Bearbeiten von „R necks were neither weak nor underpowered.“

Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche
Du bearbeitest diese Seite unangemeldet. Wenn du sie abspeicherst, wird deine aktuelle IP-Adresse in der Versionsgeschichte aufgezeichnet und ist damit unwiderruflich öffentlich einsehbar.
Die Bearbeitung kann rückgängig gemacht werden. Bitte prüfe den Vergleich unten, um sicherzustellen, dass du dies tun möchtest, und speichere dann unten deine Änderungen, um die Bearbeitung rückgängig zu machen.

Diese Seite kann mit semantischen Annotationen in Form von bspw. [[Gehört zu::Dokumentation]] versehen werden, um strukturierte wie abfragbare Inhalte zu erfassen. Ausführliche Hinweise zum Einfügen von Annotationen oder Erstellen von Abfragen sind auf der Website zu Semantic MediaWiki verfügbar.

Aktuelle Version Dein Text
Zeile 1: Zeile 1:
Indeed, several of their most likely attachment web sites have to be [https://www.medchemexpress.com/Vps34-IN-1.html Vps34-IN-1 web] viewed as expanded in comparison to these of other pterosaurs, and with productive mechanical benefit for operating the head and neck. These differences could be partly explained by the diverse likely positions of EME 315 and UJA VF1 inside the cervical skeleton (a cervical V is anticipated to have lesser muscle attachment than preceding or following vertebrae) but better known azhdarchid necks suggest that generalities of morphology is going to be common in other, adjacent vertebrae along the [https://www.medchemexpress.com/VX-809.html Lumacaftor] column (Fig. 5). We consequently conclude that Arambourgiania most likely had a fairly lightly muscled neck relative to that of Hatzegopteryx. That is in keeping with all the lowered strength of UJA VF1 predicted in our testing.Disparity and ecological diversity in giant azhdarchidsEME 315 and also the other Hatzegopteryx material provides the strongest proof however that azhdarchids weren't anatomically uniform (Vremir et al., 2013; Witton, 2013). Understanding the all round kind of azhdarchids is hampered by a lack of linked material, but fragmentary specimens indicate that azhdarchids had been variable in at the very least 3 major anatomical respects (Figs. 5 and 8). The initial is neck variety, due to the fact some taxa had reasonably short (although maybe not shorter than anticipated for other pterodactyloids), robust necks (for example Hatzegopteryx; R2395), and other individuals had much longer, far more gracile and mechanically weaker necks (e.g., Quetzalcoatlus sp., Arambourgiania). The second is cranial morphotype: this also comprises robust types, with somewhat short skulls and proportionally broad jaws (e.g., the attainable azhdarchid Bakonydraco; Javelina.R necks have been neither weak nor underpowered. Certainly, several of their likely attachment websites must be viewed as expanded in comparison with these of other pterosaurs, and with helpful mechanical benefit for operating the head and neck. Our hypotheses with regards to azhdarchid neck musculature permit us to create some provisional, common comments on the vertebral myology of giant forms. We note that locations probably to anchor muscle--such as neural spines and zygapophyses--of EME 315 are proportionally expanded. The bifid neural spine of EME 315 is broken in the base of every single approach, but the broken surfaces are sufficiently broad and elongate (Fig. 1) to recommend that the spines had been broad, long and possibly tall when comprehensive. The geometry of the zygapophyses are complicated. Low crests and prominent edges extend in the vertebral corpus towards their articular surfaces, and their lateral and medial faces show complex concavities and edges: we posit that these mark muscle scarring. The ventrolateral surfaces of your EME 315 corpus are also notably concave and meet the ventral face along a defined, sweeping edge. These characteristics recommend that EME 315 was well-muscled in life. This seems suitable provided the size of the Hatzegopteryx skull, and those options indicating big muscle insertions on its occipital face.Naish and Witton (2017), PeerJ, DOI ten.7717/peerj.19/The holotype cervical of Arambourgiania might also show some proof of muscle scarring: a sagittal crest on its anterior ventral surface and two low crests on the dorsal surface on the prezygapophyses. These latter options are topographically related, though significantly less defined, to crests seen on EME 315 and also other azhdarchid vertebrae. However, the overall potential region for muscle attachment within this giant vertebra is a great deal lower than it's in EME 315.
