Grist for Riedl's mill: A network model perspective on the integration and modularity of the human skull
Abstract
Riedl's concept of burden neatly links development and evolution by ascertaining that structures that show a high degree of developmental co‐dependencies with other structures are more constrained in evolution. The human skull can be precisely modeled as an articulated complex system of bones connected by sutures, forming a network of structural co‐dependencies. We present a quantitative analysis of the morphological integration, modularity, and hierarchical organization of this human skull network model. Our overall results show that the human skull is a small‐world network, with two well‐delimited connectivity modules: one facial organized around the ethmoid bone, and one cranial organized around the sphenoid bone. Geometric morphometrics further support this two‐module division, stressing the direct relationship between the developmental information enclosed in connectivity patterns and skull shape. Whereas the facial module shows a hierarchy of clustered blocks of bones, the bones of the cranial modules show a regular pattern of connections. We analyze the significance of these arrangements by hypothesizing specific structural roles for the most important bones involved in the formation of both modules, in the context of Riedl's burden. We conclude that it is the morphological integration of each group of bones that defines the semi‐hierarchical organization of the human skull, reflecting fundamental differences in the ontogenetic patterns of growth and the structural constraints that generate each module. Our study also demonstrates the adequacy of network analysis as an innovative tool to understand the morphological complexity of anatomical systems. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 320B: 489–500, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 human skull has a modular behavior divided into two main modules based on differential embryological origin: the viscerocranium and the neurocranium.
“There is some evidence that the human skull has a modular behavior divided in two main modules based in its differential embryological origin: the viscerocranium or facial skeleton and the neurocranium or braincase [24,25,27–31].”
From Morphological consequences of artificial cranial deformation: Modularity and integration (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
Cites
Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks
Guimerà, R., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03288 · Cited by 3,983 · see citing works
The Evolution of the Human Head
Lieberman, D. E. (2011) · doi:10.4159/9780674059443 · Cited by 408 · see citing works
The evolutionary role of modularity and integration in the Hominoid cranium
Mitteroecker, P., & Bookstein, F. (2008) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00321.x · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Riedl's burden and the body plan: selection, constraint, and deep time
Schoch, R. R. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution · doi:10.1002/jez.b.21300 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Morphological consequences of artificial cranial deformation: Modularity and integration
Püschel, T. A., Friess, M., & Manríquez, G. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227362 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Morphological trends in arcade shape and size in Middle Pleistocene <i>Homo</i>
Stelzer, S., Neubauer, S., Hublin, J., Spoor, F., & Gunz, P. (2019) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.23721 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Esteve‐Altava, B., Marugán‐Lobón, J., Botella, H., Bastir, M., & Rasskin‐Gutman, D.
- Affiliations
- Universitat de València (ES)
- Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Rasskin‐Gutman, Diego
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-08-02
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 489-500
- ISSN
- 1552-5007 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5015
- OpenAlex
- W1499204141
- Semantic Scholar
- 44bc4725426082ec1ff35f6b9aa5039a5fa149a2
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 8.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B Molecular and Developmental Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
- Keywords
- human skull, morphological integration, modularity, network models, small-world networks, developmental constraints, cranial sutures, facial bones, cranial bone, ethmoid bone, sphenoid bone, skull shape, hierarchy, geometric morphometrics
- MeSH terms
- Bone Development, Biological Evolution, Facial Bones, Humans, Models, Biological, Skull
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