Advertisement

Rodent and Lagomorph Morphotype Adaptations, Origins, and Relationships: Some Postcranial Attributes Analyzed

  • Frederick S. Szalay
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series book series (NSSA, volume 92)

Abstract

The literature on postcranials, whether descriptive or analytical, paleontological or neontological, is amazingly scanty for the largest of the mammalian orders, the Rodentia. Although some excellent descriptions can be found on fossils (see especially Wood, 1937, 1962; Emry and Thorington, 1982), and equally important contributions have been made to comparative myology of the postcranium (e. g., Hildebrand, 1978; Woods, this volume, and references therein), this evidence has not been utilized convincingly to attempt an understanding of the origins and relationships, and the early postcranial adaptations of the order. My aim in this paper is to concentrate on these two closely interrelated goals of evolutionary analysis, primarily for the Rodentia, but with some definite observations on the Lagomorpha, sensu lato, as well.

Keywords

Ground Squirrel Cheek Tooth Ligamentum Teres Distal View Tree Squirrel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amtmann, E. 1979. Biomechanical interpretations of form and structure of bones: role of genetics and function in growth and remodelling. In: Environment, Behavior, and Morphology, M. E. Morbeck, H. Preuschoft, and N. Gomberg, eds., pp. 347–366, G. Fischer, NY.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, C. H. and Napier, J. R. 1953a. The rotary mobility of the fibula in eutherian mammals. J. Anat. 87: 11–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, C. H. and Napier, J. R. 1953b. The form and mobility of the fibula in metatherian mammals. J. Anat. 87: 207–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, C. C. 1963. A review of the North American Tertiary Sciuridae. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 130: 109–248.Google Scholar
  5. Bock, W. J. 1977. Adaptation and the comparative method. In: Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, M. K. Hecht, P. C. Goody, and B. M. Hecht, eds., pp. 57–82, Plenum Press, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bock, W. J. 1981. Functional-adaptive analysis in evolutionary classification. Amer. Zool. 21: 5–20.Google Scholar
  7. Dawson, M. R., Li, C.-K., and Qi, T. 1984. Eocene ctenodactyloid rodents (Mammalia) of Eastern and Central Asia. Spec. Publ. Carneg. Mus. Nat. Hist. 9: 138–150.Google Scholar
  8. Dollo, L. 1893. Les lois de l’evolution. Bull. Soc. Belg. Géol. Pal. Hydr. 7: 164–166.Google Scholar
  9. Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. Columbia Univ. Press, NY.Google Scholar
  10. Emry, R. J. and Thorington, R. 1982. Descriptive and comparative osteology of the oldest fossil squirrel, Protosciurus (Rodentia: Sciuridae). Smithsonian Contrib. Paleobiol. 47: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, F. G. 1942. The osteology and relationships of the elephant shrews (Macroscelididae). Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 80: 85–125.Google Scholar
  12. Gingerich, P. D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8: 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Godinot, M. 1981. Usefulness and meaning of the mammalian specific lineages which are used in European continental biostratigraphy. Int. Symp. Concpt. Meth. Paleont., Barcelona: 249–258.Google Scholar
  14. Gutmann, W. F. 1977. Phylogenetic reconstruction: theory, methodology, and application to chordate evolution. In: Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, M. K. Hecht, P. C. Goody, and B. M. Hecht, eds., pp. 57–82, Plenum Press, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Haines, R. W. 1958. Arboreal or terrestrial ancestry of placental mammals. Quart. Rev. Biol. 33: 1–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  17. Hildebrand, M. 1978. Insertions and functions of certain flexor muscles in the hind leg of rodents. J. Morph. 155: 111–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins, F. A., Jr. 1974. Tree shrew locomotion and origins of primate arborealism. In: Primate Locomotion, F. A. Jenkins, Jr., ed., pp. 85–115, Academic Press, NY.Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins, F. A., Jr. and Krause, D. W. 1983. Adaptations for climbing in North American multituberculates (Mammalia). Science 220: 712–715.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. 1979. Evolution of the therian mammals in the late Cretaceous of Asia. Part III. Postcranial skeleton in Zalambdalestidae. Palaeont. Pol. 38: 3–41.Google Scholar
