental perspective. In: O'Higgins PO, Cohn MJ, editors. Development, growth and evolution. San Diego: Academic Press. p 41-55.
28. Meldrum DJ. 1991. Kinematics of the cercopithecine foot on arboreal and terrestrial substrates with implications for the interpretation of hominid terrestrial adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol 84: 273-289.
29. O'Higgins P, Jones N. 1998. Facial growth in Cerocebus torquatus: an application of three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of morphometric variation. J Anat 193: 251-272.
30. O'Higgins P, Jones N. 2006. Tools for statistical shape analysis. Hull York Medical School. Available at:
31. Pearson OM. 2004. The aging of Wolff's "law": ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone. Yearb Phys Anthropol 47: 63-99.
32. Raaum RL, Sterner KN, Noviello CM, Stewart C, Distoll TR. 2005. Catarrhine primate divergence dates estimated from complete mitochondrial genomes: concordance with fossil and nuclear DNA evidence. J Hum Evol 48: 237-257.
33. Rafferty KL, Ruff CB. 1994. Articular structure and function in hylobates, colobus, and papio. Am J Phys Anthropol 94: 395-408.
34. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39: 40-59.
35. Rohlf FJ. 1998. NTSY Spc 2.2 Exeter Software.
36. Rohlf FJ. 2006. A comment on phylogenetic correction. Evolution 60: 1509-1515.
37. Ruff C. 1988. Hindlimb articular surface allometry in hominoidea and macaca, with comparison to diaphyseal scaling. J Hum Evol 17: 687-714.
38. Ruff CB. 2002. Long bone articular and diaphyseal structure in old world monkeys and apes. I: locomotor effects. Am J Phys Anthropol 119: 305-342.
39. Slice DE. 1998. Morpheus et al. Ecology and evolution. Stony Brook: State University of New York.
40. Smith JD, Jungers WL. 1997. Body mass in comparative primatology. J Hum Evol 32: 523-559.
41. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
42. Stern JT, Susman RL. 1991. "Total Morphological Pattern" Versus the "Magic Trait": conflicting approaches to the study of early hominid bipedalism. In: Coppens Y, Senut B, editors, Origine(s) de la Bipedie chez les Hominides. Cathiers de Paleoanthroplogie, Editions du CNRS, Paris. p 99-111.
43. Turley K, Henderson E, Frost S. 2008. Distal tibial shape and presentation reflect the type of substrate. Am J Phys Anthropol 135: 210.
44. Turley K, Henderson E, Frost S. 2009. Astragalus proximal facet shape: differences in articular morphology among closely related hominoid taxa. Am J Phys Anthropol (Supplement) 48: 258.
45. Vancata V. 1991. The roots of hominid bipedality. In: Coppens Y, Senut B, editors. Origine(s) de la Bipedie chez les Hominides. Cathiers de Paleoanthroplogie, Editions du CNRS, Paris. p 143-158.
46. Wagner GP. 2001. The character concept in evolutionary biology. San Diego: Academic Press.
47. White TD, Folkens PA. 2000. Human Osteology, 2nd ed. Academic Press.
48. Wiley DF. 2006. Landmark editor. University of California, Davis, wiley@cs.ucdavis.edu.
49. Wunderlich RE, Jungers WL. 2009. Manual digital pressures during knuckle-walking in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Am J Phys Anthropol 139: 394-403.
50. Xing J, Witherspoon DJ, Ray DA, Batzer MA, Jorde LB. 2007. Mobile DNA elements in primate and human evolution. Yearb Phys Anthropol 50: 2-19.