Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2021View details →

Text-fig. 20. Proximal right ulna of an embrithopod from White Patch Bone Site. a: lateral view; b: proximal view (anterior to the left); c: stereo view of the articular surface for the humerus. Note the damaged medial and lateral sides of the articular surface (dotted lines) which makes the distal part of the articular surface look narrower than it would have been in life. in Stratigraphy, Chronology And Palaeontology Of The Tertiary Rocks Of The Cheringoma Plateau, Mozambique

Text-fig. 20. Proximal right ulna of an embrithopod from White Patch Bone Site. a: lateral view; b: proximal view (anterior to the left); c: stereo view of the articular surface for the humerus. Note the damaged medial and lateral sides of the articular surface (dotted lines) which makes the distal part of the articular surface look narrower than it would have been in life.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2023View details →

FIGURE 17. Anchitheriomys buceei, A, B - TMM 71-2666, proximal right ulna. C, D – TMM 71-2666 in Anchitheriomys buceei (Rodentia, Castoridae) from the Miocene of Texas and a review of the Miocene beavers from the Texas Coastal Plain, USA

FIGURE 17. Anchitheriomys buceei, A, B - TMM 71-2666, proximal right ulna. C, D – TMM 71-2666 distal right humerus.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 1980View details →

Text-fig. 3—Ungual phalanx (4), metacarpal (£) and left ulna (C) of Albertosaurus cf. A. lancensis (LACM 23845) in lateral aspect. Bar represents 5 cm. in An albertosaur from the Hell Creek formation of Montana

Text-fig. 3—Ungual phalanx (4), metacarpal (£) and left ulna (C) of Albertosaurus cf. A. lancensis (LACM 23845) in lateral aspect. Bar represents 5 cm.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2014View details →

Text-fig. 2. Taphonomic and pathological phenomena of bear bones from Middle Pleistocene deposits from Vykopaná chodba in Za Hájovnou Cave (Moravia, the Czech Republic). a – fragment of left mandibula with pathological condylar process; b – thoracic vertebra with pathological rib facet; c – Mc III dext. with exostoses; d – fragment of juvenile right ulna with bite marks; e – gnawed right tibia with bite marks on proximal part; f – gnawed left calcaneus with bite marks. in Basic Population And Taphonomic Analysis Of Bear Assemblages From Za Hájovnou Cave (Moravia, The Czech Republic): A Fossil Record From 1987-2007

Text-fig. 2. Taphonomic and pathological phenomena of bear bones from Middle Pleistocene deposits from Vykopaná chodba in Za Hájovnou Cave (Moravia, the Czech Republic). a – fragment of left mandibula with pathological condylar process; b – thoracic vertebra with pathological rib facet; c – Mc III dext. with exostoses; d – fragment of juvenile right ulna with bite marks; e – gnawed right tibia with bite marks on proximal part; f – gnawed left calcaneus with bite marks.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2014View details →

Text-fig. 4. Taphonomic and pathological phenomena of bear bones from Middle Pleistocene deposits from Spojovací chodba – Narozeninová chodba in Za Hájovnou Cave (Moravia, the Czech Republic). a – Mc V sin. with a pathological phenomenon on the metapodial distal part (tuberosity/exostosis?); b – gnawed juvenile ulna; c – right tibia gnawed by a large rodent (porcupine?) with detail. in Basic Population And Taphonomic Analysis Of Bear Assemblages From Za Hájovnou Cave (Moravia, The Czech Republic): A Fossil Record From 1987-2007

Text-fig. 4. Taphonomic and pathological phenomena of bear bones from Middle Pleistocene deposits from Spojovací chodba – Narozeninová chodba in Za Hájovnou Cave (Moravia, the Czech Republic). a – Mc V sin. with a pathological phenomenon on the metapodial distal part (tuberosity/exostosis?); b – gnawed juvenile ulna; c – right tibia gnawed by a large rodent (porcupine?) with detail.

Fig. 7 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 7. Ulna. Distribution of males (black dots) and females (white dots) of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804) in the plane determined by the first two relative warps (RW1 and RW2). Numbers indicate specimens. Deformation grids below the graph show shape changes linked to negative (left) and positive (right) scores in RW1. Grids on the right show deformations linked to negative (below) and positive (above) scores in RW2.

