Evaluation of a New Method of Fossil Retrodeformation by Algorithmic Symmetrization: Crania of Papionins (Primates, Cercopithecidae) as a Test Case

Diagenetic distortion can be a major obstacle to collecting quantitative shape data on paleontological specimens, especially for three-dimensional geometric morphometric analysis. Here we utilize the recently -published algorithmic symmetrization method of fossil reconstruction and compare it to the more traditional reflection & averaging approach. In order to have an objective test of this method, five casts of a female cranium of Papio hamadryas kindae were manually deformed while the plaster hardened. These were subsequently “retrodeformed” using both algorithmic symmetrization and reflection & averaging and then compared to the original, undeformed specimen. We found that in all cases, algorithmic retrodeformation improved the shape of the deformed cranium and in four out of five cases, the algorithmically symmetrized crania were more similar in shape to the original crania than the reflected & averaged reconstructions. In three out of five cases, the difference between the algorithmically symmetrized crania and the original cranium could be contained within the magnitude of variation among individuals in a single subspecies of Papio. Instances of asymmetric distortion, such as breakage on one side, or bending in the axis of symmetry, were well handled, whereas symmetrical distortion remained uncorrected. This technique was further tested on a naturally deformed and fossilized cranium of Paradolichopithecus arvernensis. Results, based on a principal components analysis and Procrustes distances, showed that the algorithmically symmetrized Paradolichopithecus cranium was more similar to other, less-deformed crania from the same species than was the original. These results illustrate the efficacy of this method of retrodeformation by algorithmic symmetrization for the correction of asymmetrical distortion in fossils. Symmetrical distortion remains a problem for all currently developed methods of retrodeformation.

[1]  K. Angielczyk,et al.  Investigation of simulated tectonic deformation in fossils using geometric morphometrics , 2007, Paleobiology.

[2]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes , 2000 .

[3]  Nina Amenta,et al.  Closed‐form Blending of Local Symmetries , 2010, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[4]  Bernd Hamann,et al.  Symmetry Restoration by Stretching , 2009, CCCG.

[5]  Christoph P. E. Zollikofer,et al.  Virtual Reconstruction: A Primer in Computer-Assisted Paleontology and Biomedicine , 2005 .

[6]  T. Jashashvili,et al.  New Material of Microgomphodon oligocynus (Eutherapsida, Therocephalia) and the Taxonomy of Southern African Bauriidae , 2014 .

[7]  D. Lieberman,et al.  Virtual cranial reconstruction of Sahelanthropus tchadensis , 2005, Nature.

[8]  K. Angielczyk,et al.  Early Evolutionary History of the Synapsida , 2013 .

[9]  M. Singleton.  Patterns of cranial shape variation in the Papionini (Primates: Cercopithecinae). , 2002, Journal of human evolution.

[10]  Stefano Benazzi,et al.  Technical note: virtual reconstruction of KNM-ER 1813 Homo habilis cranium. , 2014, American journal of physical anthropology.

[11]  N. Ogihara,et al.  Computerized restoration of nonhomogeneous deformation of a fossil cranium based on bilateral symmetry. , 2006, American journal of physical anthropology.

[12]  Adoum H. Mahamat,et al.  A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa , 2002, Nature.

[13]  Gerhard W Weber,et al.  Principles for the virtual reconstruction of hominin crania. , 2009, Journal of human evolution.

[14]  Stephen R. Frost,et al.  Cranial allometry, phylogeography, and systematics of large-bodied papionins (primates: Cercopithecinae) inferred from geometric morphometric analysis of landmark data. , 2003, The anatomical record. Part A, Discoveries in molecular, cellular, and evolutionary biology.

[15]  M. Lumley,et al.  Restauration virtuelle d’Arago 21 , 2014 .

[16]  J. Herskowitz,et al.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA , 1996, Current Biology.

[17]  Stephen R. Frost,et al.  Fossil papio cranium from !Ncumtsa (Koanaka) Hills, western Ngamiland, Botswana. , 2012, American journal of physical anthropology.

[18]  Yu-Kun Lai,et al.  Proceedings of the Symposium on Geometry Processing , 2014 .

[19]  E. Tschopp,et al.  Retrodeformation as a test for the validity of phylogenetic characters: an example from diplodocid sauropod vertebrae , 2013 .

[20]  Bernd Hamann,et al.  Evolutionary morphing , 2005, VIS 05. IEEE Visualization, 2005..

[21]  N. Mitra,et al.  Symmetrization , 2007, ACM Trans. Graph..

[22]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape , 1997, Medical Image Anal..

[23]  Thomas A. Funkhouser,et al.  Symmetry-Aware Mesh Processing , 2009, IMA Conference on the Mathematics of Surfaces.

[24]  Stephen R. Frost,et al.  Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Gaspard Guipert,et al.  Virtual reconstruction of Arago 21 , 2013 .

[26]  R. Motani.  New technique for retrodeforming tectonically deformed fossils, with an example for ichthyosaurian specimens , 2007 .

[27]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology , 1999 .

[28]  Ian G. Langham,et al.  Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery , 1990 .