Comparative topographic analyses on the foramen magnums of two hystricomorphs: the crested porcupine (Hystrix cristata) and greater cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus). Implications for typology, phylogeny and evolution in rodents

• Autorzy: Samuel M.O. , Wanmi N. , Olopade J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: This investigation aims to assess species comparison of foramen magnums in two hystricomorphs and endeavours an inter-species categorisation of individual shape outline. Materials and methods: This study utilised 35 skull samples of different ages from the crested porcupine (H. cristata) (17) and the greater cane rat (T. swinderianus) (18) through. Elliptical Fourier Analysis, and the two-block Partial Least Squares analysis. Elliptical Fourier descriptor analyses presented marked amplitude related attenuations according to harmonics factor (1/10 to 2,980) in T. swinderianus though angular orientations in the major axis were not profoundly affected by size-normalisation in this species but up-regulated in H. cristata; (1/10 to1/95). Results: Within and between groups analyses revealed PC1&2 contributed 98.94% and 1.06% but 100% PC1 between groups. The 1st to 4th harmonics gave full topographic description of the foramen magnums in both, 1st–3rd harmonics details compared differently revealing shape variance concentrated in posterolateral and posterior regions of the foramen magnum in the porcupine but antero-lateral and dorsal in cane rats, components of morphological asymmetry were demonstrated from 6th to 12th harmonics. Stepwise discriminant analysis of harmonic increments and Mahalanobis distance exposed increasing disparities between both up to the 5th harmonic (Bonferroni-corrected p-values [277.2, p < 0.002] group centroids) and a slightly lower value in variance for cane rats 0.421 and 0.378 for porcupines. A (58.3% and 33.3%); (94.1% and 11.1%) proportion before and after size-normalised evaluations of porcupines and cane rats size factor removal yielded 35.8% increase in accuracy among crested porcupines but 22.2% decline in cane rats. Dimorphic variations were less frequently expressed in cane rats corresponding to 33.3% and 44.2%. Size normalisation effect brought a reverse situation with an increased difference (11.1% in T. swinderianus; 5.9% in H. cristata). Individual specimen distribution along discriminant axis pooled by discriminant scores depicted less morphologic variability with greater overlaps. Conclusions: We observe that complexities in foramen magnum architecture between these indicates parcellation of shape and size variance and contributes as evidence for structural evolution, systematics, fundamental similarities and differences offers an explanation that both are related through evolutionary process of descent as baseline data and further support the suggestion; hystricidae in phylogenetic tree are better evolved and separate from thryonomidae. (Folia Morphol 2020; 79, 2: 374–386)

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 79
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.374-386,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Samuel M.O.

• Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Federal University of Agriculture Makurdi, Nigeria

autor

Wanmi N.

• Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Federal University of Agriculture Makurdi, Nigeria

autor

Olopade J.

• Department of Veterinary Anatomy, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Bibliografia