Fig. 6 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 6. Scatterplot for the ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804), showing the distribution of the individuals in the plane formed by the two first principal components. The black outlines below the plot represent the shape variation associated to PC1, and those of the right show the changes associated to PC2 with respect to the consensus of the species (grey outlines).

Fig. 4 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 4. Humerus. Distribution of males (black dots) and females (white dots) of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804) in the plane determined by the first two relative warps (RW1 and RW2). Numbers indicate specimens. Deformation grids below the graph show shape changes linked to negative (left) and positive (right) scores in RW1. Grids on the right show deformations linked to negative (below) and positive (above) scores in RW2.

Fig. 3 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 3. Scatterplot for the humerus of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804), showing the distribution of the individuals in the plane formed by the two first principal components. The black outlines below the plot represent the shape variation associated to PC1, and those of the right show the changes associated to PC2 with respect to the consensus of the species (grey outlines).

Fig. 2 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 2. Canonical analysis for the humerus of males and females of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804). The bone outlines below the graph represent the tendencies to deformation in males and females (black dots and lines) with respect to the consensus of the species (grey dots and lines) along the axis.

Fig. 1 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 1. Landmarks digitised on the left appendicular bones of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804). Scapula in dorsal view; humerus in caudal view; ulna in lateral view.

Fig. 5 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 5. Canonical analysis for the ulna of males and females of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804). The bone outlines below the graph represent extreme individuals (black dots and lines) with respect to the consensus of the species (grey dots and lines) along the axis.

Fig. 9 in Quadrupedal dinosaurs did not evolve fully pronated forearms: New evidence from the ulna

Fig. 9. Comparison of variation in the semi-pronated distal antebrachial epiphyses of select facultatively bipedal ornithischian dinosaurs and those with obligatory quadrupedalism. A–C. Sauropelta edwardsorum Ostrom, 1970. A. AMNH 3035. B. AMNH 3035, reversed. C. YPM 5338. D. Texasetes pleurohalio Coombs, 1995 (USNM 337987), radius reversed. E. Panoplosaurus sp. (YPM PU-21178 or 16970), reversed. F, G. Centrosaurus sp. F. Juvenile TMP 94.12.798). G. TMP P81.19.292. H–J, M. Triceratops sp. H. Large ceratopsid (AMNH 5857), reversed. I. AMNH 5880. J. USNM 6530. M. FMNH 12003, reversed. K, L. Triceratops horridusMarsh, 1889. K. USNM 4842, reversed. L. USNM 4842. N, P, Q, T, U. Stegosaurus sp. N. USNM 4929. P. YPM 1854, reversed. Q. YPM 4835. T. YPM uncataloged, field number 9C-14-7J, reversed. U. USNM 7754. O, R, S. Stegosaurus sulcatus Marsh, 1887. O. YPM 4836, reversed. R. USNM 4937, reversed. S. YPM 4836, reversed. V. Gilmoreosaurus mongoliensis (Gilmore, 1933) (AMNH 6551). W. Hypacrosaurus altispinus Brown, 1913 (AMNH 5357), reversed. X–AA. Hadrosaurs. X. TMP 1981.29.2, reversed. Y. TMP 1981.41.13.7. Z. TMP 1980.29.101, reversed. AA. TMP 2005.09.84. AB. Tenontosaurus sp. (AMNH 3043). AC. Camptosaurus sp. (YPM 6794). In this and the following two figures radii and ulnae only touch if they are complementary; all others are oriented across from other elements in the standardized pose. Scale bars 30 mm.

Fig. 10. A in Quadrupedal dinosaurs did not evolve fully pronated forearms: New evidence from the ulna

Fig. 10. A comparison of the semi-pronated distal antebrachial epiphyses of select archosauromorphs and basal archosaurs. A. Archosauromorph, Trilophosaurus buettneri Case, 1928 (TMM 31025-140), reversed. B, F. Phytosaur, Machaeroprospus pristinus (Mehl, 1928) (B, UCMP 121989; F, UCMP 121982). C. Phytosaur, Heterodontosuchus ganei Lucas, 1898 (USNM 2159). D. Aetosaur, Typothorax coccinarum Cope, 1875 (NMMNH L-5806). E. Rauisuchid, Postosuchus alisonae Peyer, Carter, Sues, Novak, and Olsen, 2008 (cast of UNC 15575). G. Aetosaur, Typothorax antiquum Lucas, Heckert, and Hunt, 2002 (NMMNH P-36075). H. Aetosaur, Desmatosuchus haplocerus Cope, 1892 (UCMP 25838). I. Rauisuchid, Postosuchus kirkpatricki Chatterjee, 1985 (TTU P9000). Phytosaur elements oriented after M. pristinus (UCMP 27235), aetosaur elements oriented after T. coccinarum (NMMNH L-5806). Note that nearly all specimens possess torsion of the distal ulnar diaphysis that effectively supinated the distal ulnar articular surface, and that most (except A, B) also exhibit pre-axial elongation of the distal radial epiphysis. Note also, however, that specimen A possesses distorted radial and ulnar diaphyses, so the orientation of the distal ulnar epiphysis may not be vertical as shown. Not to scale.

Fig. 5. A in Quadrupedal dinosaurs did not evolve fully pronated forearms: New evidence from the ulna

Fig. 5. A demonstration of the effects that changes in pronation of the distal radial epiphysis would have on manual orientation in a fully pronated tetrapod (the Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana Kerr, 1792) that is using parasagittal forelimb kinematics with elbows inturned to the body wall. A. An unpronated forearm and manus, which if possible would point the manual digits posteriorly. B. A semi-pronated forearm and manus, which would point the manual digits laterally, analogous to many semi-pronated archosaurs, such as dinosaurs, that utilized quadrupedalism. C. A normal (for D. virginiana) fully pronated forearm and manus, which points the manual digits anteriorly. This demonstration illustrates why it was traditionally assumed that amniotes that evolve posteriorly directed elbows (i.e., archosaurs, therians and chameleons) would require an additional 90° of forearm pronation past the plesiomorphic 90°, because 180° of pronation is required to keep the wrist and finger joints aligned posteriorly during flexion, and therefore to continue operating in a parasagittal plane. Bonnan's (2003) radial hypothesis states that the radii of quadrupedal dinosaurs pronated to condition C, but the findings of this study show that the ulnae in these dinosaurs experienced an opposing supination that would have kept the planes of the wrist and finger joints wholly in condition in B, albeit with a tubular manus (e.g., Fig. 2E); see text for further discussion. The D. virginiana forelimb elements are from an adult specimen (FMNH 166984).

Fig. 11. A in Quadrupedal dinosaurs did not evolve fully pronated forearms: New evidence from the ulna

Fig. 11. A comparison of semi-pronated forearm views and distal antebrachial epiphyses of select pareiasaurs and synapsids. A. Pareiasaur, Embrithosaurus schwarzi Watson, 1914 (AMNH 2451), reversed. B. Pelycosaur, Dimetrodon loomisi Romer, 1937 (AMNH 21293), reversed, in flexor (B1) and distal (B2) views. C. Dinocephalian, Moschops capensis Broom, 1911 (AMNH 23930), reversed. D. Large dicynodont (AMNH 24096), reversed. E. Dinocephalian, Jonkeria haughtoni Broom, 1929 (AMNH 5577). F. Small dicynodont (uncataloged USNM), reversed. G. Dicynodont, Kannemeyeria simocephalus Weithofer, 1888 (AMNH 5591-93). Note that all specimens examined of the clades above possessed similar amounts of post-axial torsion of the distal ulnar diaphysis. Specimen in A oriented after Bradysaurus baini Seeley, 1892 ([FMNH] UC 1533 and UC 1525); specimens in C, F, and G after small dicynodonts Diictodon cf. grimbeeki (Broom, 1935) (USNM 412381 and USNM 452057). Not to scale.

Fig. 7 in Quadrupedal dinosaurs did not evolve fully pronated forearms: New evidence from the ulna

Fig. 7. Comparison of true standardized views of semi-pronated forearms in a representative sample of extant, nontherian tetrapods, in flexor (A1–F1) and distal (A2–F2) views. A. An allogatorid crocodilian, Alligator mississippiensis (Daudin, 1802) (FMNH 284695). B. A ratite bird, Struthio camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (FMNH 489294). C. A monitor lizard, Varanus komodoensis Ouwens, 1912 (FMNH 22197). D. A salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum (Green, 1825) FMNH 22010). E. A semi-aquatic turtle Apalone spinifera (Lesueur, 1827) (HDW NIU 1086), reversed. F. A more terrestrial turtle, Chrysemys picta (Schnei- der, 1783) (INHS 23894). Reversed specimens in this and following figures refer to elements from the right sides that have been digitally flipped. Note that in E the radius and ulna are fused in the morphology shown, and that the humerus may not be rotated far enough to the left. Note also that, in vivo, articular cartilage and, in some cases wrist bones (e.g., intermedium), may separate the distal radial and ulnar epiphyses beyond what is pictured here for specimens C and F. Not to scale.

Fig. 4. A in Quadrupedal dinosaurs did not evolve fully pronated forearms: New evidence from the ulna

Fig. 4. A demonstration of the effects that changes in pronation of the distal radial epiphysis would have on manual orientation in a semi-pronated tetrapod (Alligator mississippiensis [Daudin, 1802]) that is using sprawling forelimb posture and kinematics. A. A forearm and manus forcibly unpronated (0°) to demonstrate the erroneous starting point of dinosaurian pronation according to Bonnan's (2003) radial hypothesis; this dislocation would orient the manual digits laterally in a sprawling forelimb. B. A naturally (for A. mississippiensis) semi-pronated (90°) forearm and manus, which orients the manual digits anteriorly in a sprawling forelimb. C. A forcibly fully pronated (180°) forearm and manus; this dislocation would orient the manual digits medially in a sprawling forelimb. In this and the following figure the upper row of boxes shows the radius and ulna in proximal view, while the lower row of boxes shows their positions in distal view. The orientations represented serve to demonstrate why stem tetrapods with laterally-directed forelimbs are assumed to have evolved semi-pronated forearm morphology from an unpronated morphology, in order to pre-axially rotate the wrist and finger joints 90° so that these joints could participate in locomotion via posteriorly directed flexion (Hutson 2010). Note also that, as a consequence of being a semi-pronated tetrapod, if an A. mississippiensis inturns its elbows to the body wall, then the manual digits will then point laterally (Vialleton 1924). Bonnan's (2003) radial hypothesis assumes that condition A was the starting point of quadrupedal dinosaur evolution instead of condition B; see text for further discussion. This and all subsequently figured A. mississippiensis forelimb elements are from the left forelimb of a juvenile specimen (FMNH 284695).

Fig. 3 in Quadrupedal dinosaurs did not evolve fully pronated forearms: New evidence from the ulna

Fig. 3. The grades of forearm pronation, the incidence of tubular manual cross sections, and the prevalence of proximal radial migration overlaid onto a cladogram of major tetrapod clades. Note the isolated convergence upon tubular manual cross sections in non-avian saurischian and ornithischian dinosaurs. See Vialleton (1924) for reports of proximal radial migration in tetrapods. See text for a discussion of the reasoning that dinosaurs retained semi-pronation. Cladogram after Gauthier (1986).

Fig. 1 in Quadrupedal dinosaurs did not evolve fully pronated forearms: New evidence from the ulna

Fig. 1. An example of the stylized tetrapod skeleton and terminologies that are traditionally used to demonstrate the grades of forearm pronation. A. The three anatomical planes. B. Simplified tetrapod limbs with uniplanar joint alignments in the transverse plane, showing general limb terminology, including the directions required to pronate/supinate the limb segments, and thereby joint planes of action distal to these segments. Note that, like the hindlimb in this traditional characterization, the three major tetrapod forelimb bones are assumed to plesiomorphically lack any diaphyseal torsion or oblique planes of joint flexion/extension.