Cargando…
Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?
Cranial endocasts, or the internal molds of the braincase, are a crucial correlate for investigating the neuroanatomy of extinct vertebrates and tracking brain evolution through deep time. Nevertheless, the validity of such studies pivots on the reliability of endocasts as a proxy for brain morpholo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365484/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30506962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12918 |
_version_ | 1783393426388025344 |
---|---|
author | Watanabe, Akinobu Gignac, Paul M. Balanoff, Amy M. Green, Todd L. Kley, Nathan J. Norell, Mark A. |
author_facet | Watanabe, Akinobu Gignac, Paul M. Balanoff, Amy M. Green, Todd L. Kley, Nathan J. Norell, Mark A. |
author_sort | Watanabe, Akinobu |
collection | PubMed |
description | Cranial endocasts, or the internal molds of the braincase, are a crucial correlate for investigating the neuroanatomy of extinct vertebrates and tracking brain evolution through deep time. Nevertheless, the validity of such studies pivots on the reliability of endocasts as a proxy for brain morphology. Here, we employ micro‐computed tomography imaging, including diffusible iodine‐based contrast‐enhanced CT, and a three‐dimensional geometric morphometric framework to examine both size and shape differences between brains and endocasts of two exemplar archosaur taxa – the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). With ontogenetic sampling, we quantitatively evaluate how endocasts differ from brains and whether this deviation changes during development. We find strong size and shape correlations between brains and endocasts, divergent ontogenetic trends in the brain‐to‐endocast correspondence between alligators and chickens, and a comparable magnitude between brain–endocast shape differences and intraspecific neuroanatomical variation. The results have important implications for paleoneurological studies in archosaurs. Notably, we demonstrate that the pattern of endocranial shape variation closely reflects brain shape variation. Therefore, analyses of endocranial morphology are unlikely to generate spurious conclusions about large‐scale trends in brain size and shape. To mitigate any artifacts, however, paleoneurological studies should consider the lower brain–endocast correspondence in the hindbrain relative to the forebrain; higher size and shape correspondences in chickens than alligators throughout postnatal ontogeny; artificially ‘pedomorphic’ shape of endocasts relative to their corresponding brains; and potential biases in both size and shape data due to the lack of control for ontogenetic stages in endocranial sampling. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6365484 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63654842019-02-15 Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? Watanabe, Akinobu Gignac, Paul M. Balanoff, Amy M. Green, Todd L. Kley, Nathan J. Norell, Mark A. J Anat Original Articles Cranial endocasts, or the internal molds of the braincase, are a crucial correlate for investigating the neuroanatomy of extinct vertebrates and tracking brain evolution through deep time. Nevertheless, the validity of such studies pivots on the reliability of endocasts as a proxy for brain morphology. Here, we employ micro‐computed tomography imaging, including diffusible iodine‐based contrast‐enhanced CT, and a three‐dimensional geometric morphometric framework to examine both size and shape differences between brains and endocasts of two exemplar archosaur taxa – the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). With ontogenetic sampling, we quantitatively evaluate how endocasts differ from brains and whether this deviation changes during development. We find strong size and shape correlations between brains and endocasts, divergent ontogenetic trends in the brain‐to‐endocast correspondence between alligators and chickens, and a comparable magnitude between brain–endocast shape differences and intraspecific neuroanatomical variation. The results have important implications for paleoneurological studies in archosaurs. Notably, we demonstrate that the pattern of endocranial shape variation closely reflects brain shape variation. Therefore, analyses of endocranial morphology are unlikely to generate spurious conclusions about large‐scale trends in brain size and shape. To mitigate any artifacts, however, paleoneurological studies should consider the lower brain–endocast correspondence in the hindbrain relative to the forebrain; higher size and shape correspondences in chickens than alligators throughout postnatal ontogeny; artificially ‘pedomorphic’ shape of endocasts relative to their corresponding brains; and potential biases in both size and shape data due to the lack of control for ontogenetic stages in endocranial sampling. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-12-03 2019-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6365484/ /pubmed/30506962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12918 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Anatomy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Anatomical Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Watanabe, Akinobu Gignac, Paul M. Balanoff, Amy M. Green, Todd L. Kley, Nathan J. Norell, Mark A. Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? |
title | Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? |
title_full | Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? |
title_fullStr | Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? |
title_full_unstemmed | Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? |
title_short | Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? |
title_sort | are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny? |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365484/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30506962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12918 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT watanabeakinobu areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny AT gignacpaulm areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny AT balanoffamym areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny AT greentoddl areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny AT kleynathanj areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny AT norellmarka areendocastsgoodproxiesforbrainsizeandshapeinarchosaursthroughoutontogeny |