Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41571737›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Biomechanical limits of hopping in the hindlimbs of giant extinct kangaroos.

Megan E Jones, Katrina Jones, Robert L Nudds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Megan E JonesDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. megan.jones-15@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.
Katrina JonesDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. katrina.jones@bristol.ac.uk.
Robert L Nudds *School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council DTP3 2020-2025 entry - BB/T008725/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The locomotor abilities of animals depend upon their body size. Today, kangaroos are the largest hopping mammals, but some of their Pleistocene relatives were larger still—more than twice as heavy as any modern kangaroo. So, is there an upper size limit of bipedal hopping? Previous analyses have recovered an upper limit of ~ 140–160 kg based on allometry, but have suggested that incorporating changes in hindlimb scaling patterns among giant species would alter these conclusions. Here, we test this proposal by integrating scaling data from modern kangaroos with direct observation of the hindlimb bones of giant fossil kangaroos. We test two potential limiting factors on hopping—bone strength, and tendon size. We find that (a) the metatarsals of giant kangaroos would be capable of resisting the bending moments involved in hopping, and (b), the calcanea (heel bones) of giant kangaroos could accommodate tendons large enough to resist the loads generated during hopping. While hopping may not have been their primary mode of locomotion, our findings suggest that it may have formed part of a broader locomotor repertoire, for example for short bursts of speed.

Indexed as

HindlimbLocomotionMacropodidaeAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBody SizeFossilsTendonsBiomechanicsHindlimbHoppingKangarooProtemnodonSthenurine

Identifiers

PMID41571737
PMCPMC12828012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.