[ad_1]
SummaryThe evolution of the mammalian jaw undoubtedly constitutes one of the most important improvements in the history of vertebrates and underlies the ordinary radiation and diversification of mammals over the 220 million years. final years1,2. In particular, the transformation of the mandible into a single enamelled bone and the emergence of an unusual jaw joint, while incorporating some ancestral jaw bones into the mammalian heart ear, are ultimately cited as an example classic reuse of morphological structures3, four. Even though it is remarkably well documented in the fossil record, mammalian jaw evolution remains paradoxical: the ancestral jaw joint bones could perhaps serve as joint hinges for the main and ear mastication. mandibular heart that has become gracious enough to hear. Here, we review numerical reconstructions, computer modeling and biomechanical analyzes to show that miniaturization of the early mammalian jaw has become the determining factor in the transformation of the jaw joint. We demonstrate that there will simply be no evidence of a concomitant reduction in jaw-joint stress and will generate more chunk potency in the major non-mammalian taxa in the cynodontic transition. mammals, as we previously thought5,6,7,8. Although a change in jaw muscle recruitment has occurred throughout the evolution of the last mammals, the optimization of mandibular features to create greater cutting power while reducing the hundreds of knuckles This did not occur. This means that miniaturization has equipped a selective diet for the evolution of the mammary joint, followed by the combination of postdental bones in the mammalian heart ear.
Get the right to enter alternativeAccess options
Subscribe to JournalGet rotund newspaper web admission for 1 year $ 199.00 only $ 3.Netyety per issueAll costs are net costs. VAT will probably be added later in the order. Rental or Retractation Article Get restricted access to the web or article on ReadCube.com starting at $ 8.99 All costs are net costs.
Details availabilityAll relevant knowledge (three-dimensional osteology, finite-parts prognosis, and multi-body dynamic prognosis and computer code) passes through the DataBris repository of the University of Bristol (https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.n5f4ogftag0r2fbffh8u7waok ) .Extra informationPublisher's discovers: Springer Nature remains impartial with respect to jurisdictional claims in revealed cards and institutional affiliations.References1.Kemp, TS The Initial Construction and Evolution of Mammals (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2005) .2. Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. et al. Mammals of the Dinosaur Age – Origins, Evolution and Construction (Columbia Univ Press, Unique York, 2004) .three.Crompton, AW in Stories in Vertebrate Evolution (Joysey eds, KA & Kemp, TS) 231-253 (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1972) .Four.Luo, Z.-X. Transformation and diversification in the early evolution of mammals. Nature 450, 1011-1019 (2007) .5.Crompton, AW & Hylander, WL in The Ecology and Biology of Mammal-Love Reptiles (Eds Hotton, N. III et al.) 263-282 (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1986). ). .6.Bramble, DM Initial construction of the mammalian food complex: objects and mechanisms. Paleobiology Four, 271-301 (1978) .7.Barghusen, HR in morphology of the maxillomandibular apparatus (Ed Schumacher, GH) 26-32 (Georg Thieme, Leipzig, 1972) .8DeMar, R. & Barghusen, HR Mechanics and evolution of the synapsid jaw. Evolution 26, 622-637 (1972) .9.Luo, Z.-X. Models of development in the Mesozoic evolution of mammalian ears. Annu. Rev. School. Evol. Syst. Forty-two, 355-380 (2011) .10.Allin, E.F. Evolution of the mammalian heart ear. J. Morphol. 147, 403-437 (1975) .11.Sidor, C. A. Evolutionary trends and initial construction of the lower jaw of mammals. Paleobiology 29, 605-640 (2003) .12.Manley, G. A. Evolutionary routes of the mammalian cochlea. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. thirteen, 733-743 (2012) .thirteen.Luo, Z.-X. et al. Unique evidence of the evolution of the mammalian ear and the adaptation of food in a Jurassic ecosystem. Nature 548, 326-329 (2017) .14. Reichert, C. in Archiv für Anatomy, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin (Müller, J.) Cent-222 (W. Thome, Berlin, 1837) .15 .Gaupp, EWT Die Reichertsche Theorie (Hammer, Amboss and Kieferfrage). Archiv für Anatomy und Entwicklungsgeschichte 1912, 1-426 (1913) .Sixteen.Urban, D.J. et al. An unusual development mechanism of the mark for the separation of ossicles from the heart of mammals of the jaw. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 284, 20162416 (2017) .17.Anthwal, N. Urban, D.J., Luo, Z. X., Sears, K.E. and Tucker. The cartilage degradation of A. S. Meckel provides clues to the evolution of the mammalian heart ear. Nat. School. Evol. 1, 0093 (2017) .18.Hylander, W. L. The significance of mandible manufacturing in primates. J. Morphol. One hundred and sixty, 223-239 (1979) .19. Herring, S.W., Rafferty, K.L., Liu, Z.J. and Marshall, C.D. Jaw, muscle tissue and skull in mammals: the biomechanics of chewing. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 131, 207-219 (2001) .20.Liu, Z.J. and Herring, S.W. Bony traces and internal bone pressures on the jaw joint of the small pig throughout the contraction of the masticatory muscles. Camber. Oral Biol. Forty-Five, Ninety-Five-112 (2000) 211.Crompton, AW in Functional Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology (Thomason, JJ) 55-75 (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, 1995) .22.Lautenschlager, S., Gill, P., Luo, ZX, Fagan, MJ and Rayfield, EJ Morphological evolution of the adductor complex of mammalian jaws. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 92, 1910-1940 (2017) .23.Reed, D.A., Iriarte-Diaz, J. & Diekwisch, T.G. A three-dimensional prognosis of the free body describing the variation of the musculoskeletal configuration of the lower jaw of the cynodont. Evol. Dev. 18, Forty-one-fifty-three (2016) .24.Rowe, T. in Mammal Phylogeny (Szalay ed., FS et al.) 129 – One hundred and forty-five (Springer, Unique York, 1993) .25.Kemp, TS The beginning of the construction of higher taxa: macro-revolutionary processes and the case of mammals. Acta Zool. 88, three-22 (2007) .26.Hanken, J. & Wake, D. B. Miniaturization of body size: organismal consequences and evolutionary importance. Annu. Rev. School. Syst. 24, 501-519 (1993) .27. Gill, P.G. et al. Food specializations and differences in the diet of early mammalian strains. Nature 512, 303-305 (2014) .28.Discontinuance, R.A., Friedman, M., Lloyd, G.T. and Benson, R.B. Proof for Adaptive Radiation of the Jurassic Environment in Mammals. Curr. Biol. 25, 2137-2142 (2015) .29.Pacheco, PC, Martinelli, AG, Pavanatto, AE, Soares, MB and Dias-da-Silva, S. Prozostrodon brasiliensis, a probanognathian cynodont of the Trias de Unhurried in Brazil: second file and improvements on his dental anatomy. Hist. Biol. 30, 475-485 (2017) .30.Lautenschlager, S. Reconstruction of the precedent: programs and means for the digital restoration of fossils. R. Soc. Initiate Sci. three, 160342 (2016) .31.Lautenschlager, S. Cranial myology and energy efficiency of Erlikosaurus andrewsi pieces: an unusual potential for digital muscle reconstructions. J. Anat. 222, 260-272 (2013) .32.Lautenschlager, S. Estimation of cranial musculoskeletal constraints in theropod dinosaurs. R. Soc. Initiate Sci. 2, 150495 (2015) .33.Thomason, J. J. Cranial strength in terms of estimated bite forces in some mammals. Can. J. Zool. Sixty-nine, 2326-2333 (1991) .34.Ashman, R.B. and Rho, J. Y. Elastic tissue-based trabecular bone module. J. Biomech. 21, 177-181 (1988) .35.Curtis, N. et al. Prediction of muscle activation patterns by movement and anatomy: Sphenodon skull modeling (Diapsida: Rhynchocephalia). J. R. Soc. Interface 7, 153 – A Sixty (2010) .36.Dumont, E.R., Grosse, I.R. and Slater, G. J. Requirements for Evaluating the Efficacy of Partially Finite Elements of Biological Constructs. J. Theor. Biol. 256, Ninety Six – 103 (2009) .37.Incandescent, J. A. The importance of craniofacial sutures in the biomechanical finished piece articles of domestic pig. PLoS ONE 7, e31769 (2012) .38.R Main crew. A: A language and framework for statistical computing
https://www.r-mission.org/ (R Basis for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2017). Interesting References AcknowledgmentsWe thank P. Brewer, S. Chapman (Museum of Natural History, London), O. Rauhut, G. Roessner (Bayerische Staatssammlung für Historische Geologie und Palaeontologie, Munich), K. Angielczyk, W. Simpson ( National Museum of Natural History, Chicago), G. Hantke and A. Kitchener (National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh) for the web admission of specimens their care. T. Rowe and J. Maisano (University of Texas, Austin): Numerical datasets of generously equipped specimens. A. Neander (University of Chicago), G. Roessner, D. Sykes (Natural History Museum, London), K. Robson Brown (University of Bristol), O. Katsamenis, and M. Mavrogordato (University of Southampton) participated to CT scan. E. Ghirardello enticing specimens and performing tests on hedgehog mandible tissue. We thank J. Hopson (University of Chicago) for the discussion. This work became as soon as funded by the Natural Setting Comparisons Council (NERC) grants NE / K01496X / 1 (at EJR) and NE / K013831 / 1 (at MJF), and gave a boost to the price. University of Chicago (Z. -XL).
Reviewer knowledge
Nature thanks C. A. Sidor and the anonymous critic (s) for his contribution to the review of the application for this work.
Information WritingAssociationsSchool of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United KingdomStephan Lautenschlager, Pamela G. Gill and Emily J. Rayfield School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham , United KingdomStephan Lautenschlager United Kingdom Pamela G. GillDepartment of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USAZhe-Xi LuoSchool of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom Michael J. FaganAuthorsSearch for Stephan Lautenschlager in: Learn more about Pamela G. Gill in: Learn more about Zhe-Xi Luo in: Learn more about Michael J. Fagan in: Learn more about Emily J Rayfield in: ContributionsS.L., PGG, Z.-XL, MJF and EJR designed and designed the look of the eye. S.L., P.G., Z.-X.L. and E.J.R. Organized logistics of specimens for computed tomography and knowledge of computed tomography. Z.-X.L. web access equipped with specimens and additional data. S.L. treated knowledge in CT, performed digital restorations and reconstructions, and performed computer analyzes. M.J.F. and E.J.R. contributed to the dynamic analysis of finished parts and multiple bodies. S.L., P.G., Z.-X.L., M.J.F. and E.J.R also contributed to the prognosis of the results. S.L. text, figures and considerable additional knowledge. S.L., P.G., Z.-X.L., M.J.F. and E.J.R. also contributed to the editing, commentary and revision of the manuscript and figures. E.J.R. and M.J.F. financing purchased.
Concurrent activities
The authors do not discover any concurrent lawsuit.
Corresponding authorsCorrespondence to
Stephan Lautenschlager or Emily J. Rayfield. Figures and tables of extended knowledge Detailed details Fig. 1 Relative cutting forces and measures of biomechanical efficiency of cynodont and mammalian taxa. b, relative block forces for objects sized to the same size (with T. liorhinus as a reference). Relative block forces calculated due to the ratio of muscle forces to resulting block forces (purchased from the response forces of the finished part elements). Differences in values represent the results for both unilateral and bilateral block simulations. c – f, reasonable values per piece for Von Mises stress (c), displacement (d), largest strain (e) and minimal significant strain (f). Differences in values represent the results of unilateral and bilateral segment simulations (for long established items). Sample size for each species, n = 1. Long details Fig. 2 Results of biomechanical prognosis of cynodont and mammal taxa for simulated unilateral bite to canines and enamel closure. Results for items of the same size (with T. liorhinus as reference). a – g, The multi-body dynamic prognosis shows forces forces and articular forces (work and balance aspect) throughout the opening and closing cycles of the jaws. The difference bars indicate the values purchased from the response forces of the finished part elements. Peak values describe most of the block powers purchased from multibody dynamic prognostic elements. h – n, the finished part von-Mises-stress traces the traces for the piece to the canine and the enamel closure (indicated by crimson arrows). Scale bars in h, j – n, 10 mm; i, 50 mm. Sample size for each species, n = 1. Detailed detail Fig. 3 Plots of stress contours in traction and compression of the mandibular joint. Confirmed results for the unilateral block on the canine (upper rows) and the situation of enamel closure (lower rows) the articulation of the jaw of the work appearance and appearance of balance in the dorsal application. All contour images are sized to the same size. Extended details Fig. Four Amplitude of the bite power against von Mises stress for various models of muscle activation. Confirmed results for a unilateral piece on the situation of canine enamel. Relative block power measured in terms of block power in terms of von Mises stress in the jaw joint. Extended details Fig. 5 Amplitude of the bite power as a function of von Mises stress for different models of muscle activation. Relative block power measured in block power in terms of von Mises stress in the jaw joint. Extended details Fig. 6 Amplitude of the bite as a function of tensile stress for various models of muscle activation. Relative block power measured in block power in terms of tensile stress in the jaw joint. Extended details Fig. 7 Amplitude of the bite as a function of the tensile stress for different models of muscle activation. Relative block power measured in block power in terms of tensile stress in the jaw joint. Extended details Fig. 8 Amplitude of the bite as a function of compressive stress for different models of muscle activation. Relative block power measured in block power in terms of compressive stress in the jaw joint. Extended details Fig. 9 Amplitude of the force of the bite versus the stress for different models of muscle activation. Confirmed results for a unilateral piece on the closing enamel. Relative block power measured in block power in terms of compression stress in the jaw joint -spend information from this text Take a look at RightsLink.About this articleHistory of publicationsPublished17 September 2018DOIhttps: //doi.org/ 10.1038 / s41586-018-0521-Four
Comments By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our Phrases and Team Guidelines. Although you are looking for something that is abusive or you are not aware of our terms or programs, please report it as being inferior.
Read more
Source link
