The effects of skeletal asymmetry on interpreting biologic variation and taphonomy in the fossil record

Abstract. Biologic asymmetry is present in all bilaterally symmetric organisms as a result of normal developmental instability. However, fossilized organisms, which have undergone distortion due to burial, may have additional asymmetry as a result of taphonomic processes. To investigate this issue, we evaluated the magnitude of shape variation resulting from taphonomy on vertebrate bone using a novel application of fluctuating asymmetry. We quantified the amount of total variance attributed to asymmetry in a taphonomically distorted fossil taxon and compared it with that of three extant taxa. The fossil taxon had an average of 27% higher asymmetry than the extant taxa. In spite of the high amount of taphonomic input, the major axes of shape variation were not greatly altered by removal of the asymmetric component of shape variation. This presents the possibility that either underlying biologic trends drive the principal directions of shape change irrespective of asymmetric taphonomic distortion or that the symmetric taphonomic component is large enough that removing only the asymmetric component is inadequate to restore fossil shape. Our study is the first to present quantitative data on the relative magnitude of taphonomic shape change and presents a new method to further explore how taphonomic processes impact our interpretation of the fossil record.

[1]  P. Currie,et al.  Analyzing Taphonomic Deformation of Ankylosaur Skulls Using Retrodeformation and Finite Element Analysis , 2012, PloS one.

[2]  THREE-DIMENSIONAL RE-EVALUATION OF THE DEFORMATION REMOVAL TECHNIQUE BASED ON "JIGSAW PUZZLING" , 2008 .

[3]  P. Jell,et al.  A statistical/computer-graphic technique for assessing variation in tectonically deformed fossils and its application to Cambrian trilobites from Kashmir , 1992 .

[4]  M. Benton,et al.  Histology and postural change during the growth of the ceratopsian dinosaur Psittacosaurus lujiatunensis , 2013, Nature Communications.

[5]  John G. Ramsay,et al.  The techniques of modern structural geology. Volume 1, Strainanalysis , 1983 .

[6]  J. Claude,et al.  Environmental media and shape asymmetry: a case study on turtle shells , 2008 .

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

[8]  H. David Sheets,et al.  Geometric morphometrics for biologists : a primer , 2004 .

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

[10]  L. Witmer.  2 The Extant Phylogenetic Bracket and the importance of reconstructing soft tissues in fossils , 2007 .

[11]  P. Piras,et al.  Is Torosaurus Triceratops? Geometric Morphometric Evidence of Late Maastrichtian Ceratopsid Dinosaurs , 2013, PloS one.

[12]  I. O'Hara.  Red-Tailed Hawk , 2002 .

[13]  J. Speakman,et al.  The energetic cost of variations in wing span and wing asymmetry in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata , 2004, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[14]  S. Brusatte,et al.  The evolution of cranial form and function in theropod dinosaurs: insights from geometric morphometrics , 2012, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[15]  E. Rayfield,et al.  Shape and mechanics in thalattosuchian (Crocodylomorpha) skulls: implications for feeding behaviour and niche partitioning , 2009, Journal of anatomy.

[16]  Adrian L. R. Thomas,et al.  On avian asymmetry: evidence of natural selection for symmetrical tails and wings in birds , 1993, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  P. Currie,et al.  Quantitative diagenetic analyses of Edmontosaurus regalis (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae) postcranial elements from the Danek Bonebed, Upper Cretaceous Horseshoe Canyon Formation, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: implications for allometric studies of fossil organisms , 2014 .

[18]  V. Bernal,et al.  Differences between sliding semi‐landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation , 2006, Journal of anatomy.

[19]  Erik Otárola-Castillo,et al.  geomorph: an r package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data , 2013 .

[20]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[21]  J. Algina,et al.  Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. , 2003, Psychological methods.

[22]  J. Swaddle,et al.  European starlings are capable of discriminating subtle size asymmetries in paired stimuli. , 2007, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[24]  B. Hedrick,et al.  Cranial ontogenetic variation in early saurischians and the role of heterochrony in the diversification of predatory dinosaurs , 2016, PeerJ.

[25]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Bilateral Symmetry and Sexual Selection: A Meta‐Analysis , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[26]  D. Schmieder,et al.  Bat Species Comparisons Based on External Morphology: A Test of Traditional versus Geometric Morphometric Approaches , 2015, PloS one.

[27]  P. Sereno.  Taxonomy, Cranial Morphology, and Relationships of Parrot-Beaked Dinosaurs (Ceratopsia: Psittacosaurus) , 2010 .

[28]  Paul M. Barrett,et al.  Osteological Correlates for Quadrupedality in Ornithischian Dinosaurs , 2012 .

[29]  Aaron R. Wood,et al.  Modularity of the rodent mandible: Integrating bones, muscles, and teeth , 2008, Evolution & development.

[30]  R. Sacchi,et al.  Fluctuating Asymmetry in Body Traits Increases Predation Risks: Tawny Owl Selection Against Asymmetric Woodmice , 2005, Evolutionary Ecology.

[31]  J. Swaddle.  Fluctuating Asymmetry, Animal Behavior, and Evolution , 2003 .

[32]  B. Hedrick,et al.  Lujiatun Psittacosaurids: Understanding Individual and Taphonomic Variation Using 3D Geometric Morphometrics , 2013, PloS one.

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

[34]  G. Rivera,et al.  Effects of asymmetry on the strength of the chelonian shell: A comparison of three species , 2013, Journal of morphology.

[35]  R. Cooper.  Interpretation of tectonically deformed fossils , 1990 .

[36]  A. Meyer,et al.  SHAPE ANALYSIS OF SYMMETRIC STRUCTURES: QUANTIFYING VARIATION AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND ASYMMETRY , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[37]  Christian Peter Klingenberg,et al.  GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRICS OF DEVELOPMENTAL INSTABILITY: ANALYZING PATTERNS OF FLUCTUATING ASYMMETRY WITH PROCRUSTES METHODS , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[38]  Christian Peter Klingenberg,et al.  The genetics and evolution of fluctuating asymmetry , 2005 .

[39]  George H. Davis,et al.  Structural geology of rocks and regions , 1984 .

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

[41]  S. Dongen,et al.  Fluctuating asymmetry and developmental instability in evolutionary biology: past, present and future , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[42]  John G. Ramsay,et al.  The techniques of modern structural geology , 1987 .

[43]  Benedikt Hallgrímsson,et al.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLUCTUATING ASYMMETRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE IN RHESUS MACAQUE SKULLS , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[45]  T. White,et al.  Early Hominids--Diversity or Distortion? , 2003, Science.