Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

volume 59 issue 6 (june 2025) : 1063-1069,   Doi: 10.18805/IJAR.BF-1870

Morphometry of the Femur, Tibia and Fibula of Plecturocebus caquetensis

M
María Antonia Montilla-Rodríguez1
0000-0001-8092-4390
J
Julio César Blanco-Rodríguez1,*
0000-0003-0422-8996
A
Alexander Velásquez Valencia2
0000-0003-0324-2331
H
Heidy Julieth Ortiz-Artunduaga3
0000-0003-0324-2331
C
Claudia Lorena Guerrero Gil3
0009-0002-6888-5266
1GIPSA Research Group, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia, Caquetá, Colombia.
2Wildlife Research Group, INBIANAM, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia, Caquetá, Colombia.
3SIAA Research Seedbed, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia, Caquetá, Colombia.
Cite article:- Montilla-Rodríguez Antonia María, Blanco-Rodríguez César Julio, Valencia Velásquez Alexander, Ortiz-Artunduaga Julieth Heidy, Gil Guerrero Lorena Claudia (2025). Morphometry of the Femur, Tibia and Fibula of Plecturocebus caquetensis . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 59(6): 1063-1069. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.BF-1870.

ABSTRACT

Background: Osteology is the study of the structure and function of bones, aimed at understanding how an individual’s activity influences their size. While this branch of anatomy has been extensively explored in domestic animals, there have been limited investigations into Neotropical primates. This lack of research has resulted in a shortage of essential information for veterinarians and professionals working with wild populations, hindering efforts to ensure the health and protection of these species.

Methods: A study was conducted on the large structures of the left and right hind limbs of the Colombian Amazonian primate Plecturocebus caquetensis. This study obtained morphometric data, validated in previous investigations, based on ten variables of the proximal region, eleven of the distal region five general variables of the femur, five of the tibia and four of the fibula. The investigation used structures from legal biological collections in Colombia to avoid unnecessary and unethical captures, as the species is critically endangered. 

Result: Significant differences were found between the right and left sides of the femur, tibia and fibula. Variables such as diaphysis length, axis, morphological lengthand biomechanical length of the tibia, maximum tibia and maximum fibula, present higher standard deviation values. These differences are due to the traction generated by the muscles inserted in these areas, which is influenced by external stimuli from the environment or physical surroundings.

INTRODUCTION

The Colombian Amazon primate, Plecturocebus caquetensis, is a species that belongs to the Pitheciidae family (Carneiro et al., 2016). This family is from Cauca and Caquetá departments in Colombia (Villota et al., 2021). Besides, it has limited space distribution (Suarez Ramirez​ et al., 2021) in municipalities such as Piamonte, Solano, Solita, Valparaíso, Curillo, San José del Fragua, Milánand Albania (Defler et al., 2016). Following this idea, this species was only reported until 2010 (Defler, 2014) because, during the early years, public order difficulties in the region did not allow investigators’ entrance (Defler and Garcia, 2016). However, this species has been studied recently considering some aspects of its natural history (Van Roosmalen ​et al., 2002) in which travel habits are mentioned to define the species as a jumping primate (Rocha et al., 2019) considering the species’ size (Byrne et al., 2016) and anatomical design (Isidro, 1994) that define the species as qualified for its habitat (Osbahr et al., 2009). Nonetheless, this information is general. That is why the investigations’ developments are required to recognize the anatomical, morphometrics and functional conditions that define the species’ecology (Garcia and Defler, 2011).
       
The aforementioned aspects are considered by other authors from areas such as biology (Garcia and Defler, 2013), trophic ecology (Defler et al., 2016), conservation (Defler and Garcia, 2016) and phylogenetics (Boubli et al., 2019), but thorough findings related to size and function of a specimen’s anatomical structures, as input to understand populations’ necessities (Garcia et al., 2010) that define handling and health conditions (Lucy et al., 2018).
       
The Plecturocebus caquetensis anatomy has been only tackled from the descriptive point of view of its osteology (Montilla-Rodriguez et al., 2023), but morphometrics or functional data are unknown because in 2010 the principal studies focused on distribution (Villota et al., 2021), endemism (Defler et al., 2016) and population size (Acero-Murcia et al., 2018) affected by deforestation for cattle raising (Lacetera, 2019), illegal mining, illicit cropsand oil exploitation (Lizcano et al., 2021).
       
Thus, this study externalizes morphometric data that contribute to this type of knowledge, selecting appendicular skeleton structures such as the femur, fibula and tibia, that are important for locomotion in the habitat  (Ariana et al., 2020). In this sense, relating obtained values to functional aspects (LLeo, 2015) works as a contribution to veterinarian knowledge (Bharti et al., 2022) of the species to understand related conditionals to the locomotion, the jump (Fleagle et al., 2016) and mechanical loads  (Morimoto, 2012) that the species has to endure in its habitat.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It utilized bone structures from primates of the Plecturocebus caquetensis species, preserved at the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales of Universidad de Colombia and the Museo de Historia Natural of Universidad de la Amazonia. These bone structures were used to study their anatomy (Sepkoski, 2009) by using essentially existent corpses, without attacking specimens that still exist in the natural environment. Besides, striving to prevent its extinction (Monsalve-Buritica, 2019) was important because the species population does not exceed 250 individuals (Garcia and Defler, 2011). The code of ethics for Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Medicine Zootechnics and Zootechnics in Colombia (Ley 576, 2000) as well as the Sentence C-666 (2010) from the Corte Constitucional, the Ley 84 (1989), Ley 1774 (2016) and the articles 8 and 79 from the Constitucion Política de Colombia (1991) establish the ban on ending wildlife in honor of science.
       
Therefore, from the existent bone structures in the biological collections the femur, tibia and fibula were considered. In this sense, these bones were measured by using a digital vernier (Gualda-Barros et al., 2012) with 0.01mm precision (Kohn and Lubach, 2018) considering different studies on this topic (Ciochon and Corruccini, 1975). In this order of ideas, to carry out the morphometric registration, variables corresponding to articular surfaces were mainly registered, providing information about the primate’s mechanics of movement in other parts of the bone (Ruff, 2002). This is because there is a close congruence between neighboring structures and the interdependence of all the functional components of the joints (Vancata, 1991). In the same line of thought, bone structure images were taken by using the digital camera CANON® EOS Rebel T3 to locate the points of reference of the obtained variables (Fig 1 and 2). 

