DOCSLIB.ORG

Phylogeny and the Tree of Life

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phylogeny and the Tree of Life Chapter 26: Phylogeny and the Tree of Life 1. Key Concepts Pertaining to Phylogeny 2. Determining Phylogenies 3. Evolutionary History Revealed in Genomes 1. Key Concepts Pertaining to Phylogeny Cell PHYLOGENY – the evolutionary history division error Species: of species or group Panthera pardus Genus: TAXONOMY – system by which Panthera organisms are named and classified Family: Felidae • based on morphological and molecular Order: (DNA, proteins) data Carnivora • not necessarily based on evolutionary Class: history, though it can be Mammalia Phylum: TAXONOMIC HIERARCHY – series of nested Chordata groupings used to categorize organisms Domain: Kingdom: Bacteria Animalia Domain: • Archaea developed by Carolus Linnaeus of Sweden Domain: th in the mid-18 century and still used today Eukarya TAXON – a specific category or level in the taxonomic hierarchy (e.g., “class” or “family”) BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE – how organisms are named • genus & specific epithet (e.g., Homo sapiens, Escherichia coli, Tyrannosaurus rex) o both terms are “latinized” and written in italics o the specific epithet is an adjective and is not capitalized o the genus is a noun and is capitalized • also developed by Carolus Linnaeus Order Family Genus Species Phylogenetic Trees Panthera Felidae Panthera pardus A PHYLOGENITIC TREE is a branching (leopard) Taxidea diagram representing a hypothesis Carnivora Mustelidae Taxidea of evolutionary relationships taxus (American • each branch point indicates Lutra badger) Lutra lutra divergence from a common ancestor (European 1 otter) • shows patterns of descent, NOT morphological similarity Canis Canidae Canis latrans 2 (coyote) SISTER TAXA – groups that share an Canis immediate common ancestor lupus (e.g., wolf and coyote) (gray wolf) BASAL TAXON – earliest Branch point: lineage to diverge where lineages diverge Taxon A from the remainder of a 3 Taxon B group Sister 4 taxa Taxon C 2 ROOTED – if all taxa in a Taxon D group have the same ANCESTRAL 5 Taxon E common ancestor they 1 LINEAGE are said to be “rooted” Taxon F Basal Taxon G POLYTOMY – more than taxon two lineages diverge from This branch point This branch point forms represents the a polytomy: an a single branch point (due common ancestor of unresolved pattern of to uncertain divergence) taxa A–G. divergence. Homology vs Analogy HOMOLOGY – similarities due to common ancestry • Molecular Homology – similarity in DNA, protein sequences • Morphological Homology – skeletal & fossil similarities ANALOGY – morphological similarity due to convergent evolution (e.g., bird vs bat wings) Australian marsupial “mole” • analogous structures that arise independently are referred to as homoplasies North American eutherian mole 2. Determining Phylogenies All available information, molecular, morphological and physiological, are used in determining phylogenetic relationships. Geckos ANCESTRAL No limbs LIZARD Snakes (with limbs) Iguanas Monitor lizard When molecular and morphological data contradict, Eastern glass lizard molecular data takes precedence. No limbs Cell 1 C C A T C A G A G T C C division Using DNA Homology to 2 C C A T C AerrorG A G T C C Construct Phylogenies Deletion Sequences in non-conserved regions of DNA (i.e., 1 C C A T C A G A G T C C sequences not subject to Natural Selection) are 2 C C A T C A G A G T C C aligned since they are presumably free to mutate G T A Insertion o computers are used to find the best alignment accounting for deletions, insertions, etc 1 C C A T C A A G T C C The degree of homology in similar regions can 2 C C A T G T A C A G A G T C C be used to construct a phylogeny o greater homology = more recent common ancestor 1 C C A T C A A G T C C NOTE: Random chance would result in 25% homology 2 C C A T G T A C A G A G T C C between sequences, so true homology must be >25%. Using Cladistics to Construct Phylogenies CLADE – an ancestral species and all descendants (a) Monophyletic group (clade) • all descendants have a single common ancestor • all members of clade have unique shared A derived characters • clades are a monophyletic groups 1 B Group I C SHARED ANCESTRAL CHARACTERS (SAC) D • characters that originated before the clade E SHARED DERIVED CHARACTERS (SDC) F • characters found only within the clade G PARAPHYLETIC group – consists Paraphyletic group Common of a single common ancestor and ancestor of some (not all) of its descendants even-toed Other even-toed ungulates ungulates (b) Paraphyletic group (c) Polyphyletic group Hippopotamuses A A B B Group III Cetaceans C C 3 D D Seals E Group II E 2 F F Bears G G POLYPHYLETIC group – consists