Morphology and morphometrics of the appendicular musculature in geckoes with different locomotor habits (Lepidosauria)

• Published in: Zoomorphology 1999-05, Vol.119 (1), p.9-22
• Main Authors: Zaaf, A., Herrel, A., Aerts, P., De Vree, F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptation; Animal morphology; Ankle; Elbow; Gekko gecko; Hip; Joints (timber); Knee; Lizards; Locomotion; Morphometry; Muscles; Orientation; Phylogeny; Posture; Shoulder; Species; Wrist
• ISSN: 0720-213X; 1432-234X
• DOI: 10.1007/s004350050077

In this study a ground-dwelling (Eublepharis macularius) and a highly specialised climbing (Gekko gecko) lizard were chosen as study objects. The fore- and hindlimbs of two individuals of each species were dissected, and muscle masses, mean fibre lengths, cross-sectional areas and moment arms were determined. Special attention was paid to general muscle architecture (origin, insertion, fibre orientation, etc.) and pennation angles. Using these variables (cross sectional areas and moment arms), maximal moments exertable across the shoulder/hip, elbow/knee and wrist/ankle were calculated for both species. In accordance with the biomechanical predictions related to the preferred locomotor substrate of each species (i.e. level running for E. macularius and climbing for G. gecko), the results of this study indicate that climbers such as G. gecko generally possess powerful retractor muscles crossing the shoulder and hip joints. Additionally, the specialised climber is able to exert higher flexion moments across the elbow, which prevents the animals from falling backwards. However, G. gecko appears to be constrained in its ankle extension capabilities by the presence of the adhesive toe pads. The level-running species, on the other hand, shows a relatively stronger development of the extensor muscles in the lower limbs, allowing these lizards to run in an erect posture. In general, both species show large similarities on a gross morphological level as expected when considering their phylogenetic relatedness. Adaptations to their preferred locomotor substrate only become apparent when considering the functional properties (i.e. joint moments) of the appendicular musculature.