Fig 1: Studies variables in the femur of Plecturocebus caquetensis: Cranial (A), Caudal (B), Medial (C), Proximal extremity (D), Distal extremity (E).



Fig 2: Studied variables of the Tibia (F) and Fibula (G) of P. caquetensis, caudal view.


       
Initially, the femur was addressed considering the proposed variables by (Ciochon and Corruccini, 1975), Fleagle and Meldrum (1988), Elissamburu (2004) and Blanco-Rodriguez et al. (2015) to register the following data (Table 1).

Table 1: Femur morphometrics variables of the P. caquetensis.


       
Subsequently, it was obtained data about the variables in the structures corresponding to the tibia and fibula according to Fleagle and Meldrum (1988), Aiello and Dean (1996) and Blanco-Rodriguez et al. (2015) are registered below (Table 2).

Table 2: Tibia and Fibula morphometrics variables of the Plecturocebus caquetensis.


       
In this sense, the obtained values were useful to generate summary measures such as mean and standard deviation. This was carried out by using the Infostat® software considering the obtained data about the structures of the right and left pelvic limbs of the specimens. Moreover, it was sought to demonstrate the general distribution of the data for each of the variables to locate those that present greater variance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In Table 3, significant differences are apparent in all variables between the left and right Femur, Tibia and Fibula, with the right side showing greater development in all cases. Additionally, LT exhibits a higher standard deviation compared to the other variables, followed by LBT, LE, LF, LM1, LM2 and LD, in that order (Table 3).

Table 3: Average and standard deviation in mm of variables of the femur, Tibia and fibula in Plecturocebus caquetensis.


       
In Fig 3, it can be observed that LT and LBT are the variables that present the highest coefficients of variation and both are related to the tibia, given that the biceps femoris, semitendinosus, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius and popliteus muscles have their origin or insertion in spaces determined by these variables (Polly, 2007) and their joint functioning determines the close relationship that exists between them. On the other hand, the variables LE, LF, LM2, LM1 and LD, are associated with the femur and the fibula, presenting a certain relationship between them, based on their variations in size and function (Ankel-Simons, 2007), since the adaptation of the axis (Fig 1) allows bending in multiple directions in order to reduce the harmful consequences of a new mechanics and this determines the locomotor behaviors of primates and the positional behaviors (Carlson, 2005).

Fig 3: Distribution of measurements of the variables in the femur, tibia and fibula of Plecturocebus caquetensis.


       
Likewise, the muscles that are inserted in the proximal end of the femur allow to extension of the limb by turning it around the head (Polly, 2007), in such a way that the muscles that are related to the body of the femur and the axis, indistinctly determine the conditions of the variables. The diaphysis, for its part, functions as an engineering beam, providing limb stiffness, particularly against bending and torsional loads (Argot, 2002), allowing the femur to resist bending loads in the caudolateral/craniomedial direction and allowing the bone to act as an energy absorber when running or jumping in a pronograde position. This makes the geometric construction of the femur ideally suited to resist high bending loads below the femoral diaphysis, particularly in the mediolateral plane (Sargis, 2002).
       
The LBT and LF variables, along with their standard deviations, should be highlighted as they meet the two previous conditions between the tibia and fibula. The length of the tibia depends on the activity carried out by the muscles, with only a small percentage of this load being supported by the fibula (Funk et al., 2004). This explains why the fibula’s length and diameter are always smaller. As the longest and widest bone in the leg region, the tibia is responsible for weight bearing in primates such as Plecturocebus caquetensis. It is connected by two slightly mobile joints (synovial joints) at the proximal and distal ends (Ankel-Simons, 2007). In arboreal primates where jumping is part of locomotion, the proximal end of the tibial shaft is more mediolaterally compressed (Fleagle and Meldrum, 1988). The insertion of the quadriceps femoris muscle determines speed and agility by allowing rapid extension of the knee (Salton and Sargis, 2009; Ruff and Runestad, 1992; Szalay and Sargis, 2001).
       
The length of the fibula affects the agility and range of movement of the lower limb required for quadrupedal arboreal locomotion (Marchi, 2007). It is mobile due to the characteristics of the proximal and distal tibiofibular joints, which have adapted to perform rapid and sudden movements (Barnett and Napier, 1953; Salton and Sargis, 2009). However, the fibula’s low robustness in comparison to the tibia is because of its position and its relatively minor role in bearing mechanical loads (Marchi, 2007).
   
The other variables obtained from the femur, tibia and fibula of P. caquetensis, with coefficients of variation less than one, do not show significant differences between them. This is because there is a total synergy between structures and joints for the transmission of force (Marchi, 2007) associated with all these variables. For example, the variable LC reflects a mechanical adaptation to resist flexion forces during jumping (Ford, 1990) and the variables LTM, LTMa, Lca/T, ATM and ATMa are related to the vastus lateralis and quadriceps femoris muscles, which are also linked to knee extension associated with jumping (Salton and Sargis, 2009).
       
It is important to note that the differences between the right and left bone structures in all cases determine specific aspects of movement asymmetry. While there are no recognized references to this in primates, it is indicated in humans that high impacts and constant bone tension can lead to size gain (Nikander et al., 2010). Given that Plecturocebus caquetensis is a primate that jumps and moves on small tree branches, its posture may reflect this. However, detailed studies in its natural habitat, similar to those carried out by Cubi and Llorente (2021) or in the past by Colell (1992) focusing on the hind limbs, are necessary to identify the reason for this preferred posture.

CONCLUSION

The longitudinal variables of the femur, Tibia and fibula show a greater variation due to the effect of the muscles that are inserted in them, an aspect that may be associated with physical factors of the environment related to the architecture of the forest and particularities of the primate such as age, sexand hierarchical level.
       
Understanding morphometry provides information on some functional aspects that determine the well-being of primates, facilitating the discernment of characteristics necessary for confinement areas or habitat conservation conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was supported by the University of the Amazon, under the direction of Dr. Fabio Buriticá Bermeo.
 
Disclaimers
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.
 
