4.7 Article

Evolutionary history of quadrupedal walking gaits shows mammalian release from locomotor constraint

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0937

关键词

Tetrapoda; limb phase; duty factor; locomotion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study utilized internet videos to study the gait evolution of vertebrates, finding an ancestral lateral-sequence diagonal-couplet gait in quadrupedal gnathostomes. Mammals overcame this constraint with a wider range of phase values. The diagonal-sequence diagonal-couplet gait in mammals is significantly associated with arboreality.
Vertebrates employ an impressive range of strategies for coordinating their limb movements while walking. Although this gait variation has been quantified and hypotheses for its origins tested in select tetrapod lineages, a comprehensive understanding of gait evolution in a macroevolutionary context is currently lacking. We used freely available internet videos to nearly double the number of species with quantitative gait data, and used phylogenetic comparative methods to test key hypotheses about symmetrical gait origin and evolution. We find strong support for an ancestral lateral-sequence diagonal-couplet gait in quadrupedal gnathostomes, and this mode is remarkably conserved throughout tetrapod phylogeny. Evolutionary rate analyses show that mammals overcame this ancestral constraint, resulting in a greater range of phase values than any other tetrapod lineage. Diagonal-sequence diagonal-couplet gaits are significantly associated with arboreality in mammals, though this relationship is not recovered for other tetrapod lineages. Notably, the lateral-sequence lateral-couplet gait, unique to mammals among extant tetrapods, is not associated with any traditional explanations. The complex drivers of gait diversification in mammals remain unclear, but our analyses suggest that their success was due, in part, to release from a locomotor constraint that has probably persisted in other extant tetrapod lineages for over 375 Myr.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据