• 1. Álvarez A, Perez S, Verzi D. Ecological and phylogenetic dimensions of cranial shape diversification in South American caviomorph rodents (Rodentia: Hystricomorpha). Biol J Linnean Society. 2013; 110(4): 898–913, doi: 10.1111/bij.12164.
• 2. Auffray JC, Alibert P, Latieule C, et al. Relative warp analysis of skull shape across the hybrid zone of the house mouse (Mus musculus) in Denmark. J Zool. 1996; 240(3): 441–455, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1996.tb05297.x.
• 3. Angelici FM, Capizzi D, Amori G, et al. Morphometric variation in the skulls of the crested porcupine Hystrix cristata from mainland Italy, Sicily, and Northern Africa. Mammalian Biol. 2003; 68(3): 165–173, doi: 10.1078/1616-5047-00078.
• 4. Asibey EOA. The grass cutter (Thyonomys swinderianus), TEMMINCK, in Ghana, Symp, Zool. Soc., London, 1974; 34: 161–170.
• 5. Bornert F, Choquet P, Gros C, et al. Subtle morphological changes in the mandible of tabby mice revealed by micro-ct imaging and elliptical fourier quantification. Frontiers Physiology. 2011; 2, doi: 10.3389/fphys.2011.00015.
• 6. Buck RC. Advanced calculus. 3rd ed. Waveland Press 1962: 252.
• 7. Calcagno J. On the applicability of sexing human skeletal material by discriminant function analysis. J Human Evolut. 1981; 10(2): 189–198, doi: 10.1016/s0047-2484(81)80017-6.
• 8. Cardini A. The geometry of the marmot (rodentia: sciuridae) mandible: phylogeny and patterns of morphological evolution. Syst Biol. 2003; 52(2): 186–205, doi: 10.1080/10635150390192807, indexed in Pubmed: 12746146.
• 9. Cardini A, Thorington RW. Postnatal ontogeny of marmot (rodentia, sciuridae) crania: allometric trajectories and species divergence. J Mammal. 2006; 87(2): 201–215, doi: 10.1644/05-mamm-a-242r1.1.
• 10. Charlesworth D. Evolution: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013: 10.1093/actrade/9780192802514.001.0001.
• 11. Cornette R, Herrel A, Cosson JF, et al. Rapid morpho-functional changes among insular populations of the greater white-toothed shrew. Biol J Linn Soc. 2012; 107(2): 322–331, doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01934.x.
• 12. DeLahunta R. Veterinary neuroanatomy and clinical neurology. 2nd ed. Saunders, Philadelphia, London 1983: 400–408.
• 13. Dixon AD, Hoyte DAN, Ronning O. Fundamentals of cranio-facial growth. Boca Raton, CRC Press, New York 1997: 155–185.
• 14. Drake AG, Klingenberg CP. The pace of morphological change: historical transformation of skull shape in St Bernard dogs. Proc Biol Sci. 2008; 275(1630): 71–76, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1169, indexed in Pubmed: 17956847.
• 15. Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol. 2007; 7: 214, doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-214, indexed in Pubmed: 17996036.
• 16. Fabre PH, Herrel A, Fitriana Y, et al. Masticatory muscle architecture in a water-rat from Australasia (Murinae, Hydromys) and its implication for the evolution of carnivory in rodents. J Anat. 2017; 231(3): 380–397, doi: 10.1111/joa.12639, indexed in Pubmed: 28585258.
• 17. Fayolle P, Autefage A, Genevois P. La dysplacie occipital du chien. A propos d’une observation (in French). 1982; 133(1): 19–30.
• 18. Ginot S, Claude J, Hautier L. One skull to rule them all? Descriptive and comparative anatomy of the masticatory apparatus in five mouse species. J Morphol. 2018; 279(9): 1234–1255, doi: 10.1002/jmor.20845, indexed in Pubmed: 30117607.
• 19. Hammer Φ. Harper DAT. Ryan PD. Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis 2013; (Palaeontologicaz Electronica, 4; p9). http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm (Assessed 14th February, 2012).
• 20. Hallgrímsson B, Willmore K, Hall BK. Canalization, developmental stability, and morphological integration in primate limbs. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002; Suppl 35: 131–158, doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10182, indexed in Pubmed: 12653311.
• 21. Hallgrimsson B, Dorval C, Zelditch M, et al. Craniofacial variability and morphological integration in mice susceptible to cleft lip and palate. J Anat. 2004; 205(6): 501–517, doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00356.x.
• 22. Hautier L, Cox P, Lebrun R. Grades and clades among rodents: the promise of geometric morphometrics. Evolution of the Rodents: Advances in Phylogeny, Functional Morphology and Development (eds Cox PG, Hautier L). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2015: 277–299, doi: 10.1017/cbo9781107360150.011.
• 23. Herrel A, De Smet A, Aguirre LF, et al. Morphological and mechanical determinants of bite force in bats: do muscles matter? J Exp Biol. 2008; 211(Pt 1): 86–91, doi: 10.1242/jeb.012211, indexed in Pubmed: 18083736.
• 24. Hutchinson JR. On the inference of function from structure using biomechanical modelling and simulation of extinct organisms. Biol Lett. 2012; 8(1): 115–118, doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0399, indexed in Pubmed: 21666064.
