2021 article
Evaluating bony predictors of bite force across the order Carnivora
Dickinson, E., Davis, J. S., Deutsch, A. R., Patel, D., Nijhawan, A., Patel, M., … Hartstone-Rose, A. (2021, August 6). JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY.
author keywords: bony correlates; entheses; masseter; PCSA; temporalis
MeSH headings : Animals; Biomechanical Phenomena; Bite Force; Carnivora; Diet; Masseter Muscle; Masticatory Muscles
TL;DR:
This study compares three cranial osteological techniques for estimating muscle size against dissection-derived muscle weights and physiological cross-sectional area within the jaw adductor musculature of 40 carnivoran taxa spanning eight families, four orders of magnitude in body size, and the full dietary spectrum of the order.
(via Semantic Scholar)
UN Sustainable Development Goal Categories
13. Climate Action
(Web of Science)
15. Life on Land
(Web of Science)
Source: Web Of Science
Added: August 23, 2021
AbstractIn carnivorans, bite force is a critical and ecologically informative variable that has been correlated with multiple morphological, behavioral, and environmental attributes. Whereas in vivo measures of biting performance are difficult to obtain in many taxa—and impossible in extinct species—numerous osteological proxies exist for estimating masticatory muscle size and force. These proxies include both volumetric approximations of muscle dimensions and direct measurements of muscular attachment sites. In this study, we compare three cranial osteological techniques for estimating muscle size (including 2D‐photographic and 3D‐surface data approaches) against dissection‐derived muscle weights and physiological cross‐sectional area (PCSA) within the jaw adductor musculature of 40 carnivoran taxa spanning eight families, four orders of magnitude in body size, and the full dietary spectrum of the order. Our results indicate that 3D‐approaches provide more accurate estimates of muscle size than do surfaces measured from 2D‐lateral photographs. However, estimates of a muscle's maximum cross‐sectional area are more closely correlated with muscle mass and PCSA than any estimates derived from muscle attachment areas. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for muscle thickness in osteological estimations of the masticatory musculature; as muscles become volumetrically larger, their larger cross‐sectional area does not appear to be associated with a proportional increase in the attachment site area. Though volumetric approaches approximate muscle dimensions well across the order as a whole, caution should be exercised when applying any single method as a predictor across diverse phylogenies.