Journal of Mammalian Evolution

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 225–234

The Convergent Evolution of Suspensory Posture and Locomotion in Tree Sloths

Review

Abstract

Recent phylogenetic analyses imply a distant relationship and long separated evolution of two-toed sloths (Choloepus) and three-toed sloths (Bradypus). No known fossil sloth is interpreted to have been suspensory. As a consequence, the suspensory posture and locomotion of the extant genera likely evolved convergently in both lineages, forming a new framework for the analysis of functional aspects of the locomotor apparatus of extant tree sloths. The suspensory posture and locomotion has altered functional demands from the phylogenetically plesiomorphic non-suspensory pronograde situation. Here, anatomical traits that have been argued to be of adaptive significance for quadrupedal suspensory locomotion are reviewed and the evolution of these traits is discussed in light of the new framework. Experimental data are largely limited to Choloepus, but help to deduce functional aspects of the anatomy in Bradypus as well. The most important adaptive traits are hands and feet modified into relatively rigid hook-like appendages, great mobility of all joints proximal to the midcarpal and transverse tarsal joints, relatively long arms with a relatively short scapula, a rounded thorax with a small diameter, a highly mobile sterno-clavicular articulation, and emphasis on powerful flexion in the proximal limb joints via advantageous lever arms. Despite these changes, patterns of limb kinematics remained conservative during the course of evolution in the lineages leading to extant tree sloths, and it is suggested here that this also applies to the pattern of neuromuscular control of limb movements during locomotion. Morphological ‘solutions’ to altered functional demands posed by inversed orientation of the body differ in the two genera of extant tree sloths, thereby corroborating the proposed diphyly. Convergent evolution in tree sloths may be attributed to functional constraints posed by fossorial adaptations in early Xenarthra that canalized sloths to adopt a suspensory posture and locomotion in the arboreal habitat.

Keywords

Xenarthra Convergent evolution Choloepus Bradypus Locomotion Functional morphology 