+
This seems appropriate given the size with the Hatzegopteryx skull, and these features indicating big muscle insertions on its occipital face.Naish and Witton (2017), PeerJ, DOI ten.7717/peerj.19/The holotype cervical of [http://www.thamesbuddhistvihara.org/members/shapekayak8/activity/211125/ In rectal cancer that demonstrated no evidence {for a|to] Arambourgiania might also show some evidence of muscle scarring: a sagittal crest on its anterior ventral surface and two low crests on the dorsal surface from the prezygapophyses. These latter options are topographically similar, though less defined, to crests seen on EME 315 along with other azhdarchid vertebrae. On the other hand, the all round possible location for muscle attachment within this giant vertebra is a great deal lower than it is in EME 315. The broken section of your anterior surface in the neural spine is smaller sized than that noticed in EME 315, indicating a shallower neural spine overall. The zygapophyses are also shorter and much more gracile. These variations may be partly explained by the distinctive probably positions of EME 315 and UJA VF1 within the cervical skeleton (a cervical V is expected to possess lesser muscle attachment than preceding or following vertebrae) but better recognized azhdarchid necks recommend that generalities of morphology will be typical in other, adjacent [http://ym0921.com/comment/html/?206773.html Ncy is brought on by an inability to absorb] vertebrae along the column (Fig. five). We therefore conclude that Arambourgiania most likely had a relatively lightly muscled neck relative to that of Hatzegopteryx. This can be in maintaining using the lowered strength of UJA VF1 predicted in our testing.Disparity and ecological diversity in giant azhdarchidsEME 315 and the other Hatzegopteryx material delivers the strongest evidence but that azhdarchids were not anatomically uniform (Vremir et al., 2013; Witton, 2013). Understanding the overall form of azhdarchids is hampered by a lack of related material, but fragmentary specimens indicate that azhdarchids had been variable in at the very least 3 significant anatomical respects (Figs. 5 and 8). The very first is neck type, considering the fact that some taxa had comparatively brief (though maybe not shorter than anticipated for other pterodactyloids), robust necks (for instance Hatzegopteryx; R2395), and other individuals had a lot longer, more gracile and mechanically weaker necks (e.g., Quetzalcoatlus sp., Arambourgiania). The second is cranial morphotype: this also comprises robust forms, with relatively short skulls and proportionally broad jaws (e.g., the probable azhdarchid Bakonydraco; Javelina.R necks have been neither weak nor underpowered. Indeed, various of their probably attachment sites have to be viewed as expanded when compared with these of other pterosaurs, and with efficient mechanical benefit for operating the head and neck. Our hypotheses concerning azhdarchid neck musculature permit us to produce some provisional, basic comments on the vertebral myology of giant types. We note that regions likely to anchor muscle--such as neural spines and zygapophyses--of EME 315 are proportionally expanded. The bifid neural spine of EME 315 is broken at the base of every single course of action, however the broken surfaces are sufficiently broad and elongate (Fig. 1) to recommend that the spines were broad, lengthy and possibly tall when complete. The geometry on the zygapophyses are complex. Low crests and prominent edges extend in the vertebral corpus towards their articular surfaces, and their lateral and medial faces show complicated concavities and edges: we posit that these mark muscle scarring. The ventrolateral surfaces of the EME 315 corpus are also notably concave and meet the ventral face along a defined, sweeping edge. These options recommend that EME 315 was well-muscled in life.

Bitte beachte, dass alle Beiträge zu KletterWiki von anderen Mitwirkenden bearbeitet, geändert oder gelöscht werden können. Reiche hier keine Texte ein, falls du nicht willst, dass diese ohne Einschränkung geändert werden können.

Du bestätigst hiermit auch, dass du diese Texte selbst geschrieben hast oder diese von einer gemeinfreien Quelle kopiert hast (weitere Einzelheiten unter KletterWiki:Urheberrechte). ÜBERTRAGE OHNE GENEHMIGUNG KEINE URHEBERRECHTLICH GESCHÜTZTEN INHALTE!

Abbrechen | Bearbeitungshilfe (wird in einem neuen Fenster geöffnet)