Ontogenia de las órbitas en Pan troglodytes: implicancias estructurales, funcionales y evolutivas

Guillermo Germán Joosten; María Mercedes Gould; Marisol Anzelmo; Fernando Ramírez Rozzi; Marina Laura Sardi

doi:10.24215/25456377e061

Autores/as

Guillermo Germán Joosten División Antropología, Museo de La Plata
María Mercedes Gould División Antropología, Museo de La Plata
Marisol Anzelmo División Antropología, Museo de La Plata CONICET, Argentina
Fernando Ramírez Rozzi UPR 2147 CNRS, Dynamique de l'évolution humaine, Paris , Francia
Marina Laura Sardi División Antropología, Museo de La Plata CONICET, Argentina

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24215/25456377e061

Palabras clave:

crecimiento, desarrollo, cráneo, chimpancé, visión

Resumen

Las órbitas de los primates Haplorrhini son particulares dentro de los mamíferos por estar completamente separadas de la fenestra temporal y rodeadas por hueso, ser convergentes, estar frontalizadas y proveer la base para el desarrollo de un notorio torus supraorbitario. Estas características han sido descriptas, algunas como adaptaciones al hábito de vida y otras como resultado de reacomodaciones estructurales de las matrices funcionales del cráneo. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar los cambios morfológicos de las órbitas en una muestra ontogenética transversal de Pan troglodytes y su asociación con estructuras adyacentes a fin de discutir implicancias estructurales y funcionales. Se utilizaron 52 imágenes de tomografías computadas de cráneos de Pan troglodytes desde 8 meses de vida postnatal hasta adultos. Se registraron landmarks y se tomaron medidas volumétricas y lineales que permitieron extraer variables angulares y proporciones. Se realizó ANOVA, regresiones lineales y parciales y Análisis de Componentes Principales. Los resultados indican que los rasgos de valor adaptativo (funcionales) de la órbita de Pan troglodytes se establecen tempranamente en la ontogenia y no varían durante el período postnatal, mientras que su relación con estructuras adyacentes muestra importantes cambios.

Referencias

Adams, D.C.; Collyer, M.L. & A. Kaliontzopoulou (2018) Geomorph: Software for geometric morphometric analyses. R package version 3.0.6. https://cran.r-project.org/package=geomorph.

Ankel-Simons, F. (2000) Primate anatomy: An introduction. San Diego: Academic Press.

Athreya, S. (2012) The frontal bone in the genus Homo: a survey of functional and phylogenetic sources of variation. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 90, pp. 1-22.

Barbeito Andrés, J. (2014) Integración ontogene?tica en la morfología craneofacial humana. Tesis Doctoral, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata (inédito).

Barbeito?Andrés, J.; Anzelmo, M.; Ventrice, F.; Pucciarelli, H.M., &

Sardi, M.L. (2016) Morphological integration of the orbital region in a human ontogenetic sample. The Anatomical Record, 299(1), pp. 70-80.

Bastir, M., & Rosas, A. (2004) Comparative ontogeny in humans and chimpanzees: similarities, differences and paradoxes in postnatal growth and development of the skull. Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger, 186(5-6), pp. 503-509.

Bookstein, F., Schäfer, K., Prossinger, H., Seidler, H., Fieder, M.,

Stringer, C., ? & Recheis, W. (1999) Comparing frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern Homo by morphometric analysis. The Anatomical Record, 257(6), pp. 217-224.

Cartmill, M. (2017) Arboreal adaptations and the origin of the order Primates. En: The functional and evolutionary biology of primates (pp. 97-122). Routledge.

Denion, E., Dugué, A.E., Coffin?Pichonnet, S., Augy, S., & Mouriaux, F. (2014) Eye motion increases temporal visual field extent. Acta ophthalmologica, 92(3).

Denion, E., Hitier, M., Guyader, V., Dugué, A.E., & Mouriaux, F. (2015) Unique human orbital morphology compared with that of apes. Scientific Reports, 5, 11528.

Durrleman, S., Pennec, X., Trouvé, A., Ayache, N., & Braga, J. (2012) Comparison of the endocranial ontogenies between chimpanzees and bonobos via temporal regression and spatiotemporal registration. Journal of Human Evolution, 62(1), pp. 74-88.

Finarelli, J.A., & Goswami, A. (2009) The evolution of orbit orientation and encephalization in the Carnivora (Mammalia). Journal of Anatomy, 214(5), pp. 671-678.

Godfrey, L.R., & Sutherland, M.R. (1995) What's growth got to do with it? Process and product in the evolution of ontogeny. Journal of Human Evolution, 29(5), pp. 405-431.

Heesy, C.P. (2004) On the relationship between orbit orientation and binocular visual field overlap in mammals. The Anatomical Record, 281(1), pp. 1104-1110.

Hylander, W.L., Johnson, K.R., & Picq, P.G. (1991a) Masticatory?stress hypotheses and the supraorbital region of primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 86(1), pp. 1-36.

Hylander, W.L., Picq, P.G., & Johnson, K.R. (1991) Function of the supraorbital region of primates. Archives of Oral Biology, 36(4), pp. 273-281.

Kendall, D.G. (1977) The diffusion of shape. Advances in applied probability, 9(3), pp. 428-430.

Klingenberg, C.P. (1998) Heterochrony and allometry: the analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biological Reviews, 73(1), pp. 79-123.

Klingenberg, C.P. (2008) Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 39, pp. 115-132.

Kobayashi, H. & Hashiya, K. (2011) The gaze that grooms: contribution of social factors to the evolution of primate eye morphology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), pp.157-165.

Kobayashi, H. & Kohshima, S. (2001) Unique morphology of the human eye and its adaptive meaning: comparative studies on external morphology of the primate eye. Journal of human evolution, 40(5), pp. 419-435.

Kupczik, K., Dobson, C.A., Crompton, R.H., Phillips, R., Oxnard, C.E., Fagan, M.J. & O'Higgins, P. (2009) Masticatory loading and bone adaptation in the supraorbital torus of developing macaques. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139(2), pp.193-203.

Kuykendall, K.L. (1996) Dental development in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): the timing of tooth calcification stages. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99(1), pp. 135-157.

Lahr, M.M. & Wright, R.V. (1996) The question of robusticity and the relationship between cranial size and shape in Homo sapiens. Journal of Human Evolution, 31(2), pp. 157-191.

Lieberman, D.E., Carlo, J., de León, M.P. & Zollikofer, C.P. (2007) A geometric morphometric analysis of heterochrony in the cranium of chimpanzees and bonobos. Journal of Human Evolution, 52(6), pp. 647-662.

Lieberman, D.E., Ross, C.F. & Ravosa, M.J. (2000) The primate cranial base: ontogeny, function, and integration. America Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113(S31), pp. 117-169.

Lieberman, D.E. & McCarthy, R.C. (1999) The ontogeny of cranial base angulation in humans and chimpanzees and its implications for reconstructing pharyngeal dimensions. Journal of Human Evolution, 36(5), pp. 487-517.

Moss, M.L. & Young, R.W. (1960) A functional approach to craniology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 18(4), pp. 281-292.

Perez, S.I., Bernal, V. & Gonzalez, P.N. (2006) Differences between sliding semilandmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation. Journal of Anatomy, 208(6), pp. 769-784.

Prado-Martinez, J., Sudmant, P.H., Kidd, J.M., Li, H., Kelley, J.L., Lorente-Galdos, B., ... & Cagan, A. (2013) Great ape genetic diversity and population history. Nature, 499(7459), p. 471.

Prossinger, H., Bookstein, F., Schäfer, K., & Seidler, H. (2000) Reemerging stress: Supraorbital torus morphology in the mid?sagittal plane? The Anatomical Record, 261(5), pp. 170-172.

Ravosa, M.J. (1991a) Interspecific perspective on mechanical and nonmechanical models of primate circumorbital morphology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 86(3), pp. 369-396.

Ravosa, M.J. (1991b) Ontogenetic perspective on mechanical and nonmechanical models of primate circumorbital morphology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 85(1), pp. 95-112.

Ravosa, M.J., Vinyard, C.J. & Hylander, W.L. (2000) Stressed out: masticatory forces and primate circumorbital form. The Anatomical Record, 261(5), pp. 173-175.

Ross, C. & Henneberg, M. (1995) Basicranial flexion, relative brain size, and facial kyphosis in Homo sapiens and some fossil hominids. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 98(4), pp. 575-593.

Ross, C.F. (1995) Allometric and functional influences on primate orbit orientation and the origins of the Anthropoidea. Journal of Human Evolution, 29(3), pp. 201-227.

Russell, M.D., Brown, T., Garn, S.M., Giris, F., Turkel, S., ??can, M.Y., ... & Smith, F.H. (1985) The Supraorbital Torus:" A Most Remarkable Peculiarity"[and Comments and Replies]. Current Anthropology, 26(3), pp. 337-360.

Sardi, M.L., Barbeito-Andrés, J., Ventrice, F., Ramírez-Rozzi, F., Anzelmo, M. & Guihard-Costa, A.M. (2014) Covariación ontogénica en el endocráneo de Pan troglodytes. Revista Argentina de Antropología Biológica, 16(2), pp. 79-91.

Sardi, M.L. & Ramírez Rozzi, F.V. (2005) A cross-sectional study of human craniofacial growth. Annals of Human Biology, 32(3), pp. 390-396.

Schaefer, K., Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., Bernhard, M. & Bookstein, F.L. (2004) Craniofacial sexual dimorphism patterns and allometry among extant hominids. Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger, 186(5-6), pp. 471-478.

Shea, B.T. & Russell, M.D. (1986) On skull form and the supraorbital torus in primates. Current Anthropology 27(3), pp. 257-260.

Smith, F.H. & Ranyard, G.C. (1980) Evolution of the supraorbital region in Upper Pleistocene fossil hominids from South?Central Europe. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 53(4), pp. 589-610.

Sperber, G.H., Sperber, G.H., Guttmann, G.D., Sperber, S.M. &

Gutterman, G.D. (2001) Craniofacial development (book for windows & macintosh) (Vol. 1) PMPH-USA.

Strait, D.S. & Ross, C.F. (1999) Kinematic data on primate head and neck posture: implications for the evolution of basicranial flexion and an evaluation of registration planes used in paleoanthropology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 108(2), pp. 205-222.

Vinyard, C.J. & Smith, F.H. (2001) Morphometric testing of structural hypotheses of the supraorbital region in modern humans. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie, pp. 23-41.