Informed consent
 
Permits related to animal handling were not required for this study, since the work involved anatomical structures stored in biological collections.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES


  1. Acero-Murcia, A., Almario, L.J., García, J., Defler, T.R. and López, R. (2018). Diet of the caquetá titi (Plecturocebus caquetensis) in a disturbed forest fragment in caquetá, colombia. Primate Conservation. 32: 31-47.

  2. Aiello, L. and Dean, C. (1996). An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. Academic Press.

  3. Ankel-Simons, F. (2007). Primate Anatomy An Introduction. Elsevier Inc.

  4. Argot, C. (2002). Functional, adaptive analysis of the hindlimb anatomy of extant marsupials and the paleobiology of the Paleocene marsupials Mayulestes ferox and Pucadelphys andinus. Journal of Morphology. 253: 76- 108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1114.

  5. Ariana, Padeta, I., Rachma Jadi, A., Wijayanto, H., Budipitojo, T., Raharjo, S., Rezeki, A. and Budi Santoso, H. (2020). The correlation of femur length with the body length of proboscis monkey. BIO Web of Conferences. 20: 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20202004001.

  6. Constitucion política de Colombia, (1991). pp. 680.

  7. Barnett, C.H. and Napier, J.R. (1953). The rotatory mobility of the fibula in eutherian mammals. Journal of Anatomy. 87: 11-21.

  8. Bharti, S.K., Singh, I. and Choudhary, O.P. (2022). Arm and forearm bones of the adult blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus): A Morphological and Morphometrical Study. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 56: 1221-12227. https://doi.org/ 10.18805/IJAR.B-4278

  9. Blanco-Rodriguez, J.C.B., Montilla -Rodríguez, M.A., Suárez, J., Alvarez, H. and Cuéllar, R. (2015). Caracterización del esqueleto apendicular de Saimiri sciureus. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias Del Peru. 26: 189-199. https://doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v26i2.11096

  10. Boubli, J.P., Byrne, H., da Silva, M.N.F., Silva-Júnior, J., Costa Araújo, R., Bertuol, F., Gonçalves, J., de Melo, F.R., Rylands, A.B., Mittermeier, R. A. et al. (2019). On a new species of titi monkey (Primates: Plecturocebus Byrne et al., 2016), from Alta Floresta, southern Amazon, Brazil. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 132: 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.11.012.

  11. Byrne, H., Rylands, A.B., Carneiro, J.C., Lynch Alfaro, J.W., Bertuol, F., F da Silva, M.N., Messias, M., Groves, C.P., Mittermeier, R.A., Farias, I. et al. (2016). Phylogenetic relationships of the New World titi monkeys (Callicebus): First appraisal of taxonomy based on molecular evidence. Frontiers in Zoology. 13: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12983-016-0142-4.

  12. Carlson, K.J. (2005). Investigating the form-function interface in African apes: Relationships between principal moments of area and positional behaviors in femoral and humeral diaphyses. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 127: 312-334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20124.

  13. Carneiro, J., De Sousa E Silva, J., Sampaio, I., Pissinatti, A., Hrbek, T., Rezende Messias, M., Rohe, F., Farias, I., Boubli, J. and Schneider, H. (2016). Phylogeny of the titi monkeys of the Callicebus moloch group (Pitheciidae, Primates). American Journal of Primatology. 78: 904-913. https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22559

  14. Ciochon, R.L. and Corruccini, R. S. (1975). Morphometric analysis of platyrrhine femora with taxonomic implications and notes on two fossil forms. Journal of Human Evolution. 4: 193-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(75) 90008-1.

  15. Colell, M.M. (1992). Lateralidad manual en chimpances y orangutanes. Universidad de Barcelona.

  16. Cubi, M. and Llorente, M. (2021). Hand preference for a bimanual coordinated task in captive hatinh langurs (Trachypithecus hatinhensis) and grey-shanked douc langurs (Pygathrix cinerea). Behavioural Processes.187: 1-9. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104393.

  17. Defler, T.R. (2014). Historia Natural de los Primates Colombianos. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

  18. Defler, T.R. and Garcia, J. (2016). Primates in peril the world´s25 most endangered primates 2016-2018. IUCN.

  19. Defler, T, García, J., Almario, L., Acero, A., Bueno, M., Bloor, P., Hoyos, M., Arciniegas, S. and Ibáñez, C. (2016). Plan de conservación de Callicebus caquetensis. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

  20. Defler, Thomas, Garcia, J., Almario, L., Acero, A., Bueno, M., Bloor, P., Hoyos, M., Arciniegas, S. and Ibañez, C. (2016). plan de conservacion de Callicebus caquetensis. Universidad Nacional De Colombia.

  21. Elissamburu, A. (2004). Análisis morfométrico y morfofuncional del esqueleto apendicular de Paedotherium (Mammalia, Notoungulata). Ameghiniana. 41: 363-380.

  22. Fleagle, J.  and Meldrum, D.J. (1988). Locomotor behavior and skeletal morphology of two sympatric pitheciine monkeys, Pithecia pithecia and Chiropotes satanas. American Journal of Primatology. 16: 227-249.

  23. Fleagle, J.G., Gilbert, C.C. and Baden, A.L. (2016). Comparing primate crania: The importance of fossils. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 161: 259-275. https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23026

  24. Ford, S.M. (1990). Locomotor adaptations of fossil platyrrhines. Journal of Human Evolution. 19: 141-173. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0047-2484(90)90015-4

  25. Funk, J.R., Rudd, R.W., Kerrigan, J.R. and Crandall, J.R. (2004). The effect of tibial curvature and fibular loading on the tibia index. Traffic Injury Prevention. 5: 164-172. https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/15389580490436069

  26. Garcia, J. and Defler, T.R. (2013). Análisis preliminar de la pérdida y fragmentación del hábitat de Callicebus caquetensis. In Primates colombianos en peligro de extinción. Asociación Primatológica Colombiana. pp. 259-276. 

  27. Garcia, J, Defler, T. and Bueno, M. (2010). The conservation status of Callicebus caquetensis (Pitheciidae): A New Species in Southern Caquetá Department, Colombia. Neotropical Primates. 17: 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1896/044.017. 0201.

  28. Garcia, Javier, and Defler Thomas. (2011). Callicebus caquetensis: Cronología de su descripción y estado actual. Momentos de Ciencia. 8: 78-81.