  21. Korth, W. W. 1984. Early Tertiary evolution and radiation of rodents in North America. Bull. Carneg. Mus. Nat. Hist. 24: 1–71.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, O. J. 1980a. The joints of the evolving foot. Part I. The ankle joint. J. Anat. 130: 527–543.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, O. J. 1980b. The joints of the evolving foot. Part II. The intrinsic joints. J. Anat. 130: 833–857.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, O. J. 1980c. The joints of the evolving foot. Part III. The fossil evidence. J. Anat. 131: 275–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthew, W. D. 1904. The arboreal ancestry of the Mammalia. Amer. Nat. 38: 811–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matthew, W. D. 1909. The Carnivora and Insectivora of the Bridger Basin, Middle Eocene. Mem. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 9: 289–567.Google Scholar
  27. Mayr, E. 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Z. Zool. Syst. Evolut.-Forsch. 12: 94–128.Google Scholar
  28. Mayr, E. 1981. Biological classification: toward a synthesis of opposing methodologies. Science 214: 510–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Peters, V. D. S. 1972. Das Problem konvergent entstandener Strukturen in der anagenetischen und geneologischen Systematik. Z. Zool. Syst. Evolut.-Forsch. 10: 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Romankowowa, A. 1960. The sesamoid bones of the autopodia of Insectivora and Rodentia. Zoologica Pol. 10: 225–256.Google Scholar
  31. Romankowowa, A. 1963. Comparative study of the structure of the os calcaneum in insectivores and rodents. Acta Theriol. 7: 91–126.Google Scholar
  32. Simpson, G. G. 1975. Recent advances in methods of phylogenetic inference. In: Phylogeny of the Primates, W. P. Luckett and F. S. Szalay, eds., pp. 3–19, Plenum Press, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sulimski, A. 1968. Paleocene genus Pseudictops Matthew, Granger, and Simpson, 1929 (Mammalia) and its revision. Palaeont. Pol. 19: 101–133.Google Scholar
  34. Szalay, F. S. 1977a. Ancestors, descendants, sistergroups, and the testing of phylogenetic hypotheses. Syst. Zool. 26: 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Szalay, F. S. 1977b. Phylogenetic relationships and a classification of the eutherian Mammalia. In: Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, M. K. Hecht, P. C. Goody, and B. M. Hecht, eds., pp. 317–374, Plenum Press, NY.Google Scholar
  36. Szalay, F. S. 1981a. Phylogeny and the problem of adaptive significance: the case of the earliest primates. Folia Primatol. 36: 157–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Szalay, F. S. 1981b. Functional analysis and the practice of the phylogenetic method as reflected by some mammalian studies. Amer. Zool. 21: 37–45.Google Scholar
  38. Szalay, F. S. 1982. A new appraisal of marsupial phylogeny and classification. In: Carnivorous Marsupials, M. Archer, ed., pp. 621–640, Roy. Zool. Soc. NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  39. Szalay, F. S. 1984. Arboreality: is it homologous in metatherian and eutherian mammals? Evol. Biol. 18: 215–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Szalay, F. S. and Decker, R. L. 1974. Origins, evolution, and function of the tarsus in late Cretaceous eutherians and Paleocene primates. In: Primate Locomotion, F. A. Jenkins, Jr., ed., pp. 223–259, Academic Press, NY.Google Scholar
  41. Szalay, F. S., Tattersall, I., and Decker, R. L. 1975. Phylogenetic relationships of Plesiadapis: postcranial evidence. Contrib. Primatol. 5: 136–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Valen, L. 1978. Why not to be a cladist. Evol. Theory 3: 285–299.Google Scholar
  43. Van Valen, L. 1982. Why misunderstand the evolutionary half of biology? In: Conceptual Issues in Ecology, E. Saarinen, ed., pp. 323–343, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, R. W. 1949. Early Tertiary rodents of North America. Carneg. Inst. Wash. Publ. 584: 67–164.Google Scholar
  45. Wood, A. E. 1937. The mammalian fauna of the White River Oligocene. Part II. Rodentia. Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. 26: 157–279.Google Scholar
  46. Wood, A. E. 1962. The early Tertiary rodents of the family Paramyidae. Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. 52: 1–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick S. Szalay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anthropology, Hunter CollegeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations