spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Herrel, A.
Right arrow Articles by De Vree, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Herrel, A.
Right arrow Articles by De Vree, F.

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 203, Issue 9 1415-1423, Copyright © 2000 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Cranial kinesis in geckoes: functional implications

A Herrel, P Aerts and F De Vree
Department of Biology, University of Antwerp (UIA), Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerp, Belgium. aherrel@uia.ua.ac.be.

Although it is generally assumed that cranial kinesis is a plesiomorphic characteristic in squamates, experimental data tend to contradict this hypothesis. In particular, coupled kinesis (i.e. streptostyly and mesokinesis) presumably arose independently in only a limited number of highly specialised groups. In this study, we investigated cranial kinesis in one of the most specialised of these groups: geckoes. On the basis of cineradiographic and electromyographic data, the fast opening and the slow closing/power stroke phases were modelled to elucidate possible functions of the observed kinesis. The results of these analyses show that the retraction of the muzzle unit during crushing is a self-reinforcing system that increases bite force and reduces the joint forces; the active protraction of the kinetic system during jaw opening, in contrast, enhances opening speed through the coupling of the intracranial units. It can be argued that cranial kinesis in geckoes is probably not an adaptive trait as such but, instead, a consequence of the 'Bauplan' of the cranial system in these animals. Presumably as a result of constructional constraints on the size of the jaw musculature and eyes, the supratemporal and postorbital bars were lost, which resulted in enormous mobility in the skull. To counteract the potential negative factors associated with this (decrease in bite force, skull damage), the kinetic system may have become coupled, and thus functional.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Integr. Comp. Biol.Home page
A. Herrel, V. Schaerlaeken, J. J. Meyers, K. A. Metzger, and C. F. Ross
The evolution of cranial design and performance in squamates: Consequences of skull-bone reduction on feeding behavior
Integr. Comp. Biol., July 1, 2007; 47(1): 107 - 117.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
S. W. S. Gussekloo and R. G. Bout
Cranial kinesis in palaeognathous birds
J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2005; 208(17): 3409 - 3419.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Integr. Comp. Biol.Home page
A. Herrel, J. J. Meyers, K. C. Nishikawa, and F. D. Vree
The Evolution of Feeding Motor Patterns in Lizards: Modulatory Complexity and Possible Constraints
Integr. Comp. Biol., December 1, 2001; 41(6): 1311 - 1320.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2000