  29. Gualda-Barros, J., Oliveira Do Nascimiento, F. and Kerr Do Amaral, M. (2012). A new species of Callicebus Thomas, 1903 ( Primates , Pitheciidae ) from the states of Mato Grosso and Pará , Brazil. Museu de Zoologia Da Universidad de Sao Paulo. 52: 261-279.

  30. Isidro, A. (1994). Cambios morfológicos y sus implicaciones biomecánicas en la rodilla desde el antropoide al hombre. Biomecanica. 2: 13-18.

  31. Kohn, L.A.P. and Lubach, G.R. (2018). Postcranial Skeletal Differences in Free-Range and Captive-Born Primates. Anatomical Record. 302: 761-764. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ar.23970.

  32. Lacetera, N. (2019). Impact of climate change on animal health and welfare. Animal Frontiers. 9: 26–31. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/af/vfy030.

  33. LEY 84. (1989). pp. 15.

  34. LEY 576. (2000). pp. 19.

  35. Ley 1774, Departamento Administrativo de la Función Pública (2016). pp. 20.

  36. Lizcano, D.J., Concha-Osbahr, C., Ramírez-Chaves, H.E., Trujillo- Acosta, A. and Agámez, C. (2021). Libro de resúmenes. Mammalogy Notes. pp. 312. 

  37. LLeo, A. (2015). El sol y la Tierra en Evolución. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. pp. 524.

  38. Lucy, K.M., Indu, V.R., Leena, C., Fathima, R., George, C., Patki, H. S., Surjith, S. and Anneth, A.J. (2018). Gross anatomy of the skull of hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius). Indian Journal of Animal Research. 52: 793-795. https:/ /doi.org/10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.7659.

  39. Marchi, D. (2007). Relative strength of the tibia and fibula and locomotor behavior in hominoids. Journal of Human Evolution. 53: 647-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol. 2007.05.007.

  40. Monsalve-Buritica, S. (2019). Medicina de la conservación y enfermedades de la fauna silvestre. Fondo Editorial Biogénesis. pp. 125.

  41. Montilla-Rodriguez, M., Blanco-Rodríguez, J. and Sánchez-Rojas, P.B. (2023). Atlas osteológico de Plecturocebus caquetensis. Editorial Universidad de la Amazonia. pp. 104.

  42. Morimoto, N. (2012). Comparative morphometric analysis of long bone ontogeny in hominoid primates. Universität Zürich. pp. 141.

  43. Nikander, R., Kannus, P., Rantalainen, T., Uusi-Rasi, K., Heinonen, A. and Sievänen, H. (2010). Cross-sectional geometry of weight-bearing tibia in female athletes subjected to different exercise loadings. Osteoporosis International. 21. 1687-1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009- 1101-0.

  44. Osbahr, K., Acevedo, P., Espinosa, D. and Villamizar, A. (2009). Comparación de la estructura y de la función de los miembros anterior y posterior de Cuniculus taczanowskii y Dinomys branickii. Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad and Divulgación Científica. 12: 37-50 https://doi.org/10.31910/ rudca.v12.n1.2009.640

  45. Polly, P.D. (2007). Limbs in Mammalian Evolution, Fins into Limbs: Evolution, Developmentand Transformation. University of Chicago Press. pp. 433

  46. Rocha, A., Barnett, A. P. A. and Spironello, W.R. (2019). Extension of the geographic distribution of Plecturocebus baptista (Pitheciidae, Primates) and a possible hybrid zone with Plecturocebus hoffmannsi: Evolutionary and conservation implications. Acta Amazonica. 49: 330-333. https:// doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201803411.

  47. Ruff, C.B. (2002). Long Bone Articular and Diaphyseal Structure in Old World Monkeys and Apes. I: Locomotor Effects. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 342: 305- 342. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10117.

  48. Ruff, C.B. and Runestad, J.A. (1992). Primate limb bone structural adaptations. Annual Reviews Antropology. 21: 407-433.

  49. Salton, J.A. and Sargis, E.J. (2009). Evolutionary morphology of the tenrecoidea (Mammalia) hindlimb skeleton. Journal of Morphology. 270: 367-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jmor.10697.

  50. Sargis, E.J. (2002). Functional morphology of the hindlimb of tupaiids (Mammalia, Scandentia) and its phylogenetic implications. Journal of Morphology. 254: 149-185. https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/jmor.10025.

  51. Sentencia C-666. (2010). pp. 15.

  52. Sepkoski, D. (2009). The Paleobiological revolution. Essays on the Growth of Modern Paleontology. The Universiti of Chicago Press. pp. 568

  53. Suarez Ramirez, L., Mantilla Meluk, H. and García Villalba, J.E. (2021). Densidad poblacional y organización social del primate endémico y críticamente amenazado, Plecturocebus caquetensis, (Pitheciidae) en el Piedemonte Andino- Amazónico del Cauca, Colombia. Caldasia. 43: 298-309. https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v43n2.84837.

  54. Szalay, F. and Sargis, E. (2001). Model-based analysis of postcranial osteology of marsupials from the Palaeocene of Itaboraí (Brazil) and the phylogenetics and biogeography of Metatheria. Model-Based Analysis of Postcranial Osteology of Marsupials from the Palaeocene of Itaboraí (Brazil) and the Phylogenetics and Biogeography of Metatheria. 23: 139-302.

  55. van Roosmalen, M.G.M., van Roosmalen, T. and Mittermeier, R.A. (2002). A taxonomic review of the titi monkeys, genus Callicebus Thomas, 1903, with the description of two new species, Callicebus bernhardi and Callicebus stephennashi, from Brazilian Amazonia. Neotropical Primates. 10: 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007- 9087-1.

  56. Vancata, V. (1991). Evolution of Femur and Tibia in Higher Primates/: Adaptive morphological patterns and phylogenetic diversity. Human Evolution. 6: 1-47.

