4.3 Article

Locomotor behavior and long bone morphology in individual free-ranging chimpanzees

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 394-404

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.10.004

关键词

cross-sectional geometry; Pan troglodytes; positional behavior; Tai; Mahale; locomotion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We combine structural limb data and behavioral data for free-ranging chimpanzees from Tai (Ivory Coast) and Mahale National Parks (Tanzania) to begin to consider the relationship between individual variation in locomotor activity and morphology. Femoral and humeral cross sections of ten individuals were acquired via computed tomography. Locomotor profiles of seven individuals were constructed from 3387 instantaneous time-point observations (87.4 hours). Within the limited number of suitable chimpanzees, individual variation in locomotor profiles displayed neither clear nor consistent trends with diaphyseal cross-sectional shapes. The percentages of specific locomotor modes did not relate well to diaphyseal shapes since neither infrequent nor frequent locomotor modes varied consistently with shapes. The percentage of arboreal locomotion, rather than estimated body mass, apparently had comparatively greater biological relevance to variation in diaphyseal shape. The mechanical consequences of locomotor modes on femoral and humeral diaphyseal shapes (e.g., orientation of bending strains) may overlap between naturalistic modes more than currently is recognized. Alternatively, diaphyseal shape may be unresponsive to mechanical demands of these specific locomotor modes. More data are needed in order to discern between these possibilities. Increasing the sample to include additional free-ranging chimpanzees, or primates in general, as well as devoting more attention to the mechanics of a greater variety of naturalistic locomotor modes would be fruitful to understanding the behavioral basis of diaphyseal shapes. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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