MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973679265 · doi:10.7717/peerj.7678

Why the long face? Comparative shape analysis of miniature, pony, and other horse skulls reveals changes in ontogenetic growth

2019· article· en· W2973679265 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Heck, Marcelo R. Sánchez‐Villagra, Madlen Stange

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsPonyOntogenyBiologyFace (sociological concept)Evolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Much of the shape variation found in animals is based on allometry and heterochrony. Horses represent an excellent model to investigate patterns of size-shape variation among breeds that were intentionally bred for extreme small and large sizes. METHODS: We tested whether ponies (wither height < 148 cm) have a diverging size-shape relationship in skull shape as compared to regular-sized horse breeds (wither height > 148 cm, here-after called horses) during ontogenetic growth. We used a dataset of 194 specimens from 25 horse and 13 pony breeds, two of which are miniature breeds (wither height < 96.5 cm)-Falabella, Shetland. We applied three-dimensional geometric morphometrics, linear measurements, and multivariate analyses (Procrustes ANOVAs) to quantitatively examine and compare the ontogenetic trajectories between pony and horse breeds with an emphasis on the miniature breeds as an extreme case of artificial selection on size. Additionally, we tested for juvenile characteristics in adult horse and miniature breeds that could resemble "paedomorphosis"-retention of juvenile characteristics in adult stage; e.g. large eyes, large braincase-to-face-relationship, and large head-to-body relationship. RESULTS: Allometric regression of size on shape revealed that 42% of shape variation could be explained by variation in size in all breeds. The ontogenetic trajectories of ponies and horses vary in slope and therefore in rate of change per unit size, and length. The differences in trajectory lengths and slopes result in ponies having a similar skull shape in an older age stage than horses of the same size in a younger age stage. This pattern could cause the generally perceived "paedomorphic" appearance of ponies. Miniature breeds have larger heads in relation to wither height compared to horses, a non-paedomorphic feature in horses specifically. Also, rostra (faces) are longer in adult individuals than in juveniles across all kinds of breeds. This pattern can be explained by the long-face hypothesis for grazing ungulates and could possibly be caused by the mismatch of selection by humans for shorter rostra and the dentition of ruminants. CONCLUSIONS: Miniature breed specimens do not exhibit any of the classical mammalian "paedomorphic" features (large orbits, large heads), except for the adult Falabella that has enlarged orbits, possibly because they are herbivorous ungulates that are affected by functional and metabolic constraints related to low nutrient-food consumption. Instead ponies, including miniature breeds, have faster and shorter ontogenetic growth compared to horses, resulting in adult pony skulls looking in part like juvenile horse skulls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207