4.3 Article

Limb bone allometry during postnatal ontogeny in non-avian dinosaurs

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANATOMY
卷 217, 期 2, 页码 135-152

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01253.x

关键词

allometry; dinosaurian; long bones; ontogeny

资金

  1. Undergraduate Internship at the Field Museum of Natural History
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  3. American Museum of Natural History
  4. NSF [AToL EAR 0228607]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the interspecific scaling of tetrapods is well understood, remarkably little work has been done on the ontogenetic scaling within tetrapod species, whether fossil or recent. Here the ontogenetic allometry of the femur, humerus, and tibia was determined for 23 species of non-avian dinosaur by regressing log-transformed length against log-transformed circumference for each bone using reduced major axis bivariate regression. The femora of large theropod species became more robust during ontogeny, whereas growth in the femora of sauropodomorphs and most ornithischians was not significantly different from isometry. Hadrosaur hindlimb elements became significantly more gracile during ontogeny. Scaling constants were higher in all theropods than in any non-theropod taxa. Such clear taxonomically correlated divisions were not evident in the ontogenetic allometry of the tibia and hindlimb bones did not scale uniformly within larger taxonomic groups. For taxa in which the ontogenetic allometry of the humerus was studied, only Riojasaurus incertus exhibited a significant departure from isometry. Using independent contrasts, the regression of femoral allometry against the log of adult body mass was found to have a significant negative correlation but such a relationship could not be established for other limb elements or growth parameters, mainly due to the small sample size. The intraspecific scaling patterns observed in dinosaurs and other amniotes do not support earlier hypotheses that intraspecific scaling differs between endothermic and ectothermic taxa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据