of Other organisms with more than 1 carnivores common ancestor Polyphyletic group Constructing phylogenies based on shared derived characters (SDCs): • start with an outgroup (group that diverged before the lineage of interest) and construct the phylogeny based on multiple SDCs • a character table can be used to identify successive branch points, each being due to a SDC found in successively fewer members of the phylogeny TAXA Lancelet (outgroup) Lamprey Lancelet (outgroup) Lamprey Bass Frog Turtle Leopard Vertebral column Bass (backbone) 0 1 1 1 1 1 Vertebral Hinged jaws 0 0 1 1 1 1 column Frog Hinged jaws 4 walking legs 0 0 0 1 1 1 Four walking legs Turtle CHARACTERS Amnion 0 0 0 0 1 1 Hair 0 0 0 0 0 1 Amnion Leopard Hair (a) Character table (b) Phylogenetic tree Using the Principle of “Maximum Parsimony” to Construct Phylogenies A phylogeny should be constructed based on maximum parsimony, i.e., the simplest solution that is consistent with the facts. • this is the principle of “Occam’s Razor” in which the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is favored Applying the principle of maximum likelihood to phylogenies based on DNA sequences: • the hypothesis that requires the least number of mutational events is favored Technique 3 1/C 1/C I I III II III II 1/C III II I 1/C 1/C Species I Species II Species III Three phylogenetic hypotheses: 3/A 2/T 3/A 1 4 I I III I I III 2/T 3/A 4/C II III II II III II 4/C 4/C 2/T III II I III II I 3/A 4/C 2/T 4/C 2/T 3/A Site 2 1 2 3 4 Results I I III Species I C T A T Species II C T T C II III II Species III A G A C III II I 6 events 7 events 7 events Ancestral A G T T sequence Phylogenetic Bracketing Phylogenetic bracketing is the process of inferring unknown characters in extinct species based on the principle of maximum parsimony: • in this example the shared characters of crocodiles and Lizards and snakes birds are also attributed to 2 groups of dinosaurs Crocodilians • this example of phylogenetic bracketing exhibits maximum Ornithischian Common dinosaurs parsimony since the simplest ancestor of explanation for these shared crocodilians, Saurischian dinosaurs, characters would be a single dinosaurs and birds common ancestor from which Birds all 4 groups evolved Evidence Supporting a Case of Phylogenetic Bracketing This fossil supports a prediction based on phylogenetic bracketing – that Front limb dinosaurs, like crocodiles and birds, Hind engaged in brooding, the bodily limb warming of eggs. Eggs (a) Fossil remains of Oviraptor (b) Artist’s reconstruction of the and eggs dinosaur’s posture based on the fossil findings Phylogenetic Branch Lengths can be used to Indicate the Degree of Genetic Differences… Drosophila Lancelet Zebrafish Frog Chicken Human Mouse Phylogenetic Branches can also Indicate Time Drosophila Lancelet Zebrafish Frog Chicken Human Mouse CENO- PALEOZOIC MESOZOIC ZOIC 542 251 65.5 Present Millions of years ago 3. Evolutionary History Revealed in Genomes Orthologous vs Paralogous Genes ORTHOLOGOUS GENES – homologous genes in different species PARALOGOUS GENES – homology between different genes in the same species due to duplication Formation of orthologous genes: Formation of paralogous genes: a product of speciation within a species Ancestral gene Ancestral gene Gene families result from repeated Ancestral species Species C duplication of an original gene followed Speciation with Gene duplication and divergence divergence of gene by subsequent mutation. Orthologous genes Paralogous genes Species A Species B Species C after many generations Molecular Clocks Certain genes or other regions of genomes tend to change (i.e., evolve) at a constant rate and thus serve as a molecular clock. For example, the number sequence differences (i.e., nucleotide substitutions) in orthologous genes can reveal: • the amount of time that has passed 90 since 2 species diverged from a common ancestor 60 • the amount of time that has passed since the gene was duplicated 30 Number of mutations Number This is best determined with 0 neutral mutations (mutations that 0 30 60 90 120 are neither selected for or against). Divergence time (millions of years) Problems with Molecular Clocks A molecular clock will not give accurate predictions if the rate of mutation is not constant which will be the case if: • there is natural selection (i.e., a mutation is not neutral) • changes in selective factors over time (i.e., under some conditions a mutation may be neutral and under other conditions it may not be) • for these or other reasons the mutation rate may change over time One can increase the number of genes and taxa analyzed as molecular clocks to dilute any inaccuracies associated with any particular gene, however the problems indicated above can never be entirely eliminated. Cell Euglenozoans Current Model of the division Forams error Diatoms Domain Eukarya Domain “Tree of Life” Ciliates Red algae Green algae • this model, as with previous models, Land plants will no doubt change over time as Amoebas Fungi more information pertaining to Animals current and extinct species becomes Archaea Nanoarchaeotes Domain available Methanogens COMMON Thermophiles ANCESTOR Proteobacteria OF ALL LIFE • as new information becomes (Mitochondria)* Bacteria Domain available, we get closer and closer to Chlamydias Spirochetes the true evolutionary relationships Gram-positive bacteria among all species, both past and Cyanobacteria present (Chloroplasts)*.