Role of the prehensile tail during ateline locomotion: Experimental and osteological evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamic role of the prehensile tail of atelines during locomotion is poorly understood. While some have viewed the tail of Ateles simply as a safety mechanism, others have suggested that the prehensile tail plays an active role by adjusting pendulum length or controlling lateral sway during bimanual suspensory locomotion. This study examines the bony and muscular anatomy of the prehensile tail as well as the kinematics of tail use during tail-assisted brachiation in two primates, Ateles and Lagothrix. These two platyrrhines differ in anatomy and in the frequency and kinematics of suspensory locomotion. Lagothrix is stockier, has shorter forelimbs, and spends more time traveling quadrupedally and less time using bimanual suspensory locomotion than does Ateles. In addition, previous studies showed that Ateles exhibits greater hyperextension of the tail, uses its tail to grip only on alternate handholds, and has a larger abductor caudae medialis muscle compared to Lagothrix. In order to investigate the relationship between anatomy and behavior concerning the prehensile tail, osteological data and kinematic data were collected for Ateles fusciceps and Lagothrix lagothricha. The results demonstrate that Ateles has more numerous and smaller caudal elements, particularly in the proximal tail region. In addition, transverse processes are relatively wider, and sacro-caudal articulation is more acute in Ateles compared to Lagothrix. These differences reflect the larger abductor muscle mass and greater hyperextension in Ateles. In addition, Ateles shows fewer side-to-side movements during tail-assisted brachiation than does Lagothrix. These data support the notion that the prehensile tail represents a critical dynamic element in the tail-assisted brachiation of Ateles, and may be useful in developing inferences concerning behavior in fossil primates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".