Morphological integration of anatomical, developmental, and functional postcranial modules in the crab‐eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis). Issue 3 (22nd March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Conaway, Mark A.; Schroeder, Lauren; von Cramon‐Taubadel, Noreen
• Other Names: Tagg Nikki guestEditor.; Stewart Fiona A. guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: American journal of physical anthropology. Volume 166:Issue 3(2018)
• Page Start: 661
• Page End: 670
• Publication Date: 2018-03-22
• Subjects: covariance -- integration -- modularity -- postcranium; Physical anthropology -- Periodicals; Anthropology -- Periodicals; Anthropologie physique -- Périodiques; 599.9
• DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.23456
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0002-9483

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Integration and modularity reflect the coordinated action of past evolutionary processes and, in turn, constrain or facilitate phenotypic evolvability. Here, we analyze magnitudes of integration in the macaque postcranium to test whether 20 a priori defined modules are (1) more tightly integrated than random sets of postcranial traits, and (2) are differentiated based on mode of definition, with developmental modules expected to be more integrated than functional or anatomical modules. Materials and Methods: The 3D morphometric data collected for eight limb and girdle bones for 60 macaques were collated into anatomical, developmental, and functional modules. A resampling technique was used to create random samples of integration values for each module for statistical comparison. Results: Our results found that not all a priori defined modules were more strongly integrated than random samples of postcranial traits and that specific types of modules did not present consistent patterns of integration. Rather, girdle and joint modules were consistently less integrated than limb modules, and forelimb elements were less integrated than hindlimbs. Discussion: The results suggest that morphometrically complex modules tend to be less integrated than simple limb bones, irrespective of the number of available traits. However, differences in integration of the fore‐ and hindlimb more likely reflects the multitude of locomotory, feeding, and social functions involved. It remains to be tested whether patterns of integration identified here are primate universals, and to what extent they vary depending on phylogenetic or functional factors.