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oldest Known Dinosaurian Nesting Site and Reproductive Biology of the Early Jurassic Sauropodomorph Massospondylus
    Oldest known dinosaurian nesting site and reproductive biology of the Early Jurassic sauropodomorph Massospondylus Robert R. Reisza,1, David C. Evansb, Eric M. Robertsc, Hans-Dieter Suesd, and Adam M. Yatese aDepartment of Biology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada; bRoyal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON M5S 2C6, Canada; cSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811 QLD, Australia; dDepartment of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013; and eBernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research, University of the Witwatersrand, Wits 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa Edited by Steven M. Stanley, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, and approved December 16, 2011 (received for review June 10, 2011) The extensive Early Jurassic continental strata of southern Africa clutches and recognition of the earliest known dinosaurian nesting have yielded an exceptional record of dinosaurs that includes complex at the Rooidraai locality. scores of partial to complete skeletons of the sauropodomorph Massospondylus, ranging from embryos to large adults. In 1976 an Results incomplete egg clutch including in ovo embryos of this dinosaur, Our work at the Rooidraai locality has yielded multiple in situ the oldest known example in the fossil record, was collected from clutches of eggs as well as fragmentary eggshell and bones, all from a road-cut talus, but its exact provenance was uncertain. An exca- a 2-m-thick interval of muddy siltstone 25 m from the top of the vation program at the site started in 2006 has yielded multiple in Lower Jurassic Upper Elliot Formation (“Stormberg Group,” situ egg clutches, documenting the oldest known dinosaurian Karoo Supergroup) (11).
    [Show full text]
  • A Phylogeny and Timescale for Marsupial Evolution Based on Sequences for Five Nuclear Genes
    J Mammal Evol DOI 10.1007/s10914-007-9062-6 ORIGINAL PAPER A Phylogeny and Timescale for Marsupial Evolution Based on Sequences for Five Nuclear Genes Robert W. Meredith & Michael Westerman & Judd A. Case & Mark S. Springer # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007 Abstract Even though marsupials are taxonomically less diverse than placentals, they exhibit comparable morphological and ecological diversity. However, much of their fossil record is thought to be missing, particularly for the Australasian groups. The more than 330 living species of marsupials are grouped into three American (Didelphimorphia, Microbiotheria, and Paucituberculata) and four Australasian (Dasyuromorphia, Diprotodontia, Notoryctemorphia, and Peramelemorphia) orders. Interordinal relationships have been investigated using a wide range of methods that have often yielded contradictory results. Much of the controversy has focused on the placement of Dromiciops gliroides (Microbiotheria). Studies either support a sister-taxon relationship to a monophyletic Australasian clade or a nested position within the Australasian radiation. Familial relationships within the Diprotodontia have also proved difficult to resolve. Here, we examine higher-level marsupial relationships using a nuclear multigene molecular data set representing all living orders. Protein-coding portions of ApoB, BRCA1, IRBP, Rag1, and vWF were analyzed using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian methods. Two different Bayesian relaxed molecular clock methods were employed to construct a timescale for marsupial evolution and estimate the unrepresented basal branch length (UBBL). Maximum likelihood and Bayesian results suggest that the root of the marsupial tree is between Didelphimorphia and all other marsupials. All methods provide strong support for the monophyly of Australidelphia. Within Australidelphia, Dromiciops is the sister-taxon to a monophyletic Australasian clade.