References

  1. Aramayo SA, de Bianco TM (1987) Hallazgo de una icnofauna continental (Pleistoceno tardío) en la localidad de Pehuén-Có (partido de Colonel Rosales), provincial de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Parte 1: Edentata, Litopterna, Proboscida. IV Congresso Latinoamericano de Paleontologiá, Bolivia 1: 516–531Google Scholar
  2. Carrier DR, Deban SM, Fischbein T (2006) Locomotor function of the pectoral girdle ‘muscular sling’ in trotting dogs. J Exp Biol 209: 2224–2237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cartmill M (1985) Climbing. In: Hildebrand M, Bramble DM, Liem KF, Wake DB (eds) Functional Vertebrate Morphology. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–88Google Scholar
  4. Casinos A (1996) Bipedalism and quadrupedalism in Megatherium: an attempt at biomechanical reconstruction. Lethaia 29: 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan LK (2007) Glenohumeral mobility in primates. Folia Primatol 78: 1–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiarello AG (2008) Sloth ecology—an overview of field studies. In: Vizcaíno SF, Loughry WJ (eds) The Biology of the Xenarthra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 269–280Google Scholar
  7. Davis DD (1949) The shoulder architecture of bears and other carnivores. Fieldiana Zool 81: 285–305Google Scholar
  8. Endo H, Komiya T, Kawada S, Hayashida A, Kimura J, Itou T, Koie H, Sakai T (2009) Three-dimensional reconstruction of the xenarthrous process of the thoracic and lumber vertebrae in the giant anteater. Mammal Study 34: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer MS (1994) Crouched posture and high fulcrum, a principle in the locomotion of small mammals: the example of the rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) (Mammalia: Hyracoidea). J Hum Evol 26: 501–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer MS, Blickhan R (2006) The tri-segmented limbs of therian mammals: kinematics, dynamics, and self-stabilization—a review. J Exp Zool 305A: 935–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer MS, Schilling N, Schmidt M, Haarhaus D, Witte H (2002) Basic limb kinematics of small therian mammals. J Exp Biol 205: 1315–1338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fujiwara SI, Endo H, Hutchinson JR (2011) Topsy-turvy locomotion: biomechanical specialisations of the elbow in suspended quadrupeds reflect inverted gravitational constraints. J Anat 219: 176–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaudin TJ (2004) Phylogenetic relationships among sloths (Mammalia, Xenarthra, Tardigrada): the craniodental evidence. Zool J Linn Soc 140: 255–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaudin TJ, Biewener AA (1992) The functional morphology of xenarthrous vertebrae in the armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus (Mammalia, Xenarthra). J Morphol 214: 63–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaudin TJ, McDonald HG (2008) Morphology-based investigations of the phylogenetic relationships among extant and fossil xenarthrans. In: Vizcaíno SF, Loughry WJ (eds) The Biology of the Xenarthra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 24–36Google Scholar
  16. Goslow GE, Reinking RM, Stuart DG (1973) The cat step cycle: hind limb joint angles and muscle lengths during unrestrained locomotion. J Morphol 141: 1–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwood AD, Castresana J, Feldmeier-Fuchs G, Pääbo S (2001) A molecular phylogeny of two extinct sloths. Mol Phylogenet and Evol 18: 94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hildebrand M (1966) Analysis of the symmetrical gaits of tetrapods. Folia Biotheoret 6: 9–22Google Scholar
  19. Hildebrand M, Goslow GE (2001) Analysis of Vertebrate Structure. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirsch A, Chiarello AG (2011) The endangered maned sloth Bradypus torquatus of the Brazilian Atlantic forest: a review and update of geographical distribution and habitat preferences. Mammal Rev. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00188.x
  21. Höss M, Dilling A, Currant A, Pääbo S (1996) Molecular phylogeny of the extinct ground sloth Mylodon darwinii. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 181–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howell AB (1944) Speed in Animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Humphry GM (1869) The myology of the limbs of the Unau, the Ai, the two-toed anteater, and the Pangolin. J Anat Physiol 3: 2–78Google Scholar
  24. Jenkins FA, Weijs WA (1979) The functional anatomy of the shoulder in the Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana). J Zool Lond 188: 379–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jouffroy FK, Lessertisseur J, Vassal P (1962) Particularites musculaires des extremites du bradype ai (Bradypus tridactylus L.) dans leur rapports avec la suspension arhoricole. Bull Assoc Anat 11: 392400Google Scholar
  26. Jungers WL, Stern JT (1980) Telemetered electromyography of the forelimb muscle chains in gibbons (Hylobates lar). Science 208: 617–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kraft R (1995) Xenarthra. Handbuch der Zoologie Volume 8 (Mammalia), pp 1–79Google Scholar
  28. Krause C (2008) Die Beweglichkeit des Schultergelenks arborikoler und terrikoler quadrupeder Primaten. Dissertation at the Faculty of Biology and Pharmacy at the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuznetsov AN (1985) Comparative functional analysis of the fore- and hind limbs in mammals. Zool J Moscow 64: 1862–1867Google Scholar
  30. Lucae JCG (1882) The muscles and the skeleton of the black lemur and the sloth (Lemur macaco and Choloepus didactylus). Mahlau and Waldschmidt Verlag, Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main, 84 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Mackintosh HW (1873) On the myology of the genus Bradypus. Proc R Irish Acad Bg1: 517–529Google Scholar
  32. Mackintosh HW (1874) On the muscular anatomy of Choloepus didactylus. Proc R Irish Acad Bg1: 66–79Google Scholar