  57. Villota, J., Delgado-Bermeo, G., Ruiz, A., García-Villalba, J.E. and Ramírez-Chaves, H.E. (2021). Actualización de la distribución e historia natural de Plecturocebus caquetensis (Mammalia: Pitheciidae) en Colombia. Biota Colombiana. 23: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21068/2539200X.1007.
Published In
Indian Journal of Animal Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    volume 59 issue 6 (june 2025) : 1063-1069,   Doi: 10.18805/IJAR.BF-1870

    Morphometry of the Femur, Tibia and Fibula of Plecturocebus caquetensis

    M
    María Antonia Montilla-Rodríguez1
    0000-0001-8092-4390
    J
    Julio César Blanco-Rodríguez1,*
    0000-0003-0422-8996
    A
    Alexander Velásquez Valencia2
    0000-0003-0324-2331
    H
    Heidy Julieth Ortiz-Artunduaga3
    0000-0003-0324-2331
    C
    Claudia Lorena Guerrero Gil3
    0009-0002-6888-5266
    1GIPSA Research Group, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia, Caquetá, Colombia.
    2Wildlife Research Group, INBIANAM, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia, Caquetá, Colombia.
    3SIAA Research Seedbed, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia, Caquetá, Colombia.
    Cite article:- Montilla-Rodríguez Antonia María, Blanco-Rodríguez César Julio, Valencia Velásquez Alexander, Ortiz-Artunduaga Julieth Heidy, Gil Guerrero Lorena Claudia (2025). Morphometry of the Femur, Tibia and Fibula of Plecturocebus caquetensis . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 59(6): 1063-1069. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.BF-1870.

    ABSTRACT

    Background: Osteology is the study of the structure and function of bones, aimed at understanding how an individual’s activity influences their size. While this branch of anatomy has been extensively explored in domestic animals, there have been limited investigations into Neotropical primates. This lack of research has resulted in a shortage of essential information for veterinarians and professionals working with wild populations, hindering efforts to ensure the health and protection of these species.

    Methods: A study was conducted on the large structures of the left and right hind limbs of the Colombian Amazonian primate Plecturocebus caquetensis. This study obtained morphometric data, validated in previous investigations, based on ten variables of the proximal region, eleven of the distal region five general variables of the femur, five of the tibia and four of the fibula. The investigation used structures from legal biological collections in Colombia to avoid unnecessary and unethical captures, as the species is critically endangered. 

    Result: Significant differences were found between the right and left sides of the femur, tibia and fibula. Variables such as diaphysis length, axis, morphological lengthand biomechanical length of the tibia, maximum tibia and maximum fibula, present higher standard deviation values. These differences are due to the traction generated by the muscles inserted in these areas, which is influenced by external stimuli from the environment or physical surroundings.

    INTRODUCTION

    The Colombian Amazon primate, Plecturocebus caquetensis, is a species that belongs to the Pitheciidae family (Carneiro et al., 2016). This family is from Cauca and Caquetá departments in Colombia (Villota et al., 2021). Besides, it has limited space distribution (Suarez Ramirez​ et al., 2021) in municipalities such as Piamonte, Solano, Solita, Valparaíso, Curillo, San José del Fragua, Milánand Albania (Defler et al., 2016). Following this idea, this species was only reported until 2010 (Defler, 2014) because, during the early years, public order difficulties in the region did not allow investigators’ entrance (Defler and Garcia, 2016). However, this species has been studied recently considering some aspects of its natural history (Van Roosmalen ​et al., 2002) in which travel habits are mentioned to define the species as a jumping primate (Rocha et al., 2019) considering the species’ size (Byrne et al., 2016) and anatomical design (Isidro, 1994) that define the species as qualified for its habitat (Osbahr et al., 2009). Nonetheless, this information is general. That is why the investigations’ developments are required to recognize the anatomical, morphometrics and functional conditions that define the species’ecology (Garcia and Defler, 2011).
           
    The aforementioned aspects are considered by other authors from areas such as biology (Garcia and Defler, 2013), trophic ecology (Defler et al., 2016), conservation (Defler and Garcia, 2016) and phylogenetics (Boubli et al., 2019), but thorough findings related to size and function of a specimen’s anatomical structures, as input to understand populations’ necessities (Garcia et al., 2010) that define handling and health conditions (Lucy et al., 2018).
           
    The Plecturocebus caquetensis anatomy has been only tackled from the descriptive point of view of its osteology (Montilla-Rodriguez et al., 2023), but morphometrics or functional data are unknown because in 2010 the principal studies focused on distribution (Villota et al., 2021), endemism (Defler et al., 2016) and population size (Acero-Murcia et al., 2018) affected by deforestation for cattle raising (Lacetera, 2019), illegal mining, illicit cropsand oil exploitation (Lizcano et al., 2021).
           
    Thus, this study externalizes morphometric data that contribute to this type of knowledge, selecting appendicular skeleton structures such as the femur, fibula and tibia, that are important for locomotion in the habitat  (Ariana et al., 2020). In this sense, relating obtained values to functional aspects (LLeo, 2015) works as a contribution to veterinarian knowledge (Bharti et al., 2022) of the species to understand related conditionals to the locomotion, the jump (Fleagle et al., 2016) and mechanical loads  (Morimoto, 2012) that the species has to endure in its habitat.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    It utilized bone structures from primates of the Plecturocebus caquetensis species, preserved at the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales of Universidad de Colombia and the Museo de Historia Natural of Universidad de la Amazonia. These bone structures were used to study their anatomy (Sepkoski, 2009) by using essentially existent corpses, without attacking specimens that still exist in the natural environment. Besides, striving to prevent its extinction (Monsalve-Buritica, 2019) was important because the species population does not exceed 250 individuals (Garcia and Defler, 2011). The code of ethics for Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Medicine Zootechnics and Zootechnics in Colombia (Ley 576, 2000) as well as the Sentence C-666 (2010) from the Corte Constitucional, the Ley 84 (1989), Ley 1774 (2016) and the articles 8 and 79 from the Constitucion Política de Colombia (1991) establish the ban on ending wildlife in honor of science.
           
    Therefore, from the existent bone structures in the biological collections the femur, tibia and fibula were considered. In this sense, these bones were measured by using a digital vernier (Gualda-Barros et al., 2012) with 0.01mm precision (Kohn and Lubach, 2018) considering different studies on this topic (Ciochon and Corruccini, 1975). In this order of ideas, to carry out the morphometric registration, variables corresponding to articular surfaces were mainly registered, providing information about the primate’s mechanics of movement in other parts of the bone (Ruff, 2002). This is because there is a close congruence between neighboring structures and the interdependence of all the functional components of the joints (Vancata, 1991). In the same line of thought, bone structure images were taken by using the digital camera CANON® EOS Rebel T3 to locate the points of reference of the obtained variables (Fig 1 and 2). 

    Fig 1: Studies variables in the femur of Plecturocebus caquetensis: Cranial (A), Caudal (B), Medial (C), Proximal extremity (D), Distal extremity (E).



    Fig 2: Studied variables of the Tibia (F) and Fibula (G) of P. caquetensis, caudal view.


           
    Initially, the femur was addressed considering the proposed variables by (Ciochon and Corruccini, 1975), Fleagle and Meldrum (1988), Elissamburu (2004) and Blanco-Rodriguez et al. (2015) to register the following data (Table 1).

    Table 1: Femur morphometrics variables of the P. caquetensis.


           
    Subsequently, it was obtained data about the variables in the structures corresponding to the tibia and fibula according to Fleagle and Meldrum (1988), Aiello and Dean (1996) and Blanco-Rodriguez et al. (2015) are registered below (Table 2).

    Table 2: Tibia and Fibula morphometrics variables of the Plecturocebus caquetensis.


           
    In this sense, the obtained values were useful to generate summary measures such as mean and standard deviation. This was carried out by using the Infostat® software considering the obtained data about the structures of the right and left pelvic limbs of the specimens. Moreover, it was sought to demonstrate the general distribution of the data for each of the variables to locate those that present greater variance.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    In Table 3, significant differences are apparent in all variables between the left and right Femur, Tibia and Fibula, with the right side showing greater development in all cases. Additionally, LT exhibits a higher standard deviation compared to the other variables, followed by LBT, LE, LF, LM1, LM2 and LD, in that order (Table 3).

    Table 3: Average and standard deviation in mm of variables of the femur, Tibia and fibula in Plecturocebus caquetensis.


           
    In Fig 3, it can be observed that LT and LBT are the variables that present the highest coefficients of variation and both are related to the tibia, given that the biceps femoris, semitendinosus, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius and popliteus muscles have their origin or insertion in spaces determined by these variables (Polly, 2007) and their joint functioning determines the close relationship that exists between them. On the other hand, the variables LE, LF, LM2, LM1 and LD, are associated with the femur and the fibula, presenting a certain relationship between them, based on their variations in size and function (Ankel-Simons, 2007), since the adaptation of the axis (Fig 1) allows bending in multiple directions in order to reduce the harmful consequences of a new mechanics and this determines the locomotor behaviors of primates and the positional behaviors (Carlson, 2005).

    Fig 3: Distribution of measurements of the variables in the femur, tibia and fibula of Plecturocebus caquetensis.


           
    Likewise, the muscles that are inserted in the proximal end of the femur allow to extension of the limb by turning it around the head (Polly, 2007), in such a way that the muscles that are related to the body of the femur and the axis, indistinctly determine the conditions of the variables. The diaphysis, for its part, functions as an engineering beam, providing limb stiffness, particularly against bending and torsional loads (Argot, 2002), allowing the femur to resist bending loads in the caudolateral/craniomedial direction and allowing the bone to act as an energy absorber when running or jumping in a pronograde position. This makes the geometric construction of the femur ideally suited to resist high bending loads below the femoral diaphysis, particularly in the mediolateral plane (Sargis, 2002).
           
    The LBT and LF variables, along with their standard deviations, should be highlighted as they meet the two previous conditions between the tibia and fibula. The length of the tibia depends on the activity carried out by the muscles, with only a small percentage of this load being supported by the fibula (Funk et al., 2004). This explains why the fibula’s length and diameter are always smaller. As the longest and widest bone in the leg region, the tibia is responsible for weight bearing in primates such as Plecturocebus caquetensis. It is connected by two slightly mobile joints (synovial joints) at the proximal and distal ends (Ankel-Simons, 2007). In arboreal primates where jumping is part of locomotion, the proximal end of the tibial shaft is more mediolaterally compressed (Fleagle and Meldrum, 1988). The insertion of the quadriceps femoris muscle determines speed and agility by allowing rapid extension of the knee (Salton and Sargis, 2009; Ruff and Runestad, 1992; Szalay and Sargis, 2001).
           
    The length of the fibula affects the agility and range of movement of the lower limb required for quadrupedal arboreal locomotion (Marchi, 2007). It is mobile due to the characteristics of the proximal and distal tibiofibular joints, which have adapted to perform rapid and sudden movements (Barnett and Napier, 1953; Salton and Sargis, 2009). However, the fibula’s low robustness in comparison to the tibia is because of its position and its relatively minor role in bearing mechanical loads (Marchi, 2007).
       
    The other variables obtained from the femur, tibia and fibula of P. caquetensis, with coefficients of variation less than one, do not show significant differences between them. This is because there is a total synergy between structures and joints for the transmission of force (Marchi, 2007) associated with all these variables. For example, the variable LC reflects a mechanical adaptation to resist flexion forces during jumping (Ford, 1990) and the variables LTM, LTMa, Lca/T, ATM and ATMa are related to the vastus lateralis and quadriceps femoris muscles, which are also linked to knee extension associated with jumping (Salton and Sargis, 2009).
           
    It is important to note that the differences between the right and left bone structures in all cases determine specific aspects of movement asymmetry. While there are no recognized references to this in primates, it is indicated in humans that high impacts and constant bone tension can lead to size gain (Nikander et al., 2010). Given that Plecturocebus caquetensis is a primate that jumps and moves on small tree branches, its posture may reflect this. However, detailed studies in its natural habitat, similar to those carried out by Cubi and Llorente (2021) or in the past by Colell (1992) focusing on the hind limbs, are necessary to identify the reason for this preferred posture.

    CONCLUSION

    The longitudinal variables of the femur, Tibia and fibula show a greater variation due to the effect of the muscles that are inserted in them, an aspect that may be associated with physical factors of the environment related to the architecture of the forest and particularities of the primate such as age, sexand hierarchical level.
           
    Understanding morphometry provides information on some functional aspects that determine the well-being of primates, facilitating the discernment of characteristics necessary for confinement areas or habitat conservation conditions.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    This study was supported by the University of the Amazon, under the direction of Dr. Fabio Buriticá Bermeo.
     
    Disclaimers
     
    The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.
     
    Informed consent
     
    Permits related to animal handling were not required for this study, since the work involved anatomical structures stored in biological collections.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

    REFERENCES


    1. Acero-Murcia, A., Almario, L.J., García, J., Defler, T.R. and López, R. (2018). Diet of the caquetá titi (Plecturocebus caquetensis) in a disturbed forest fragment in caquetá, colombia. Primate Conservation. 32: 31-47.

    2. Aiello, L. and Dean, C. (1996). An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. Academic Press.

    3. Ankel-Simons, F. (2007). Primate Anatomy An Introduction. Elsevier Inc.

    4. Argot, C. (2002). Functional, adaptive analysis of the hindlimb anatomy of extant marsupials and the paleobiology of the Paleocene marsupials Mayulestes ferox and Pucadelphys andinus. Journal of Morphology. 253: 76- 108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1114.

    5. Ariana, Padeta, I., Rachma Jadi, A., Wijayanto, H., Budipitojo, T., Raharjo, S., Rezeki, A. and Budi Santoso, H. (2020). The correlation of femur length with the body length of proboscis monkey. BIO Web of Conferences. 20: 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20202004001.

    6. Constitucion política de Colombia, (1991). pp. 680.

    7. Barnett, C.H. and Napier, J.R. (1953). The rotatory mobility of the fibula in eutherian mammals. Journal of Anatomy. 87: 11-21.

    8. Bharti, S.K., Singh, I. and Choudhary, O.P. (2022). Arm and forearm bones of the adult blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus): A Morphological and Morphometrical Study. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 56: 1221-12227. https://doi.org/ 10.18805/IJAR.B-4278

    9. Blanco-Rodriguez, J.C.B., Montilla -Rodríguez, M.A., Suárez, J., Alvarez, H. and Cuéllar, R. (2015). Caracterización del esqueleto apendicular de Saimiri sciureus. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias Del Peru. 26: 189-199. https://doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v26i2.11096

    10. Boubli, J.P., Byrne, H., da Silva, M.N.F., Silva-Júnior, J., Costa Araújo, R., Bertuol, F., Gonçalves, J., de Melo, F.R., Rylands, A.B., Mittermeier, R. A. et al. (2019). On a new species of titi monkey (Primates: Plecturocebus Byrne et al., 2016), from Alta Floresta, southern Amazon, Brazil. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 132: 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.11.012.

    11. Byrne, H., Rylands, A.B., Carneiro, J.C., Lynch Alfaro, J.W., Bertuol, F., F da Silva, M.N., Messias, M., Groves, C.P., Mittermeier, R.A., Farias, I. et al. (2016). Phylogenetic relationships of the New World titi monkeys (Callicebus): First appraisal of taxonomy based on molecular evidence. Frontiers in Zoology. 13: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12983-016-0142-4.

    12. Carlson, K.J. (2005). Investigating the form-function interface in African apes: Relationships between principal moments of area and positional behaviors in femoral and humeral diaphyses. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 127: 312-334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20124.

    13. Carneiro, J., De Sousa E Silva, J., Sampaio, I., Pissinatti, A., Hrbek, T., Rezende Messias, M., Rohe, F., Farias, I., Boubli, J. and Schneider, H. (2016). Phylogeny of the titi monkeys of the Callicebus moloch group (Pitheciidae, Primates). American Journal of Primatology. 78: 904-913. https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22559

    14. Ciochon, R.L. and Corruccini, R. S. (1975). Morphometric analysis of platyrrhine femora with taxonomic implications and notes on two fossil forms. Journal of Human Evolution. 4: 193-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(75) 90008-1.

    15. Colell, M.M. (1992). Lateralidad manual en chimpances y orangutanes. Universidad de Barcelona.

    16. Cubi, M. and Llorente, M. (2021). Hand preference for a bimanual coordinated task in captive hatinh langurs (Trachypithecus hatinhensis) and grey-shanked douc langurs (Pygathrix cinerea). Behavioural Processes.187: 1-9. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104393.

    17. Defler, T.R. (2014). Historia Natural de los Primates Colombianos. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

    18. Defler, T.R. and Garcia, J. (2016). Primates in peril the world´s25 most endangered primates 2016-2018. IUCN.

    19. Defler, T, García, J., Almario, L., Acero, A., Bueno, M., Bloor, P., Hoyos, M., Arciniegas, S. and Ibáñez, C. (2016). Plan de conservación de Callicebus caquetensis. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

    20. Defler, Thomas, Garcia, J., Almario, L., Acero, A., Bueno, M., Bloor, P., Hoyos, M., Arciniegas, S. and Ibañez, C. (2016). plan de conservacion de Callicebus caquetensis. Universidad Nacional De Colombia.

    21. Elissamburu, A. (2004). Análisis morfométrico y morfofuncional del esqueleto apendicular de Paedotherium (Mammalia, Notoungulata). Ameghiniana. 41: 363-380.

    22. Fleagle, J.  and Meldrum, D.J. (1988). Locomotor behavior and skeletal morphology of two sympatric pitheciine monkeys, Pithecia pithecia and Chiropotes satanas. American Journal of Primatology. 16: 227-249.

    23. Fleagle, J.G., Gilbert, C.C. and Baden, A.L. (2016). Comparing primate crania: The importance of fossils. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 161: 259-275. https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23026

    24. Ford, S.M. (1990). Locomotor adaptations of fossil platyrrhines. Journal of Human Evolution. 19: 141-173. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0047-2484(90)90015-4

    25. Funk, J.R., Rudd, R.W., Kerrigan, J.R. and Crandall, J.R. (2004). The effect of tibial curvature and fibular loading on the tibia index. Traffic Injury Prevention. 5: 164-172. https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/15389580490436069

    26. Garcia, J. and Defler, T.R. (2013). Análisis preliminar de la pérdida y fragmentación del hábitat de Callicebus caquetensis. In Primates colombianos en peligro de extinción. Asociación Primatológica Colombiana. pp. 259-276. 

    27. Garcia, J, Defler, T. and Bueno, M. (2010). The conservation status of Callicebus caquetensis (Pitheciidae): A New Species in Southern Caquetá Department, Colombia. Neotropical Primates. 17: 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1896/044.017. 0201.

    28. Garcia, Javier, and Defler Thomas. (2011). Callicebus caquetensis: Cronología de su descripción y estado actual. Momentos de Ciencia. 8: 78-81.