    [Show full text]
  • 71St Annual Meeting Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Paris Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada, USA November 2 – 5, 2011 SESSION CONCURRENT SESSION CONCURRENT
    ISSN 1937-2809 online Journal of Supplement to the November 2011 Vertebrate Paleontology Vertebrate Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Society of Vertebrate 71st Annual Meeting Paleontology Society of Vertebrate Las Vegas Paris Nevada, USA Las Vegas, November 2 – 5, 2011 Program and Abstracts Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 71st Annual Meeting Program and Abstracts COMMITTEE MEETING ROOM POSTER SESSION/ CONCURRENT CONCURRENT SESSION EXHIBITS SESSION COMMITTEE MEETING ROOMS AUCTION EVENT REGISTRATION, CONCURRENT MERCHANDISE SESSION LOUNGE, EDUCATION & OUTREACH SPEAKER READY COMMITTEE MEETING POSTER SESSION ROOM ROOM SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS SEVENTY-FIRST ANNUAL MEETING PARIS LAS VEGAS HOTEL LAS VEGAS, NV, USA NOVEMBER 2–5, 2011 HOST COMMITTEE Stephen Rowland, Co-Chair; Aubrey Bonde, Co-Chair; Joshua Bonde; David Elliott; Lee Hall; Jerry Harris; Andrew Milner; Eric Roberts EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Philip Currie, President; Blaire Van Valkenburgh, Past President; Catherine Forster, Vice President; Christopher Bell, Secretary; Ted Vlamis, Treasurer; Julia Clarke, Member at Large; Kristina Curry Rogers, Member at Large; Lars Werdelin, Member at Large SYMPOSIUM CONVENORS Roger B.J. Benson, Richard J. Butler, Nadia B. Fröbisch, Hans C.E. Larsson, Mark A. Loewen, Philip D. Mannion, Jim I. Mead, Eric M. Roberts, Scott D. Sampson, Eric D. Scott, Kathleen Springer PROGRAM COMMITTEE Jonathan Bloch, Co-Chair; Anjali Goswami, Co-Chair; Jason Anderson; Paul Barrett; Brian Beatty; Kerin Claeson; Kristina Curry Rogers; Ted Daeschler; David Evans; David Fox; Nadia B. Fröbisch; Christian Kammerer; Johannes Müller; Emily Rayfield; William Sanders; Bruce Shockey; Mary Silcox; Michelle Stocker; Rebecca Terry November 2011—PROGRAM AND ABSTRACTS 1 Members and Friends of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, The Host Committee cordially welcomes you to the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Las Vegas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Model Based on Curvatures of Extant Avian Ungual Bones
    Inferring lifestyle for Aves and Theropoda: A model based on curvatures of extant avian ungual bones A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Master of Science by Research in the Faculty of Science & Engineering 2019 Savannah E. Cobb School of Earth and Environmental Sciences Contents List of Figures.........................................................................................................................4-5 List of Tables..............................................................................................................................6 List of Abbreviations..............................................................................................................7-8 Abstract......................................................................................................................................9 Declaration...............................................................................................................................10 Copyright Statement...............................................................................................................11 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................12 1 Literature Review........................................................................................................13 1.1 Avians, avialans, and theropod dinosaurs..........................................................13 1.2 Comparative study and claws............................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Paleontological Contributions
