Preuschoft Holger
Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany.
J Anat. 2004 May;204(5):363-84. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00303.x.
Morphology and biomechanics are linked by causal morphogenesis ('Wolff's law') and the interplay of mutations and selection (Darwin's 'survival of the fittest'). Thus shape-based selective pressures can be determined. In both cases we need to know which biomechanical factors lead to skeletal adaptation, and which ones exert selective pressures on body shape. Each bone must be able to sustain the greatest regularly occurring loads. Smaller loads are unlikely to lead to adaptation of morphology. The highest loads occur primarily in posture and locomotion, simply because of the effect of body weight (or its multiple). In the skull, however, it is biting and chewing that result in the greatest loads. Body shape adapted for an arboreal lifestyle also smooths the way towards bipedality. Hindlimb dominance, length of the limbs in relation to the axial skeleton, grasping hands and feet, mass distribution (especially of the limb segments), thoracic shape, rib curvatures, and the position of the centre of gravity are the adaptations to arboreality that also pre-adapt for bipedality. Five divergent locomotor/morphological types have evolved from this base: arm-swinging in gibbons, forelimb-dominated slow climbing in orangutans, quadrupedalism/climbing in the African apes, an unknown mix of climbing and bipedal walking in australopithecines, and the remarkably endurant bipedal walking of humans. All other apes are also facultative bipeds, but it is the biomechanical characteristics of bipedalism in orangutans, the most arboreal great ape, which is closest to that in humans. If not evolutionary accident, what selective factor can explain why two forms adopted bipedality? Most authors tend to connect bipedal locomotion with some aspect of progressively increasing distance between trees because of climatic changes. More precise factors, in accordance with biomechanical requirements, include stone-throwing, thermoregulation or wading in shallow water. Once bipedality has been acquired, development of typical human morphology can readily be explained as adaptations for energy saving over long distances. A paper in this volume shows that load-carrying ability was enhanced from australopithecines to Homo ergaster (early African H. erectus), supporting an earlier proposition that load-carrying was an essential factor in human evolution.
形态学和生物力学通过因果形态发生(“沃尔夫定律”)以及突变与选择的相互作用(达尔文的“适者生存”)相互关联。因此,可以确定基于形状的选择压力。在这两种情况下,我们都需要知道哪些生物力学因素会导致骨骼适应,以及哪些因素会对身体形状施加选择压力。每块骨头都必须能够承受最常出现的最大负荷。较小的负荷不太可能导致形态适应。最大负荷主要出现在姿势和运动中,这仅仅是由于体重(或其倍数)的影响。然而,在头骨中,咬和咀嚼会产生最大的负荷。适应树栖生活方式的身体形状也为两足行走铺平了道路。后肢优势、四肢与轴向骨骼的长度关系、抓握的手和脚、质量分布(尤其是肢体节段的质量分布)、胸廓形状、肋骨曲率以及重心位置都是对树栖生活的适应,这些适应也为两足行走做好了预先准备。从这个基础上进化出了五种不同的运动/形态类型:长臂猿的摆臂行走、猩猩以前肢为主的缓慢攀爬、非洲猿类的四足行走/攀爬、南方古猿中未知的攀爬和两足行走的混合方式,以及人类显著持久的两足行走。所有其他猿类也是兼性两足动物,但最接近树栖的大型猿类猩猩的两足行走的生物力学特征与人类最为接近。如果不是进化的偶然事件,那么什么选择因素可以解释为什么两种形态都采用了两足行走呢?大多数作者倾向于将两足运动与由于气候变化树木之间距离逐渐增加的某些方面联系起来。根据生物力学要求,更精确的因素包括投掷石块、体温调节或在浅水中涉水。一旦获得了两足行走能力,典型人类形态的发展就很容易被解释为对长距离节能的适应。本卷中的一篇论文表明,从南方古猿到匠人(早期非洲直立人),负重能力得到了增强,这支持了一个早期观点,即负重是人类进化的一个重要因素。