Cited by 169Paleontology and Evolutionary BiologyComparative Animal Anatomy StudiesEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Evolution of the biomechanical material properties of the femur.

Open access
Erickson, Gregory M., Catanese, Joseph, Keaveny, Tony M.·2002·The Anatomical Record

Abstract

The biomechanical performance of long bones is dictated by four key factors: element size, element shape, loading conditions, and material properties. Our understanding of the latter of these has been mostly limited to eutherian mammals and birds, which show similarity. Whether their possession of comparable material properties reflects common ancestry or independent evolution is uncertain. In the present analysis, we tested the bending strength, modulus, and failure strains of the femur and its pterygiophore homolog in actinpterygian fish. Sixty‐nine specimens representing basal character states in seven major vertebrate crown clades were tested. These data were then coupled with avian and mammalian data from the literature and analyzed in an evolutionary context using phylogenetic character analysis. Mean values of 188 MPa for yield strength, 22.4 GPa for Young's modulus, and 8,437 μ∈ for yield strain were obtained for the long bones. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed comparable values between clades that span a 30,000‐fold range of body mass. We conclude that material properties of the first long bones 475 million years ago were conserved throughout evolution. Major locomotory challenges to femora during vertebrate evolution were almost solely accomplished by modifications of element size and shape. Anat Rec 268:115–124, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ar.10145

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The biomechanical capacity was also certainly vital to the occupation of near-shore habitats by crocodilians over millennia.

    “It was also certainly vital to the occupation of near-shore habitats by crocodilians over millennia – although prey types changed, the materials of which they were composed did not (e.g. [30]).”

    From Insights into the Ecology and Evolutionary Success of Crocodilians Revealed through Bite-Force and Tooth-Pressure Experimentation (2012) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) examines the evolutionary stability of femoral material properties and briefly reports measurements for crocodilians. It does not address whether biomechanical capacity enabled crocodilians to occupy near-shore habitats, or whether changing prey types retained the same material composition. Searches for near-shore habitats, crocodilian occupation, and prey materials found no passage supporting those points. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Beaupre ´GS, Carter DR. 1992. Finite element analysis in biomechan- ics. In: Biewener AA, editor. Biomechanics: structures and systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 149 -174.
  2. Brooks DR, McLennan DA. 1991. Phylogeny, ecology, and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 434 p.
  3. Cowin SC. 1988. Bone biomechanics. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 345 p.
  4. Currey JD. 1984. The mechanical adaptations of bones. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 294 p.
  5. de Ricqles A, Meurnier FJ, Castanet J, Francillon-Viellot H. 1983. Comparative microstructure of bone. In: Hall BK, editor. Bone. Vol. III. Bone matrix and bone specific products. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 1-77.
  6. Edwards JL. 1977. The evolution of terrestrial locomotion. In: Hecht MK, Goody PC, Hecht BM, editors. Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. New York: Plenum Press. p 553-577.
  7. Harvey PH, Pagel MD. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 239 p.
  8. Keaveny TM, Hayes WC. 1993. Mechanical properties of cortical and trabecular bone. In: Hall BK, editor. Bone. Vol. VII. Bone growth, part B. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 285-344.
  9. Lanyon LE, Rubin CT. 1985. Functional adaptation in skeletal struc- tures. In: Hidebrand M, Bramble DM, Liem KF, Wake DB, editors. Functional vertebrate morphology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p 1-25.
  10. McKinney ML, McNamara KL. 1991. Heterochrony: the evolution of ontogeny. New York: Plenum Press. 437 p.
  11. Pearson DM, Westoll TS. 1979. The Devonian actinopterygian, Chei- rolepis agassiz. Trans R Soc Edinb 70:337-399.
  12. Popov EP. 1968. Introduction to mechanics of solids. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 571 p.
  13. Radinsky LB. 1987. The evolution of vertebrate design. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 188 p.
  14. Ridley M. 1996. Evolution. Cambridge: Blackwell Science. 719 p.
  15. Schmalhausen II. 1968. The origin of terrestrial vertebrates. New York: Academic Press. 314 p.
  16. Shubin N. 1995. The evolution of paired fins and the origin of tetrapod limbs. In: Hecht MK, editor. Evolutionary biology. New York: Ple- num Press. p 39 -86.
  17. Walker WF, Liem KF. 1994. Functional anatomy of the vertebrates. Fort Worth: Saunders College Publishing. 788 p.
  18. Witmer L. 1995. The extant phylogenetic bracket and the importance of reconstructing soft tissues in fossils. In: Thomason JJ, editor. Functional morphology in vertebrate paleontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 19 -33.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Erickson, G. M., Catanese, J., & Keaveny, T. M.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Erickson, Gregory M.
Venue
The Anatomical Record
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08-14
Volume
268
Issue
2
Pages
115-124
ISSN
  • 0003-276X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0185
OpenAlex
W2080234249
Cited by
169
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Anatomical Record (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation
  • University of California Museum of Paleontology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Comparative Animal Anatomy Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
femur, bone biomechanics, bone material properties, flexural strength, Young's modulus, yield strain, pterygiophores, actinopterygian fishes, vertebrate evolution, long bones, locomotion, placental mammals, birds
MeSH terms
Animals, Biomechanical Phenomena, Birds, Body Constitution, Femur, Fishes, Humans, Mammals, Movement, Phylogeny, Reptiles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review