QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online November 28, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 3775-3789 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.019802

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schmidt, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schmidt, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

Manuela Schmidt

Institut für Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie, Friedrich Schiller Universität Jena, Erbertstrasse 1, D-07743 Jena, Germany

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Motion analysis: (A) skeletal landmarks of the forelimb exemplified on the brown lemur, (B) calculated joint and segment angles, (C) calculated excursion angles of the forelimb.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Influence of walking velocity on step duration (A) and step length (B). Walking velocity is transformed to the dimensionless Froude number.

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Scapula position of the brown lemur at touchdown (A) and lift-off (B).

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Angular excursion of forelimb segments and forelimb joints during the support phase of the limb.

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Scaling of forelimb length to body mass on logarithmic coordinates in primates and other groups of quadruped mammals.

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Forelimb / hindlimb ratio over body mass (ln-transformed) in primates and other groups of quadruped mammals.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Intralimb proportions of the forelimb: Analysis of variance. Mean values of the relative segment lengths and their comparison intervals are compared across the sample. Primates are subdivided into families.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Scaling of forelimb proportions to body mass. For graphical reasons, relative segment lengths were not ln-transformed to permit better differentiation between the groups. Reduced major axis (RMA) slopes and the confidence intervals (CI) given for each group were calculated on bivariate ln-transformed variables.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Comparison of forelimb and hindlimb postures at touchdown and lift-off among primates and other quadrupeds with estimated protraction and retraction angles (FLp – forelimb protraction, FLr – forelimb retraction, HLp – hindlimb protraction, HLr – hindlimb retraction). Body size ranges from 100 g (grey mouse lemur and shrew-like opossum) to 20 kg (dog). Stick figure drawing data were compiled from several publications (Jenkins and Camazine, 1977; Goslow et al., 1980; Meldrum, 1991; Kuhtz-Buschbeck et al., 1994; Whitehead and Larson, 1994; Schilling and Fischer, 1999; Fischer et al., 2002; Lemelin et al., 2003; Schmitt and Lemelin, 2004).

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Relationship between pivot height and excursion angle of fore- and hindlimbs in small mammals, and the consequences of elongated hindlimbs in primates.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter