Lead author Dr Ian Towle, of the Sir John Walsh Research Institute in the Faculty of Dentistry, says the “surprisingly large” monkey lemur, Archaeolemur, had novel anatomical features not seen in living lemurs, such as lacking a ‘tooth comb’ in the front of the mouth for grooming.

“These extinct lemurs are so different to those alive today. They also show fascinating similarities to monkeys and apes, including humans,” he says.

The study, published in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology, aimed to assess the diet of Archaeolemur by analysing chipping in 447 teeth, comparing chipping frequencies to those of other primates.

The results were surprising — with these remarkable extinct lemurs with dentitions resembling baboons in shape; but presenting tooth chipping patterns similar to fossil hominins such as Neanderthals.

“Archaeolemur tooth chipping patterns are unlike any living primate, with their front teeth showing substantial fractures, often with numerous tooth chips on a single tooth, yet very little chipping on their back teeth.

“Similar tooth fracture patterns are observed in fossil hominins, such as Neanderthals. Typically, in Neanderthals these fracture patterns are thought to be related to tool-use behaviours,” Dr Towle says.

The results fit with previous research on Archaeolemur, in particular evidence that their large and robust front teeth may have been used to process a diet containing hard and tough foods.

Dr Towle thinks the study raises the “fascinating possibility” that stone tools do not necessarily explain the high rate of fractures on Neanderthal teeth.

“Archaeolemur shows similar tooth chipping patterns, yet there is no evidence to suggest they were capable of, or used, such tools.

“Studying extinct primates not only provides crucial insight into their diet and behaviour, but also elucidates our own evolutionary history.”

Given the overlap in skull and dental shape, and potential similarities in diet and behaviour, it is perhaps not surprising that Archaeolemur  was thought to be an ape when first discovered in Madagascar over 100 years ago.

“Archaeolemur is a brilliant example of convergent evolution, showing remarkable similarities to monkeys and apes. This species also highlights the extent to which lemurs in Madagascar diversified into a variety of ecological niches.”

Dr Carolina Loch, also from Sir John Walsh Research Institute, and who mentored Dr Towle during his tenure as postdoctoral fellow at the SJWRI, says the research is another great example of the “breadth and depth of multidisciplinary research” at the Faculty of Dentistry.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Otago. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Their results were published this week in the Proceedings of Royal Society B.

“We essentially reverse-engineered the inner working of the wing musculoskeletal system — how the muscles and skeleton work in hummingbirds to flap the wings,” said first author and Penn State mechanical engineering graduate student Suyash Agrawal. “The traditional methods have mostly focused on measuring activity of a bird or insect when they are in natural flight or in an artificial environment where flight-like conditions are simulated. But most insects and, among birds specifically, hummingbirds are very small. The data that we can get from those measurements are limited.”

The researchers used muscle anatomy literature, computational fluid dynamics simulation data and wing-skeletal movement information captured using micro-CT and X-ray methods to inform their model. They also used an optimization algorithm based on evolutionary strategies, known as the genetic algorithm, to calibrate the parameters of the model. According to the researchers, their approach is the first to integrate these disparate parts for biological fliers.

“We can simulate the whole reconstructed motion of the hummingbird wing and then simulate all the flows and forces generated by the flapping wing, including all the pressure acting on the wing,” Cheng said. “From that, we are able to back-calculate the required total muscular torque that is needed to flap the wing. And that torque is something we use to calibrate our model.”

With this model, the researchers uncovered previously unknown principles of hummingbird wing actuation.

The first discovery, according to Cheng, was that hummingbirds’ primary muscles, that is, their flight engines, do not simply flap their wings in a simple back and forth motion, but instead pull their wings in three directions: up and down, back and forth, and twisting — or pitching — of the wing. The researchers also found that hummingbirds tighten their shoulder joints in both the up-and-down direction and the pitch direction using multiple smaller muscles.

“It’s like when we do fitness training and a trainer says to tighten your core to be more agile,” Cheng said. “We found that hummingbirds are using similar kind of a mechanism. They tighten their wings in the pitch and up-down directions but keep the wing loose along the back-and-forth direction, so their wings appear to be flapping back and forth only while their power muscles, or their flight engines, are actually pulling the wings in all three directions. In this way, the wings have very good agility in the up and down motion as well as the twist motion.”

While Cheng emphasized that the results from the optimized model are predictions that will need validation, he said that it has implications for technological development of aerial vehicles.

“Even though the technology is not there yet to fully mimic hummingbird flight, our work provides essential principles for informed mimicry of hummingbirds hopefully for the next generation of agile aerial systems,” he said.

The other authors were Zafar Anwar, a doctoral student in the Penn State Department of Mechanical Engineering; Bret W. Tobalske of the Division of Biological Sciences at the University of Montana; Haoxiang Luo of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Vanderbilt University; and Tyson L. Hedrick of the Department of Biology at the University of North Carolina.

The Office of Naval Research funded this work.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Penn State. Original written by Sarah Small. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

While the Diprotodon — the extinct megafauna species that is distantly related to wombats but was the size of a small car — is commonly (but incorrectly) thought of as Australia’s ‘giant wombat’, researchers from Griffith University have shed light on a large species that does belong in the modern-day wombat family.

The complete skull of this true fossil giant wombat, found in a Rockhampton cave in Queensland and estimated to be around 80,000 years old, has been described for the first time by a team led by Associate Professor Julien Louys from Griffith’s Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution.

Associate Professor Louys said the discovery provided unprecedented insights into the biology and appearance of these previously little known ‘gentle giants’.

“The extinct megafauna of Australia never ceases to amaze and intrigue not just Australians, but people all over the world,” he said.

“Although one of the most charismatic of the giant mammals to go extinct, Diprotodon is commonly referred to as a ‘giant wombat’. But this is incorrect as Diprotodon belongs to an entirely different family — equivalent to saying a hippo is just a giant pig.

“There were however, true giant wombats. These have traditionally been poorly known, but the discovery of the most complete skull of one of these giants, Ramsayia, has provided us with an opportunity to reconstruct what this creature looked like, where and when it lived, and how the evolution of giant wombats took place in Australia.”

The cranium and mandible of the Ramsayia magna fossil was discovered from the rear of the front chamber of Lower Johansons Cave in Rockhampton in the early 2000s, but it was only through subsequent excavations and analysis by Associate Professor Louys’s team that is was confirmed as belonging to a previously described but very poorly known species.

Extinct giant wombats of the family Vombatidae (broadly defined as twice the size of modern wombats) are rarer than the fossil diprotodontids that are often popularly — and incorrectly — referred to as giant wombats.

Associate Professor Louys said this giant wombat — Ramsayia — had extensive cranial sinuses, which had not been previously reported for a wombat.

“This indicates that the wombat had a large, rounded skull for the attachment of specific and strong chewing muscles,” he said.

“The giant wombat also possessed a ‘premaxillary spine’, an indication that it had a large, fleshy nose.

“In this paper, we show that all true giant wombats evolved large body sizes first, then individually became quite specialised to eat different types of grasses.

“We also dated this species as being about 80,000 years old. This is the first date for this species and is much earlier than human arrival in Australia, although we still don’t know exactly when or why this species became extinct.”

The research ‘Cranial remains of Ramsayia magna from the Late Pleistocene of Australia and the evolution of gigantism in wombats (Marsupialia, Vombatidae)’ has been published in Papers In Palaeontology.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Griffith University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.