    Paleontological Contributions Number 14 The first giant raptor (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from the Hell Creek Formation Robert A. DePalma, David A. Burnham, Larry D. Martin, Peter L. Larson, and Robert T. Bakker October 30, 2015 Lawrence, Kansas, USA ISSN 1946-0279 (online) paleo.ku.edu/contributions Life restoration by Emily Willoughby of Dakotaraptor steini running with the sparrow-sized birds, Cimolopteryx petra while the mammal, Purgatorius, can be seen in the foreground. Paleontological Contributions October 30, 2015 Number 14 THE FIRST GIANT RAPTOR (THEROPODA: DROMAEOSAURIDAE) FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION Robert A. DePalma1,2, David A. Burnham2,*, Larry D. Martin2,†, Peter L. Larson3 and Robert T. Bakker4 1 Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, The Palm Beach Museum of Natural History, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; 2 University of Kansas Bio- diversity Institute, Lawrence, Kansas; 3Black Hills Institute of Geological Research, Hill City, South Dakota; 4Houston Museum of Nature and Science, Houston, Texas; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Most dromaeosaurids were small- to medium-sized cursorial, scansorial, and arboreal, sometimes volant predators, but a comparatively small percentage grew to gigantic proportions. Only two such giant “raptors” have been described from North America. Here, we describe a new giant dromaeosaurid, Dakotaraptor steini gen. et sp. nov., from the Hell Creek Formation of South Dakota. The discovery represents the first giant dromaeosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, and the most recent in the fossil record worldwide. A row of prominent ulnar papilli or “quill knobs” on the ulna is our first clear evidence for feather quills on a large dromaeosaurid forearm and impacts evolutionary reconstructions and functional morphology of such derived, typically flight-related features.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOLOGY EDITION Reece • Urry • Cain • Wasserman • Minorsky • Jackson 26 Phylogeny and the Tree of Life
    CAMPBELL TENTH BIOLOGY EDITION Reece • Urry • Cain • Wasserman • Minorsky • Jackson 26 Phylogeny and the Tree of Life Lecture Presentation by Nicole Tunbridge and Kathleen Fitzpatrick © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. Investigating the Tree of Life . Legless lizards have evolved independently in several different groups © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. Figure 26.1 © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. Phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species or group of related species . For example, a phylogeny shows that legless lizards and snakes evolved from different lineages of legged lizards . The discipline of systematics classifies organisms and determines their evolutionary relationships © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. Figure 26.2 Geckos ANCESTRAL No limbs LIZARD Snakes (with limbs) Iguanas Monitor lizard Eastern glass lizard No limbs © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. Concept 26.1: Phylogenies show evolutionary relationships . Taxonomy is the scientific discipline concerned with classifying and naming organisms © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. Binomial Nomenclature . In the 18th century, Carolus Linnaeus published a system of taxonomy based on resemblances . Two key features of his system remain useful today: two-part names for species and hierarchical classification © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. The two-part scientific name of a species is called a binomial . The first part of the name is the genus . The second part, called the specific epithet, is unique for each species within the genus . The first letter of the genus is capitalized, and the entire species name is italicized . Both parts together name the species (not the specific epithet alone) © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. Hierarchical Classification . Linnaeus introduced a system for grouping species in increasingly inclusive categories .
