Cursorial Adaptations in the Forelimb of the Giant Short-Faced Bear, <Em
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2012 Cursorial Adaptations in the Forelimb of the Giant Short-Faced Bear, Arctodus simus, Revealed by Traditional and 3D Landmark Morphometrics Eric Randally Lynch East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the Paleobiology Commons Recommended Citation Lynch, Eric Randally, "Cursorial Adaptations in the Forelimb of the Giant Short-Faced Bear, Arctodus simus, Revealed by Traditional and 3D Landmark Morphometrics" (2012). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1477. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1477 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cursorial Adaptations in the Forelimb of the Giant Short-Faced Bear, Arctodus simus, Revealed by Traditional and 3D Landmark Morphometrics _________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of Geosciences East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Geosciences _________________________ by Eric R. Lynch August 2012 _________________________ Blaine W. Schubert, Chair Steven C. Wallace Jim I. Mead Keywords: Arctodus simus, Ursidae, geometric morphometrics, three-dimensional landmark, locomotion, posture ABSTRACT Cursorial Adaptations in the Forelimb of the Giant Short-Faced Bear, Arctodus simus, Revealed by Traditional and 3D Landmark Morphometrics by Eric R. Lynch The paleobiology of the Pleistocene North American giant short-faced bear, Arctodus simus, has eluded paleontologists for decades. Its more gracile form has led past researchers to myriad intepretations of the locomotion and feeding ecology of this species. While earlier studies have focused on craniodental morphology and simple postcranial indices, it is forelimb morphology that represents a direct compromise between locomotor and foraging behavior. The study here uses traditional and 3D landmark morphometrics to more completely compare the 3-dimensional shape of the major forelimb elements and their muscle attachment sites between A. simus, extant ursids, and other carnivorans. Results herein agree well with previous studies and provide additional evidence for reduced abductor/adductor and supinator/pronator musculature, more restricted parasagittal motion, increased stride length, and lighter and more packed distal elements. Forelimb skeletal morphology therefore supports the hypothesis that A. simmus represents a bear in the early stages of cursorial evolution. 2 DEDICATION This Master’s thesis is dedicated to my grandparents: Doris Lynch, Polly Marple, George Marple, Alfred Lynch, and Dale Lynch. Thank you for creating such a wonderful, loving family, for always encouraging me to follow my dreams, and for meeting me with understanding and open arms when I get the chance to come home. I picture your smiles every day. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply grateful to Darrin Lunde (Division of Mammals, NMNH), Michael Brett- Surman and Fred Grady (Division of Paleobiology, NMNH), Eileen Westwig (AMNH), and Aisling Farrell (The George C. Page Museum, Los Angeles, CA) for access to specimens and assistance in collections as well as to Jim Mead and Sandy Swift for help in the ETSU collections and access to photography equipment. I thank Blaine Schubert, Steven Wallace, and Jim Mead for serving on my committee and for offering enthusiastic support and critical feedback and revisions on the written thesis. Anneke Van Heteren, Joshua Samuels, Blaire Van Valkenburgh, Xiaoming Wang, and Peter Dodson offered insightful discussions of concepts and methodologies. I happily thank Leigha King, David Moscato, Steven Jaskinski, and Sharon Holte for enlightening, encouraging, and mostly entertaining office room discussions, and Amanda Geisler, Kevin Chovanec, and Kyle Jansky for feedback and ideas in our weekly meetings with Blaine. I am grateful to Randy and Carol Lynch for offering me, Leigha, and our crazy dog a place to stay while visiting the AMNH and to Violeta Castro and Aaron Stolpen for lending me a couch to sleep on while visiting the Smithsonian. I am eternally thankful for the Interlibrary Loan program, particularly for Dan Heuer and the ILL Staff at Bucknell University, and all institutions that were involved in the procurement of particularly difficult-to-reach articles and dissertations that were essential to my research. I thank Enterprise for its always friendly customer service and quick and easy rent-a-car experience for my trip to Washington, D.C. Funding was made available through the Don Sundquist Center of Excellence in Paleontology and National Science Foundation GK-12 Fellowship. As always, I extend a heartfelt thank you to my parents, sister, and grandparents for supporting my research endeavors and welcoming me with open arms when I get the chance to come home. 4 CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 2 DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 4 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 11 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 13 An Unresolved Debate ...................................................................................................... 14 A Fresh Attempt at Resolution ......................................................................................... 16 Phylogeny and Ecology of Comparative Species ............................................................. 18 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................................. 25 Specimens ......................................................................................................................... 25 Traditional Morphometrics ............................................................................................... 25 Geometric Morphometrics ................................................................................................ 42 Orientation of Specimens for Digital Photography .......................................................... 57 3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 61 Scapula .............................................................................................................................. 61 Traditional Morphometrics – All Species ............................................................. 61 PCA ........................................................................................................... 61 StepDFA .................................................................................................... 64 PCA2 ......................................................................................................... 64 Taditional Morphometrics – Ursidae Only ........................................................... 66 PCA ........................................................................................................... 66 StepDFA .................................................................................................... 66 PCA2 ......................................................................................................... 68 Geometric Morphometrics – All Species .............................................................. 68 Humerus ............................................................................................................................ 69 Traditional Morphometrics – All Species ............................................................. 69 PCA ........................................................................................................... 69 5 StepDFA .................................................................................................... 74 PCA2 ......................................................................................................... 75 Traditional Morphometrics – Ursidae Only .......................................................... 75 PCA ........................................................................................................... 75 StepDFA .................................................................................................... 78 PCA2 ......................................................................................................... 78 Geometric Morphometrics – All Species .............................................................. 78 Ulna ..................................................................................................................................