4.2 Article

Bite Force and Masticatory Muscle Architecture Adaptations in the Dietarily Diverse Musteloidea (Carnivora)

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ar.24233

关键词

Carnivora; scaling; PCSA; fiber length; mechanical advantage

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS-15-57125]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary ecology and its relationship with both muscle architecture and bite force potential has been studied in many mammalian (and non-mammalian) taxa. However, despite the diversity of dietary niches that characterizes the superfamily Musteloidea, the masticatory muscle fiber architecture of its members has yet to be investigated anatomically. In this study, we present myological data from the jaw adductors in combination with biomechanical data derived from craniomandibular measurements for 17 species representing all four families (Ailuridae, Mephitidae, Mustelidae, and Procyonidae) of Musteloid. These data are combined to calculate bite force potential at each of three bite points along the dental row. Across our sample as a whole, masticatory muscle mass scaled with isometry or slight positive allometry against both body mass and skull size (measured via a cranial geometric mean). Total jaw adductor physiological cross-sectional area scaled with positive allometry against both body mass and skull size, while weighted fiber length scaled with negative allometry. From a dietary perspective, fiber length is strongly correlated with dietary size such that taxa that exploit larger foods demonstrated myological adaptations toward gape maximization. However, no consistent relationship between bite force potential and dietary mechanical resistance was observed. These trends confirm previous findings observed within the carnivoran family Felidae (as well as within primates), suggesting that the mechanisms by which masticatory anatomy adapts to dietary ecology may be more universally consistent than previously recognized. Anat Rec, 2019. (c) 2019 American Association for Anatomy

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

4.2
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