RT Conference Proceedings
T1 Sobre el uso de los mínimos cuadrados parciales de dos bloques para el estudio de los patrones integración entre el neurocráneo y el esplacnocráneo en homínidos actuales y homínidos extintos
A1 Pérez-Claros, Juan Antonio
A1 Jiménez-Arenas, Juan Manuel
A1 Palmqvist-Barrena, Carlos Paul
A1 Martín-Serra, Alberto
K1 Paleontología
AB Many biological structures that interact in development and/or function tend toevolve in a concertedly fashion and thus become integrated forming modules. The twomost prominent modules of the mammalian cranium are the cerebral capsule (i.e., theneurocranium) and the face (i.e., the splanchnocranium), as inferred from bothdevelopmental processes and functional reasons. The relative importance of both cranialcomplexes was estimated here by means of their relative sizes, which were measured inthe five extant hominoid species and also in a huge sample of extinct hominins using sixstandard cranial measurements as proxies of the length, width, and height of each cranialmodule. Several two-block partial least-squares analyses (2B-PLS) were performed foradults of the extant and extinct species using size standardized and non-standardizedvariables, as well as pooled and non-pooled within-species correlation matrices. When nosize standardization was performed, pooled and non pooled within-species analysesshowed a common pattern of developmental integration for all living hominoid species,on the one hand, and very different patterns of evolutionary integration, on the other, inwhich each species exhibited a distinct relationship between the relative sizes of theirmodules. On the contrary, when cranial size was removed, ontogenetic and evolutionaryintegration run in the same direction, which indicates that the relative sizes of thesplanchnocranium and the neurocranium relate inversely both within and betweenspecies. Australopiths, the extinct representatives of the genus Homo and the anatomicalmodern humans (AMH) seem to lie in a different trend than the great apes, although thepattern of covariation between their cranial modules is basically the same. This differencesuggests that a great ape cannot reach the morphology of an AMH simply by increasingthe size of its neurocranium. Similarly, an AMH cannot be transformed to theface/neurocranium proportions of an ape simply by reducing its neurocranium. We thankthe Universidad de Malaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucia Tech and theMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovacion (Ref. CGL2011-30334).
YR 2014
FD 2014-11-10
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10630/8390
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10630/8390
LA eng
NO Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech.               Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (Ref. CGL2011-30334).
DS RIUMA. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Málaga
RD 20 ene 2026