  33. McDonald HG (2003) Xenarthran skeletal anatomy: primitive or derived? (Mammalia Xenarthra). Senckenbergiana Biologica 83: 5–17Google Scholar
  34. McDonald HG, DeIuliis G (2008) Fossil history of sloths. In: Vizcaíno SF, Loughry WJ (eds) The Biology of the Xenarthra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 39–55Google Scholar
  35. Meincke F (1911) Morphologische Untersuchungen über die Myologie an den Extremitäten bei Bradypus tridactylus Morphol Jahrb H2: 311–358Google Scholar
  36. Mendel FC (1979) The wrist joint of two-toed sloths and its relevance to brachiating adaptations in the Hominoidea. J Morphol 162: 413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mendel FC (1981a) The hand of two-toed sloths (Choloepus): its anatomy and potential uses relative to size of support. J Morphol 169: 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mendel FC (1981b) Foot of two-toed sloths: its anatomy and potential uses to size of support. J Morphol 170: 357–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mendel FC (1981c) Use of hands and feet of two-toed sloths (Choloepus hoffmanni) during climbing and terrestrial locomotion. J Mammal 62: 413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mendel FC (1985a) Adaptations for suspensory behavior in the limbs of two-toed sloths. In: Montgomery GG (ed) The Evolution and Ecology of Armadillos, Sloths, and Vermilinguas. Smithonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 151–162Google Scholar
  41. Mendel FC (1985b) Use of hands and feet of three-toed sloths (Bradypus variegatus) during climbing and terrestrial locomotion. J Mammal 66: 359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mendel FC, Piggins D, Fish DR (1985) Vision of two-toed sloths (Choloepus). J Mammal 66: 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miles SS (1941) The shoulder anatomy of the armadillo. J Mammal 22: 157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller RA (1935) Functional adaptations in the forelimb of the sloths. J Mammal 16: 38–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nyakatura JA, Fischer MS (2010a) Three dimensional kinematic analysis of the pectoral girdle during upside-down locomotion of the two-toed sloth (Choloepus didactylus, Xenarthra). Front Zool 7: Art No 21Google Scholar
  46. Nyakatura JA, Fischer MS (2010b) Functional morphology and three-dimensional kinematics of the thoraco-lumbar region of the spine of the two-toed sloth. J Exp Biol 213: 4278–4290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nyakatura JA, Fischer MS (2011) Functional morphology of the muscular sling at the pectoral girdle in tree sloths: convergent morphological solutions to new functional demands? J Anat 219: 360–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nyakatura JA, Fischer MS, Schmidt M (2008) Gait parameter adjustments of cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus, Callitrichidae) to locomotion on inclined arboreal substrates. Am J Phys Anthrop 135: 13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nyakatura JA, Petrovitch A, Fischer MS (2010) Limb kinematics during locomotion in the two-toed sloth (Choloepus didactylus, Xenarthra) and its implications for the evolution of the sloth locomotor apparatus. Zoology 113: 221–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Owen R (1842) Description of the Skeleton of an Extinct Gigantic Sloth, Mylodon robustus Owen, with Observations on the Osteology, Natural Affinities, and Probable Habits of the Megatheroid Quadrupeds in General. R and J Taylor, London, 176 ppGoogle Scholar
  51. Piggins D, Muntz WRA (1985) The eye of the three-toed sloth. In: Montgomery GG (ed) The Evolution and Ecology of Armadillos, Sloths, and Vermilinguas. Smithonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 191–197Google Scholar
  52. Poinar H, Kuch M, McDonald HG, Martin P, Pääbo S (2003) Nuclear gene sequences from a late Pleistocene sloth coprolite. Curr Biol 13: 1150–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pujos F, DeIuliis G, Argot C, Werdelin L (2007) A peculiar climbing Megalonychidae from the pleistocene of Peru and its implication for sloth history. Zool J Linn Soc 149: 179–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schilling N (2011) The evolution of the axial system in craniates: morphology and function of the perivertebral musculature. Front Zool 8: Art No 4Google Scholar
  55. Schmidt M, Krause C (2011) Scapula movements and their contribution to three-dimensional forelimb excursions in quadruped primates. In: D’Aout K, Vereecke EE (eds) Primate Locomotion: Linking in situ and ex situ Research. Springer Press, New York, pp 83–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor BK (1978) The anatomy of the forelimb in the anteater (Tamandua) and its functional implications. J Morph 157: 347–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor BK (1985) Functional anatomy of the forelimb in vermilinguas (anteaters). In: Montgomery GG (ed) The Evolution and Ecology of Armadillos, Sloths, and Vermilinguas. Smithonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 151–162Google Scholar
  58. Ursing B (1932) Über Entwicklung und Bau des Hand- und Fuss-Skeletts bei Bradypus tridactylus. Acta Universitatis Lundensis 28: 107 ppGoogle Scholar
  59. Vassal PA, Jouffroy FK, Lessertisseur J (1962) Musculature de la main et du pied du Paresseux Ai (Bradypus tridactylus L.). Folia Clinica et Biologica 31: 142–153Google Scholar
  60. Webb SD (1985) The interrelationships of tree sloths and ground sloths. In: Montgomery GG (ed) The Evolution and Ecology of Armadillos, Sloths, and Vermilinguas. Smithonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 105–112Google Scholar
  61. White JL (1993) Indicators of locomotor habits in xanarthrans: evidence for locomotor heterogeneity among fossil sloths. J Vert Paleontol 13: 230–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Windle BCA, Parsons FG (1899) On the myology of the Edentata. Proc Zool Soc Lond 1899: 990–1017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie mit Phyletischem MuseumFriedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations