Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 98, Issue 4, pp 359–360 | Cite as

In defence of the slim dodo: a reply to Louchart and Mourer-Chauviré

  • Delphine Angst
  • Eric Buffetaut
  • Anick Abourachid
Comments & Replies

Louchart and Mourer-Chauviré (2011) question our method of estimating the mean mass of the dodo by claiming that tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus lengths cannot be used for such mass estimates “because different bird species of the same weight can show considerable differences in the lengths of these two bones”. This is indeed obvious from the graphs published by Zeffer et al. (2003), which we have used in our paper, but those graphs also show differences in femur length for the same body mass which are not negligible, contrary to what Louchart and Mourer-Chauviré seem to imply. We do not agree that femur length “hardly participates in leg length”, for the simple reason that the femur is a segment of the leg, whatever its position relative to the body, and takes part in locomotion (even though it does not move much, as pointed out by Campbell and Marcus 1992). Although Louchart and Mourer-Chauviré consider that the coefficient correlation squares (R2) for tibiotarsi and tarsometatarsi...

Keywords

Sexual Dimorphism Mass Estimate Femur Length Limb Bone Display Behaviour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Angst D, Buffetaut E, Abourachid A (2011) The end of the fat dodo? A new mass estimate for Raphus cucullatus. Naturwissenschaften 98:233–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baptista LF, Trail PW, Horbit HM (1997) Order Columbiformes, family Columbidae. In: del Hoyo J, Elliott, Saragatal J (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 2. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 60–243Google Scholar
  3. Campbell KE, Marcus L (1992) The relationship of hindlimb bone dimensions to body weight in birds. Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Cnty Sci Ser 36:395–412Google Scholar
  4. Hume JP (2006) The history of the dodo Raphus cucullatus and the penguin of Mauritius. Hist Biol 18:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kitchener A (1993) On the external appearance of the dodo, Raphus cucullatus (L., 1758). Arch Nat Hist 20:279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Livezey B (1993) An ecomorphological review of the dodo (Raphus cucullatus) and solitaire (Pezophaps solitaria), flightless Columbiformes of the Mascarene Islands. J Zool 230:247–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Louchart A, Mourer-Chauviré C (2011) The dodo was not so slim: leg dimensions and scaling to body mass. Naturwissenschaften 98: doi: 10.1007/s00114-011-0771-6
  8. Oudemans AC (1917) Dodo-studien. Verhand Koninkl Akad Wetensch Amsterdam 19:1–140Google Scholar
  9. Zeffer A, Johansson LC, Marmebro Å (2003) Functional correlation between habitat use and leg morphology in birds (Aves). Biol J Linn Soc 79:461–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Delphine Angst
    • 1
  • Eric Buffetaut
    • 2
  • Anick Abourachid
    • 3
  1. 1.ParisFrance
  2. 2.Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR 8538Laboratoire de Géologie de l’Ecole Normale SupérieureParis Cedex 05France
  3. 3.Département EGBMuséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR7179, équipe MorphoMotion, Pavillon d’Anatomie ComparéeParisFrance

Personalised recommendations