Integrating locomotion, postures and morphology: The case of the tayra, Eira barbara (Carnivora, Mustelidae)

Abstract

Locomotion and postures are key factors to understanding the biology of animals. However, scansorial and arboreal carnivorans remain poorly studied regarding these issues. Herein, we present a behavioral and morphological analysis of the arboreal locomotion of the tayra (Eira barbara), a neotropical forest-dwelling mustelid. Data on habitat use and locomotor and postural modes were collected from free-ranging tayras in a terra-firme forest in French Guiana. Additionally, qualitative morphological traits and linear measurements of the girdles and appendicular skeleton were analyzed through comparative anatomical descriptions, univariate tests, and a principal components and discriminant analysis. Tayras frequently used clambering, quadrupedal walking, claw climbing and quadrupedal standing, performed primarily on small and medium, oblique and horizontal branches. Furthermore, our morphofunctional analyses revealed that tayras possess autopodial specializations for navigating on arboreal substrates, while the more proximal elements present features more similar to other terrestrial or scansorial mustelids, and theoretically less modified from the hypothetical weasel-like ancestor of mustelids. This mosaic of morphological features of the tayra, a combination of phylogenetic inertia and ecological signals, very likely evolved to promote the efficient and effective exploitation of diverse habitats and resources in this versatile species.

Anatomical Basis of Differences in Locomotor Behavior in Martens: AComparison of the Forelimb Musculature Between Two Sympatric Species of Martes

“…Since the M. pectoantebrachialis draws the arm in a medial direction, this topography may reflect a functional trait with respect to terrestrial locomotion. It is striking to note that the muscle inserts proximal on the humeral diaphysis in A. fulgens (Fisher et al, ), whereas it inserts in the middle part of the humeral diaphysis in M. americana , M. pennanti (Leach, b) and Galictis cuja (Ercoli and Youlatos, ). However, the development of this superficial muscle (closely connected to the underlying M. pectoralis major ) is not equally great in carnivores.…”

Postcranial elements of small mammals as indicators of locomotion and habitat

“…The most common taxa of interest have been primates (e.g., Szalay & Dagosto, 1980;Rose, 1988Rose, , 1989Rose, , 1994Gebo & Sargis, 1994;Godfrey et al, 1997;Schmitt, 2003;Youlatos, 2003;Dunn et al, 2016;Elton, 2002;Elton et al, 2016;Arias-Martorell, 2018-this is but a small sample of the voluminous primate literature); carnivorous mammals (Taylor, 1974(Taylor, , 1976Van Valkenburgh, 1987;Gebo & Rose, 1993;Iwaniuk, Pellis & Whishaw, 1999;Schutz & Guralnick, 2007;Polly & MacLeod, 2008;Meachen-Samuels & Van Valkenburgh, 2009;Walmsley et al, 2012;Fabre et al, 2013;Meloro et al, 2013;Janis & Figueirido, 2014;Martín-Serra, Figueirido & Palmqvist, 2014a, 2014bFabre et al, 2015aFabre et al, , 2015bErcoli & Youlatos, 2016;Panciroli et al, 2017;Dunn et al, 2019;Meloro & De Olivera, 2019;Tarquini, 2019); and rodents (Elissamburu & Vizcaíno, 2004;Weisbecker & Schmid, 2006;Dunn & Rasmussen, 2007;Samuels & Van Valkenburgh, 2008;Morgan, 2009;Mor...…”

“…The most common taxa of interest have been primates (e.g., Szalay & Dagosto, 1980 ; Rose, 1988 , 1989 , 1994 ; Gebo & Sargis, 1994 ; Godfrey et al, 1997 ; Schmitt, 2003 ; Youlatos, 2003 ; Dunn et al, 2016 ; Elton, 2002 ; Elton et al, 2016 ; Arias-Martorell, 2018 —this is but a small sample of the voluminous primate literature); carnivorous mammals ( Taylor, 1974 , 1976 ; Van Valkenburgh, 1987 ; Gebo & Rose, 1993 ; Iwaniuk, Pellis & Whishaw, 1999 ; Schutz & Guralnick, 2007 ; Polly & MacLeod, 2008 ; Meachen-Samuels & Van Valkenburgh, 2009 ; Walmsley et al, 2012 ; Fabre et al, 2013 ; Meloro et al, 2013 ; Janis & Figueirido, 2014 ; Martín-Serra, Figueirido & Palmqvist, 2014a , 2014b , 2016 ; Fabre et al, 2015a , 2015b ; Ercoli & Youlatos, 2016 ; Panciroli et al, 2017 ; Dunn et al, 2019 ; Meloro & De Olivera, 2019 ; Tarquini, 2019 ); and rodents ( Elissamburu & Vizcaíno, 2004 ; Weisbecker & Schmid, 2006 ; Dunn & Rasmussen, 2007 ; Samuels & Van Valkenburgh, 2008 ; Morgan, 2009 ; Morgan & Álvarez, 2013 ; Boivin et al, 2018 ; Calede, Samuels & Chen, 2019 ; Hedrick et al, 2020 ). Studies of other mammalian orders (excluding here larger mammals such as ungulates and large diprotodontid marsupials) include smaller marsupials ( Lemelin, 1999 ; Argot, 2001 , 2002 ; Szalay & Sargis, 2001 ; Weisbecker & Warton, 2006 ; Bassavora, Janis & Archer, 2009 ; Flores & Díaz, 2009 ; Warburton et al, 2011 ; ...…”

Functional inferences on the long bones of Ischyrictis zibethoides (Blainville, 1841) (Carnivora, Mustelidae) from the middle Miocene locality of Sansan (Gers, France)

“…The different proximal projection of the femoral head has also a direct relationship with the action of both the m. piriformis and the m. gluteus medius, two muscles attaching on the greater trochanter of the femur (Davis 1964;Barone 2010;Ercoli et al 2013), which can show different degrees of fusion among Musteloidea (Lucae 1875;Mackintosh 1875;Alix 1876;Hall 1927;Fisher et al 2008;Ercoli et al 2013). In non-cursorial mustelids, those muscles that extend the coxofemoral articulation (the gluteus group) are relatively less developed than in cursorial species when compared to total hind limb musculature (Maynard Smith & Savage 1956;Gambaryan 1974;Ercoli et al 2013). Thus, in a number of species of the genera Mustela and Martes, Gambaryan (1974) indicates a weight for the m. gluteus medius of 1.9-2.1% of the total fore and hind limb muscles, whereas in the more robust G. gulo this relative weight is 3.1%, it reaching a percentage of 3.3% in M. capensis.…”

“…foina it is 1.1%, in M. capensis it is 0.9%, and in the Mustela species it does not surpass 0.7% (Gambaryan 1974). This muscle is thin, but much larger than the m. quadratus femoris, and its functions are the lateral rotation of the coxofemoral articulation, and the prevention of its medial rotation during weight bearing (Evans 1993;Barone 2010;Ercoli et al 2013). Haughton (1867) found remarkable differences in the relative weight of the m. obturator externus among different dog breeds, with the Greyhound having a muscle almost twice the size of that of less cursorial breeds.…”