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and the Tree of Life Phylogeny: the Evolutionary History of a Species Or Group of Species
    NOTES: Chapter 26 Phylogeny and the Tree of Life Phylogeny: the evolutionary history of a species or group of species ● Systematics: discipline focused on classifying organisms and determining their evolutionary relationships ● The fossil record: the ordered array of fossils, within layers, or strata, of sedimentary rock ● Paleontologists: collect and interpret fossils a “family tree”… Linnaeus Darwin provided us convinced us to with the mechanism by use a hierarchical which evolution results classification in descent with system modification ● Taxonomy – naming & classifying organisms ● Systematics – naming & classifying organisms according to their evolutionary relationships Systematics ● Phylogenetics – reconstructing the Phylogenetics evolutionary relationships among organisms Binomial Nomenclature ● In the 18th century, Carolus Linnaeus published a system of taxonomy based on resemblances ● Two key features of his system remain useful today: two-part names for species and hierarchical classification Aptenodytes forsteri Binomial Nomenclature ● The two-part scientific name of a species is called a binomial ● The first part of the name is the genus ● The second part is unique for each species within the genus ● The first letter of the genus is capitalized, and the entire species name is italicized ● Both parts together name the species Chelonia mydas Hierarchical Classification ● The taxonomic groups from broad to narrow are domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species ● A taxonomic unit at any level of hierarchy
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and the Tree of Life 537 That Pines and firs Are Different Enough to Be Placed in Sepa- History
    how do biologists distinguish and categorize the millions of species on Earth? An understanding of evolutionary relationships suggests 26 one way to address these questions: We can decide in which “container” to place a species by comparing its traits with those of potential close relatives. For example, the scaly-foot does not have a fused eyelid, a highly mobile jaw, or a short tail posterior to the anus, three traits shared by all snakes. Phylogeny and These and other characteristics suggest that despite a superfi- cial resemblance, the scaly-foot is not a snake. Furthermore, a the Tree of Life survey of the lizards reveals that the scaly-foot is not alone; the legless condition has evolved independently in several different groups of lizards. Most legless lizards are burrowers or live in grasslands, and like snakes, these species lost their legs over generations as they adapted to their environments. Snakes and lizards are part of the continuum of life ex- tending from the earliest organisms to the great variety of species alive today. In this unit, we will survey this diversity and describe hypotheses regarding how it evolved. As we do so, our emphasis will shift from the process of evolution (the evolutionary mechanisms described in Unit Four) to its pattern (observations of evolution’s products over time). To set the stage for surveying life’s diversity, in this chapter we consider how biologists trace phylogeny, the evolution- ary history of a species or group of species. A phylogeny of lizards and snakes, for example, indicates that both the scaly- foot and snakes evolved from lizards with legs—but that they evolved from different lineages of legged lizards.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biomechanics Behind Extreme Osteophagy in Tyrannosaurus Rex Paul M
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN The Biomechanics Behind Extreme Osteophagy in Tyrannosaurus rex Paul M. Gignac1 & Gregory M. Erickson2 Most carnivorous mammals can pulverize skeletal elements by generating tooth pressures between Received: 25 November 2016 occluding teeth that exceed cortical bone shear strength, thereby permitting access to marrow and Accepted: 7 April 2017 phosphatic salts. Conversely, carnivorous reptiles have non-occluding dentitions that engender Published: xx xx xxxx negligible bone damage during feeding. As a result, most reptilian predators can only consume bones in their entirety. Nevertheless, North American tyrannosaurids, including the giant (13 metres [m]) theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex stand out for habitually biting deeply into bones, pulverizing and digesting them. How this mammal-like capacity was possible, absent dental occlusion, is unknown. Here we analyzed T. rex feeding behaviour from trace evidence, estimated bite forces and tooth pressures, and studied tooth-bone contacts to provide the answer. We show that bone pulverization was made possible through a combination of: (1) prodigious bite forces (8,526–34,522 newtons [N]) and tooth pressures (718–2,974 megapascals [MPa]) promoting crack propagation in bones, (2) tooth form and dental arcade configurations that concentrated shear stresses, and (3) repetitive, localized biting. Collectively, these capacities and behaviors allowed T. rex to finely fragment bones and more fully exploit large dinosaur carcasses for sustenance relative to competing carnivores. Most vertebrates cannot generate sufficient tooth pressures to gain access to marrow and phosphatic minerals trapped within the major bones of large animals. Carnivorous mammals (Carnivora) are the exception. Many, such as grey wolves (Canis lupus) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), use their occluding incisors and cheek teeth to produce tooth pressures exceeding cortical bone shear strength to promote bone fragmentation1–4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ligamental Scar in the Costovertebral Articulation of the Tyrannosaurid Dinosaurs
    The ligamental scar in the costovertebral articulation of the tyrannosaurid dinosaurs TATSUYA HIRASAWA Hirasawa, T. 2009. The ligamental scar in the costovertebral articulation of the tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Acta Palaeonto− logica Polonica 54 (1): 49–59. The costovertebral articulation is integral to constrain the thoracic kinematics and to infer the breathing mechanism in the respect with costal aspiration. However, the structure of the costovertebral articulation in non−avian theropods has not been studied in great detail before. This study highlights the Tyrannosauridae, which is represented by numerous com− plete specimens. Costovertebral articulations of ten tyrannosaurid specimens, including two nearly in−situ articulated fos− sils, were investigated and compared with those in extant Archosauria. For extant archosaurs, dissections were conducted to rationalize the soft tissue anatomy in tyrannosaurids. This study shows that the rib articulates ventrally or postero− ventrally with the distal end of the corresponding vertebral transverse process in the tyrannosaurid ribcage. A ligament (ligamentum costotransversarium) can be reconstructed to connect the rib tuberculum to the transverse process in each ar− ticulation. The scar for lig. costotransversarium is recognizable in many theropod skeletons, and this rugosity can be used to identify the rotational axis for the rib. This result provides a cornerstone for exploring the evolution of the ribcage and breathing mechanisms across the theropod lineage leading to birds. Key words: Dinosauria, Theropoda, Tyrannosauridae, ribcage, vertebra, rib, soft tissue anatomy. Tatsuya Hirasawa [[email protected]−tokyo.ac.jp], Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, 7−3−1 Hongo, Bunkyo−ku, Tokyo, 113−0033, Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 82 (2015) 358–374
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 82 (2015) 358–374 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Biogeography in deep time – What do phylogenetics, geology, and paleoclimate tell us about early platyrrhine evolution? Richard F. Kay Department of Evolutionary Anthropology & Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Duke University, Box 90383, Durham, NC 27708, United States article info abstract Article history: Molecular data have converged on a consensus about the genus-level phylogeny of extant platyrrhine Available online 12 December 2013 monkeys, but for most extinct taxa and certainly for those older than the Pleistocene we must rely upon morphological evidence from fossils. This raises the question as to how well anatomical data mirror Keywords: molecular phylogenies and how best to deal with discrepancies between the molecular and morpholog- Platyrrhini ical data as we seek to extend our phylogenies to the placement of fossil taxa. Oligocene Here I present parsimony-based phylogenetic analyses of extant and fossil platyrrhines based on an Miocene anatomical dataset of 399 dental characters and osteological features of the cranium and postcranium. South America I sample 16 extant taxa (one from each platyrrhine genus) and 20 extinct taxa of platyrrhines. The tree Paraná Portal Anthropoidea structure is constrained with a ‘‘molecular scaffold’’ of extant species as implemented in maximum par- simony using PAUP with the molecular-based ‘backbone’ approach. The data set encompasses most of the known extinct species of platyrrhines, ranging in age from latest Oligocene ( 26 Ma) to the Recent. The tree is rooted with extant catarrhines, and Late Eocene and Early Oligocene African anthropoids.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download Feathered Dinosaurs: the Origin of Birds Kindle
    FEATHERED DINOSAURS: THE ORIGIN OF BIRDS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK John L. Long,Peter Schouten | 208 pages | 08 Jan 2009 | Oxford University Press Inc | 9780195372663 | English | New York, United States Feathered Dinosaurs: The Origin of Birds PDF Book Journal of Morphology. This is the ultimate in dinosaur books. However, some fossils support the version of this theory that holds that some non- flying carnivorous dinosaurs may have had flying ancestors. Photo of dromaeosaurid feather courtesy of Xing Xu, from: Xu, X. Teach your students about the evolution of birds: The evolution of flight in birds , an online investigation for grades After the extinction of the dinosaurs and before large carnivorous mammals evolved, two groups of large flightless birds evolved to fill a similar niche. Archaeopteryx was the first and for a long time the only known feathered Mesozoic animal. The tide began to turn against the 'thecodont' hypothesis after the discovery of a new theropod dinosaur in Montana. Give Feedback External Websites. Instead, they indicate that Archaeopteryx is closer to birds, within the clade Avialae , than it is to deinonychosaurs or oviraptorosaurs. Schouten, an acclaimed natural history artist, has created 80 full-color paintings that capture the striking physical traits of these feathered dinosaurs. In Currie, Philip J. A small minority of researchers have claimed that the simple filamentous "protofeather" structures are simply the result of the decomposition of collagen fiber under the dinosaurs' skin or in fins along their backs, and that species with unquestionable feathers, such as oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurs are not dinosaurs, but true birds unrelated to dinosaurs.
    [Show full text]