    29. Gualda-Barros, J., Oliveira Do Nascimiento, F. and Kerr Do Amaral, M. (2012). A new species of Callicebus Thomas, 1903 ( Primates , Pitheciidae ) from the states of Mato Grosso and Pará , Brazil. Museu de Zoologia Da Universidad de Sao Paulo. 52: 261-279.

    30. Isidro, A. (1994). Cambios morfológicos y sus implicaciones biomecánicas en la rodilla desde el antropoide al hombre. Biomecanica. 2: 13-18.

    31. Kohn, L.A.P. and Lubach, G.R. (2018). Postcranial Skeletal Differences in Free-Range and Captive-Born Primates. Anatomical Record. 302: 761-764. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ar.23970.

    32. Lacetera, N. (2019). Impact of climate change on animal health and welfare. Animal Frontiers. 9: 26–31. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/af/vfy030.

    33. LEY 84. (1989). pp. 15.

    34. LEY 576. (2000). pp. 19.

    35. Ley 1774, Departamento Administrativo de la Función Pública (2016). pp. 20.

    36. Lizcano, D.J., Concha-Osbahr, C., Ramírez-Chaves, H.E., Trujillo- Acosta, A. and Agámez, C. (2021). Libro de resúmenes. Mammalogy Notes. pp. 312. 

    37. LLeo, A. (2015). El sol y la Tierra en Evolución. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. pp. 524.

    38. Lucy, K.M., Indu, V.R., Leena, C., Fathima, R., George, C., Patki, H. S., Surjith, S. and Anneth, A.J. (2018). Gross anatomy of the skull of hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius). Indian Journal of Animal Research. 52: 793-795. https:/ /doi.org/10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.7659.

    39. Marchi, D. (2007). Relative strength of the tibia and fibula and locomotor behavior in hominoids. Journal of Human Evolution. 53: 647-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol. 2007.05.007.

    40. Monsalve-Buritica, S. (2019). Medicina de la conservación y enfermedades de la fauna silvestre. Fondo Editorial Biogénesis. pp. 125.

    41. Montilla-Rodriguez, M., Blanco-Rodríguez, J. and Sánchez-Rojas, P.B. (2023). Atlas osteológico de Plecturocebus caquetensis. Editorial Universidad de la Amazonia. pp. 104.

    42. Morimoto, N. (2012). Comparative morphometric analysis of long bone ontogeny in hominoid primates. Universität Zürich. pp. 141.

    43. Nikander, R., Kannus, P., Rantalainen, T., Uusi-Rasi, K., Heinonen, A. and Sievänen, H. (2010). Cross-sectional geometry of weight-bearing tibia in female athletes subjected to different exercise loadings. Osteoporosis International. 21. 1687-1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009- 1101-0.

    44. Osbahr, K., Acevedo, P., Espinosa, D. and Villamizar, A. (2009). Comparación de la estructura y de la función de los miembros anterior y posterior de Cuniculus taczanowskii y Dinomys branickii. Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad and Divulgación Científica. 12: 37-50 https://doi.org/10.31910/ rudca.v12.n1.2009.640

    45. Polly, P.D. (2007). Limbs in Mammalian Evolution, Fins into Limbs: Evolution, Developmentand Transformation. University of Chicago Press. pp. 433

    46. Rocha, A., Barnett, A. P. A. and Spironello, W.R. (2019). Extension of the geographic distribution of Plecturocebus baptista (Pitheciidae, Primates) and a possible hybrid zone with Plecturocebus hoffmannsi: Evolutionary and conservation implications. Acta Amazonica. 49: 330-333. https:// doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201803411.

    47. Ruff, C.B. (2002). Long Bone Articular and Diaphyseal Structure in Old World Monkeys and Apes. I: Locomotor Effects. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 342: 305- 342. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10117.

    48. Ruff, C.B. and Runestad, J.A. (1992). Primate limb bone structural adaptations. Annual Reviews Antropology. 21: 407-433.

    49. Salton, J.A. and Sargis, E.J. (2009). Evolutionary morphology of the tenrecoidea (Mammalia) hindlimb skeleton. Journal of Morphology. 270: 367-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jmor.10697.

    50. Sargis, E.J. (2002). Functional morphology of the hindlimb of tupaiids (Mammalia, Scandentia) and its phylogenetic implications. Journal of Morphology. 254: 149-185. https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/jmor.10025.

    51. Sentencia C-666. (2010). pp. 15.

    52. Sepkoski, D. (2009). The Paleobiological revolution. Essays on the Growth of Modern Paleontology. The Universiti of Chicago Press. pp. 568

    53. Suarez Ramirez, L., Mantilla Meluk, H. and García Villalba, J.E. (2021). Densidad poblacional y organización social del primate endémico y críticamente amenazado, Plecturocebus caquetensis, (Pitheciidae) en el Piedemonte Andino- Amazónico del Cauca, Colombia. Caldasia. 43: 298-309. https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v43n2.84837.

    54. Szalay, F. and Sargis, E. (2001). Model-based analysis of postcranial osteology of marsupials from the Palaeocene of Itaboraí (Brazil) and the phylogenetics and biogeography of Metatheria. Model-Based Analysis of Postcranial Osteology of Marsupials from the Palaeocene of Itaboraí (Brazil) and the Phylogenetics and Biogeography of Metatheria. 23: 139-302.

    55. van Roosmalen, M.G.M., van Roosmalen, T. and Mittermeier, R.A. (2002). A taxonomic review of the titi monkeys, genus Callicebus Thomas, 1903, with the description of two new species, Callicebus bernhardi and Callicebus stephennashi, from Brazilian Amazonia. Neotropical Primates. 10: 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007- 9087-1.

    56. Vancata, V. (1991). Evolution of Femur and Tibia in Higher Primates/: Adaptive morphological patterns and phylogenetic diversity. Human Evolution. 6: 1-47.

    57. Villota, J., Delgado-Bermeo, G., Ruiz, A., García-Villalba, J.E. and Ramírez-Chaves, H.E. (2021). Actualización de la distribución e historia natural de Plecturocebus caquetensis (Mammalia: Pitheciidae) en Colombia. Biota Colombiana. 23: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21068/2539200X.1007.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Indian Journal of Animal Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)