Home > Data Exploration, To-Do List > Can We Get A Hand?

Can We Get A Hand?

Or at least some measurements of hands? One of the things we’d love to do with the ODP data is investigate the way that the proportions of the fingers and toes, phalanges and unguals, metacarpals and metatarsals, changed through evolution. Do quadrupeds do something funky with their hands, and do they all do it in the same way?

For a little bit of data exploration, I decided to create a visualization of the proportions of the various bones making up the third digit of the hand. The third digit (which we know as the middle finger) is usually the central one in dinosaurs, or at least the longest one. Thus, it might be inferred to be most important functionally. The graph below shows the relative proportions of each phalanx and metacarpal in digit III, for a variety of dinosaurs. All have been scaled to the same length.

Relative Phalangeal Proportions of Manual Digit III ("The Middle Finger")

Relative Phalangeal Proportions of Manual Digit III ("The Middle Finger")

There are certainly some interesting patterns. First, the little ornithischian Heterodontosaurus and the saurischian Herrerasaurus (our outgroup comparison here) have very, very short metacarpals relative to the rest of the finger. Second, hadrosaurs (the duck-billed dinosaurs, including Kritosaurus, Parasaurolphus, and Corythosaurus) have really, really long metacarpals. Without exception, around 2/3 of their hand is metacarpal (equivalent to our palms). Note also that these hadrosaurs have lost phalanx four, and the penultimate (second-to-last) phalanx is really, really short. Ceratopsians (the horned dinosaurs, including Protoceratops, Styracosaurus, and Centrosaurus) and Hypsilophodon are somewhere in between.

How might I interpret this (cautiously, because we have so few data here)? Without a doubt, hadrosaurs are funky. Is this an adaptation for their unique brand of quadrupedality? Maybe. . .it would be nice to compare with more basal iguanodonts. I would like to say that the intermediate proportions of the ceratopsians (between Heterodontosaurus and hadrosaurs) are adaptations for quadrupedality, too, but the similar proportions of Hypsilophodon (usually assumed to be bipedal) add an unwelcome reality check on this hypothesis. Assuming that Heterodontosaurus and Herrerasaurus are both basal, perhaps we can interpret their digits as the ancestral condition for dinosaurs. These are interesting hypotheses, and ones that could be tested.

Unfortunately, we are running up against a problem with the goal of thoroughly documenting this aspect of ornithischian evolution: there just aren’t many measurements of fingers and toes out in the literature. I suspect the reason for this is two-fold: 1) fingers and toes were often the first thing to wash away prior to fossilization, or are so disarticulated that it’s impossible to identify which is which; and 2) authors present measurements for the humerus, radius, ulna, and sometimes metacarpal or metatarsal III, but don’t measure the rest of the limbs.

Conspicuously absent from the list: measurements of hands and feet for ankylosaurs, stegosaurs, basal ceratopsians (including psittacosaurs, for which there are literally dozens of articulated hands and feet!), and non-hadrosaurian ornithopods (with some many good, articulated iguanodont skeletons out there, you think someone would have published measurements). Even clades with a decent number of good hands and feet–such as hadrosaurs and ceratopsians–are missing measurements for many of the key specimens. So here’s your assignment: 1) if you have access to original material catalogued in public collections, spend a few minutes to measure some hands and feet, and send the data our way; and 2) if you have access to the literature, see what you can find for measurements there.

About these ads
  1. September 23, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Looks like a good start, though I must apologize for not being on here as much as I’d like (Here, being the Internet) is that it is an annoying combination of illness and school! :P I’ll begin tonight to be sure.

  2. September 24, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    Without any data from “iguanodonts”, we may still try to infer (roughly) something: dinosaurs with unguals are “brevi-metatarsalians” while those which lost them became “tele-metatarsalians”. We artists EMPERICALLY usually reconstruct brevi-MT manus as sort of a “paw” with oblique MT long axis while tele-MT manus, a “stalk” with vertical MT long axis. Supposedly for increased cursorial ability?

    Interestingly, the same thing happens to sauropods across the ischial division. Basal sauropods were the same – brevimetatarsalian. Brachiosaurs got to the other extreme similarly – telemetatarsalian!!!

    Cheers! :)

  3. September 24, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    Oops it should be metacarpals / MC, for sure. I must be drunk…

  4. John Dziak
    September 24, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    I think Carpenter and Wilson (2008) has some nice manus information but I think they give it as ratios rather than measurements.
    (“A New Species of Camptosaurus (Ornithopoda: Dinosauria) from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Dinosaur National Monument, Utah, and a Biomechanical Analysis of Its Forelimb”)

  5. William Miller
    September 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Thinking about the outgroups: is there any good source for bone measurements for modern crocodilians, and would they be any use as an outgroup?

  6. September 26, 2009 at 2:08 am

    I would love to, but I need a hand in searching for good sources. So far, just finding the publications is a nuissance. Why I don’t live near a major Natural History Museum, I don’t know! It would be easier if I actually had access to specimens so I can make my own measurements! Could someone help me?

  7. Andy Farke
    October 2, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    Interesting observation. . .can’t wait to start collecting the data for sauropods (phase II, of course. . .)!

  8. Andy Farke
    October 2, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    Yeah, they do have lots of nice ratios. . .which unfortunately aren’t terribly helpful for the present project. I’ve run across a number of papers that deal in ratios only. . .often without acknowledging problems with allometry, statistical comparisons, etc.

  9. Andy Farke
    October 2, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    I don’t know of one off-hand, unfortunately (although the data must be out there). My thought at present is that crocs are just a little too far afield from the outgroups we need (basal dinosaurs, basal theropods, basal sauropodomorphs, etc.). The modern guys are pretty modified from the “standard” archosaur body plan (although maybe there are some interesting functional data here). In the future, though, it may be useful to add some crocs (and birds) to the comparative dataset. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

  10. Andy Farke
    October 2, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Many of the major relevant publications are freely available on-line – see our links here for more help on this.

  1. October 20, 2009 at 2:13 pm
  2. November 16, 2010 at 4:52 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: