ArticleJournal of morphology2025
Morphofunctional Space of the Forelimb in Caraguatypotherium munozi (Notoungulata; Mesotheriidae): Insights Into Wrist-Powered Digging.
Article in Journal of morphology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Joint Angular Excursions and Angular Range Utilization During Stance-Phase Locomotion in Terrestrial Mammals: A Comparative Morphofunctional Data Set.Journal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological and integrative physiology · 2026Article
- Morphofunctional Spaces from the Astragalus: Exploring Angular Excursions and Mechanical Efficiency inBiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding how extinct animals moved is a central goal in paleobiology, yet interpreting locomotor function from anatomy alone is complicated by convergent and divergent morphologies. One promising approach is the construction of morphofunctional spaces (MFSs), which integrate multiple biomechanical indices and comparative statistics to refine functional inference. This study investigates forelimb adaptations for digging in Caraguatypotherium munozi (Notoungulata, Mesotheriidae), a mid-sized Miocene notoungulate lacking extant analogs. We developed an MFS based on osteological measurements and mechanical advantage (MA) models at the elbow and wrist. These were derived from fossil material and comparative data across 38 extant mammal species representing 21 families and 5 locomotor habits-terrestrial, fossorial (digger), climbing, swimming, and flying-as well as 5 mesotheriid specimens, including the holotype of C. munozi. Multivariate and inferential statistical analyses were used to identify functional patterns and evaluate locomotor hypotheses. Results show that C. munozi occupies an intermediate position in MFS, adjacent to but outside the core regions of extant fossorial, climbing, and terrestrial mammals. It exhibits the highest wrist flexor MA (31.4%) in the data set, 9%-13% above the range of living scratch-diggers, and a low elbow extensor MA (~19%), below the fossorial mean (~31.6%). Notably, incorporating manus length (MTCIII-L) into the elbow model lowers MA further but places C. munozi within the statistical range of extant diggers, suggesting partial mechanical similarity. This biomechanical pattern supports a wrist-dominant excavation strategy, reflecting a distinct mechanical pathway that enabled C. munozi to perform the motor gesture of scratch-digging through enhanced distal force generation, rather than relying on proximal joint leverage as in extant fossorial mammals. The integration of MA with osteological indices within a multivariate framework provides novel insights into extinct mammalian locomotion and underscores the utility of MFS models for reconstructing context-dependent motor capabilities and locomotor habits.
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.