• 25. Ivanović A, Vukov T, Džukić G, et al. Ontogeny of skull size and shape changes within a framework of biphasic lifestyle: a case study in six Triturus species (Amphibia, Salamandridae). Zoomorphology. 2007; 126(3): 173–183, doi: 10.1007/s00435-007-0037-1.
• 26. Iwata H, Ukai YA. SHAPE: A Computer Program Package for Quantitative Evaluation of Biological Shapes Based on Elliptic Fourier Descriptors. J Hered. 2002; 93(5): 384–385, doi: 10.1093/jhered/93.5.384.
• 27. Janeczek M, Chrószcz A, Czerski A. Morphological investigations of the occipital area in adult american staffordshire terriers. Anat Histol Embryol. 2011; 40(4): 278–282, doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0264.2011.01071.x.
• 28. Kay EH, Hoekstra HE. Rodents. Curr Biol. 1970; 18: 406–410.
• 29. Kuhl F, Giardina C. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Comput Graph Image Process. 1982; 18(3): 236–258, doi: 10.1016/0146-664x(82)90034-x.
• 30. Le Minor JM, Schmittbuhl M. Importance of elliptic Fourier methods for morphometry of complex outlines: application to the distal human femur. Surg Radiol Anat. 1999; 21(6): 387–391, doi: 10.1007/bf01631349, indexed in Pubmed: 10678732.
• 31. Meachen-Samuels J, Van Valkenburgh B. Craniodental indicators of prey size preference in the Felidae. Biol J Linnean Society. 2009; 96(4): 784–799, doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01169.x.
• 32. Meachen-Samuels J, Valkenburgh BV. Radiographs Reveal Exceptional Forelimb Strength in the Sabertooth Cat, Smilodon fatalis. PLoS ONE. 2010; 5(7): e11412, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011412, indexed in Pubmed: 2062539.
• 33. Melo D, Garcia G, Hubbe A, et al. EvolQG - An R package for evolutionary quantitative genetics. F1000Res. 2015; 4: 925, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.7082.3, indexed in Pubmed: 27785352.
• 34. Musser GG, Carleton MD. Superfamily Muroidea. In: Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd ed (eds Wilson DE, Reeder DM). Johns Hopkins University Press., Baltimore 2005: 122.
• 35. National Research Council (NRC). Micro livestock; Little Known Small Animals with a Promising Economic Future. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1991: 449.
• 36. Olsen EC, Miller RL. Morphological Integration. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1958: 23.
• 37. Parés-Casanova P. Mandibular allometry in Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris (Linnaeus, 1766) (Hydrocherinae, Caviidae). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (São Paulo). 2017; 57(35): 451, doi: 10.11606/0031-1049.2017.57.35.
• 38. Randau M, Goswami A. Shape Covariation (or the Lack Thereof) Between Vertebrae and Other Skeletal Traits in Felids: The Whole is Not Always Greater than the Sum of Parts. Evol Biol. 2018; 45(2): 196–210, doi: 10.1007/s11692-017-9443-6, indexed in Pubmed: 29755151.
• 39. Rohlf F, Archie J. A Comparison of Fourier Methods for the Description of Wing Shape in Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Syst. Zool. 1984; 33(3): 302–317, doi: 10.2307/2413076.
• 40. Rusbridge C, Knowler SP. Coexistence of occipital dysplasia and occipital hypoplasia/syringomyelia in the cavalier King Charles spaniel. J Small Anim Pract. 2006; 47(10): 603–606, doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2006.00048.x, indexed in Pubmed: 17004953.
• 41. Ruth AA, Raghanti MA, Meindl RS, et al. Locomotor pattern fails to predict foramen magnum angle in rodents, strepsirrhine primates, and marsupials. J Hum Evol. 2016; 94: 45–52, doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.01.003, indexed in Pubmed: 27178457.
• 42. Samuel OM, Casanova PM, Olopade JO. Elliptical Fourier descriptors of outline and morphological analysis in caudal view of foramen magnum of the tropical raccoon (Procyon cancrivorus ) (Linnaeus, 1758). Morphologie. 2018; 102(336): 31–40, doi: 10.1016/j.morpho.2017.06.001, indexed in Pubmed: 29519615.
• 43. Urbanova P. VyuziTi meTod geOmeTricke mOFOmeTrie v BiOlOgii clOvekA A PriduzeNycH. OBOrecH masarykova univerzita Prirodovedecka faculta HABiliTAchni Prace, Brno 2010: 24–30.
• 44. Vilela RV, Machado T, Ventura K, et al. The taxonomic status of the endangered thin-spined porcupine, Chaetomys subspinosus (Olfers, 1818), based on molecular and karyologic data. BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 29, doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-29, indexed in Pubmed: 19192302.
• 45. Weisensee KE, Jantz RL. Secular changes in craniofacial morphology of the Portuguese using geometric morphometrics. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011; 145(4): 548–559, doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21531, indexed in Pubmed: 21541933.
• 46. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets DH. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A Primer. 2.ed. . Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego 2012: 12.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2019.0083