ArticleJournal of anatomy2021
Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic contribution of intracranial osseous canals and cavities in armadillos and glyptodonts (Xenarthra, Cingulata).
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Sectional Anatomy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance of the Cadaveric Six-Banded Armadillo (Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Xenarthrans of the collection of Santiago Roth from the Pampean Region of Argentina (Pleistocene), in Zurich, Switzerland.Swiss journal of palaeontology · 2023Article
- Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic contribution of intracranial osseous canals and cavities in armadillos and glyptodonts (Xenarthra, Cingulata).Journal of anatomy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolutionary history of the Cingulata, as for many groups, remains a highly debated topic to this day, particularly for one of their most emblematic representatives: the glyptodonts. There is no consensus among morphological and molecular phylogenies regarding their position within Cingulata. As demonstrated by recent works, the study of the internal anatomy constitutes a promising path for enriching morphological matrices for the phylogenetic study of armadillos. However, internal cranial anatomy remains understudied in the Cingulata. Here we explored and compared the anatomy of intracranial osseous canals and cavities in a diverse sample of extant and extinct cingulates, including the earliest well-preserved glyptodont crania. The virtual 3D reconstruction (using X-ray microtomography) of selected canals, that is, the nasolacrimal canal, the palatine canal, the sphenopalatine canal, the canal for the frontal diploic vein, the transverse canal, the orbitotemporal canal, the canal for the capsuloparietal emissary vein and the posttemporal canal, and alveolar cavities related to cranial vascularization, innervation or tooth insertion allowed us to compare the locations, trajectories, and shape of these structures and to discuss their potential interest for cingulate systematics. We tentatively reconstructed evolutionary scenarios for eight selected traits related to these structures in which glyptodonts often showed a close resemblance to pampatheres, to the genus Proeutatus, and/or to chlamyphorines. This latter pattern was partly congruent with recent molecular hypotheses, but more research is needed on these resemblances and on the potential effects of development and allometry on the observed variations. Overall, these comparisons have enabled us to highlight new anatomical variation that may be of great interest to further explore the evolutionary history of cingulates and the origins of glyptodonts on a morphological basis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.