The foundation of avian flight is a classic macroevolutionary transition with

The foundation of avian flight is a classic macroevolutionary transition with research spanning over a century. but included for completeness. Qualifying and quantifying arboreal adaptations Seventeen discrete heroes diagnostic for habitat preference were used to compare both non-avian theropods and basal parrots to non-avian tetrapods. These heroes have been demonstrated to be indicators of increasing arboreality [25] [42] [57]. These included the presence of an opposable hallux and/or pollex the ability of the tail to act like a prehensile organ or like a support on a vertical surface the ability to pronate/supinate the forelimb hindfoot reversal and claw curvature. A set of popular quantitative indices were applied including the brachial index (BI ulnar size/humeral size) crural index (CI tibial size/femoral size) manual and pedal phalangeal indices (MPI and PPP non-ungual length of the digital ray size/metapodial size) and overall limb lengths. Overall limb lengths were determined from stylopodial (humerus/femur) and zeugopodial (ulna/tibia) section lengths divided by trunk size. Only these two limb segments were used to keep up a common comparator between plantigrade to digitigrade taxa. CI does not CCNA1 have the same practical relationship in parrots as it does in non-avian tetrapods because of the horizontal position of the femur and different hindlimb biomechanics and bone proportions in living parrots [58]-[60]. The avian tarsometatarus size was divided from the tibial size to derive a more MK-8033 similar index of distal section elongation for use in the combined dataset in all extant avians and advanced fossil parrots (i.e. Ornithothoraces). We also performed the analyses using the “traditional” CI index for both the advanced fossil and extant parrots and it does not significantly alter the results (results not demonstrated). Qualitative multistate heroes were used to characterize joint mobility variance. We define low mobility as movement restricted to a single plane or permitting very limited active movement in multiple planes (e.g. the ankle of a horse). Medium mobility is defined as movement in more than one aircraft but an failure to fully abduct/adduct or invert/evert that section without pain (e.g. wrist of the house cat). Highly mobile joints are defined as MK-8033 those that can freely and fully abduct/adduct and even circumduct (e.g. the wrist of tree squirrels). Eight heroes associated with climbing and perching capabilities in extant parrots were used to compare extinct theropods to their living descendents [61]-[63]. In addition to PPI and claw curvature these heroes include relative hindlimb tibial and metatarsal size (standardized to body mass) the presence and extent of a reversed hallux presence of zygodactyly and any changes of tail feathers to act as a assisting strut. Because of the variations in non-avian theropods and bird hindlimbs tibial and metatarsal indices were standardized against the mean of each clade to generate comparable values. Mass ideals for non-avian theropods were determined based on femoral size or circumference estimates with the lowest value chosen. These metrics can be divided into those that reduced the distance between the centre of mass and the substrate (i.e. BI) those that facilitate securing a purchase (we.e. claw curvature PPI) and those that permit higher mobility (i.e. joint flexibility heroes). We substituted the practical homologue Ph.III-I for the central metatarsus when computing PPI as suggested in Hopson [63] because of the digitigrade stance of the theropod foot. The musculoskeletal heroes used in our analyses were selected a priori to be not restricted to any particular taxonomic MK-8033 group and show a broad distribution and association with arboreality in unrelated extant clades. The dissociation between these heroes and phylogeny is definitely shown by the lack of MK-8033 phylogenetic signal in the clustering results. Continuous characters were also utilized MK-8033 to examine general tendencies from terrestriality to arboreality without respect to absolute beliefs. The patterns of the tendencies may also be non-phylogenetic because they’re repeated across unrelated lineages in response to arboreal needs and only utilized to derive qualitative tendencies from assemblages of unrelated.