Jd. Polk et al., A comparison of primate, carnivoran and rodent limb bone cross-sectional properties: are primates really unique?, J HUM EVOL, 39(3), 2000, pp. 297-325
The cross-sectional properties of mammalian limb bones provide an important
source of information about their loading history and locomotor adaptation
s. It has been suggested, for instance, that the cross-sectional strength o
f primate limb bones differs from that of other mammals as a consequence of
living in a complex arboreal environment (Kimura, 1991, 1995). In order to
test this hypothesis more rigorously, we have investigated cross-sectional
properties in samples of humeri and femora of 71 primate species, 30 carni
vorans and 59 rodents. Primates differ from carnivorans and rodents in havi
ng limb bones with greater cross-sectional strength than mammals of similar
mass. This might imply that primates have stronger bones than carnivorans
and rodents. However, primates also have longer proximal limb bones than ot
her mammals. When cross-sectional dimensions are regressed against bone len
gth, primates appear to have more gracile bones than other mammals. These t
wo seemingly contradictory findings can be reconciled by recognizing that m
ost limb bones experience bending as a predominant loading regime. After re
gressing cross-sectional strength against the product of body mass and bone
length, a product which should be proportional to the bending moments appl
ied to the limb, primates are found to overlap considerably with carnivoran
s and rodents. Consequently, primate humeri and femora are similar to those
of nonprimates in their resistance to bending. Comparisons between arborea
l and terrestrial species within the orders show that the bones of arboreal
carnivorans have greater cross-sectional properties than those of terrestr
ial carnivorans, thus supporting Kimura's general notion. However, no diffe
rences were found between arboreal and terrestrial rodents. Among primates,
the only significant difference was in humeral bending rigidity, which is
higher in the terrestrial species. In summary, arboreal and terrestrial spe
cies do not show consistent differences in long bone reinforcement, and Kim
ura's conclusions must be modified to take into account the interaction of
bone length and cross-sectional geometry. (C) 2000 Academic Press.