4.2 Article

Distal Humeral Morphology Indicates Locomotory Divergence in Extinct Giant Kangaroos

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAMMALIAN EVOLUTION
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 27-41

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10914-021-09576-3

Keywords

Macropodidae; Sthenurinae; Protemnodon; Functional morphology; Humerus; Locomotion

Funding

  1. University of Bristol Program in Palaeobiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies on kangaroo humerus morphology have shown that extinct giant kangaroos had different humeral anatomies compared to extant kangaroos, with sthenurines showing similarities to arboreal mammals and large Protemnodon species resembling terrestrial quadrupedal mammals.
Previous studies of the morphology of the humerus in kangaroos showed that the shape of the proximal humerus could distinguish between arboreal and terrestrial taxa among living mammals, and that the extinct giant kangaroos (members of the extinct subfamily Sthenurinae and the extinct macropodine genus Protemnodon) had divergent humeral anatomies from extant kangaroos. Here, we use 2D geometric morphometrics to capture the shape of the distal humerus in a range of extant and extinct marsupials and obtain similar results: sthenurines have humeral morphologies more similar to arboreal mammals, while large Protemnodon species (P. brehus and P. anak) have humeral morphologies more similar to terrestrial quadrupedal mammals. Our results provide further evidence for prior hypotheses: that sthenurines did not employ a locomotor mode that involved loading the forelimbs (likely employing bipedal striding as an alternative to quadrupedal or pentapedal locomotion at slow gaits), and that large Protemnodon species were more reliant on quadrupedal locomotion than their extant relatives. This greater diversity of locomotor modes among large Pleistocene kangaroos echoes studies that show a greater diversity in other aspects of ecology, such as diet and habitat occupancy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available