Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

The role of miniaturization in the evolution of the mammalian jaw and middle ear

Nature volume 561, pages 533–537 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The evolution of the mammalian jaw is one of the most important innovations in vertebrate history, and underpins the exceptional radiation and diversification of mammals over the last 220 million years1,2. In particular, the transformation of the mandible into a single tooth-bearing bone and the emergence of a novel jaw joint—while incorporating some of the ancestral jaw bones into the mammalian middle ear—is often cited as a classic example of the repurposing of morphological structures3,4. Although it is remarkably well-documented in the fossil record, the evolution of the mammalian jaw still poses the paradox of how the bones of the ancestral jaw joint could function both as a joint hinge for powerful load-bearing mastication and as a mandibular middle ear that was delicate enough for hearing. Here we use digital reconstructions, computational modelling and biomechanical analyses to demonstrate that the miniaturization of the early mammalian jaw was the primary driver for the transformation of the jaw joint. We show that there is no evidence for a concurrent reduction in jaw-joint stress and increase in bite force in key non-mammaliaform taxa in the cynodont–mammaliaform transition, as previously thought5,6,7,8. Although a shift in the recruitment of the jaw musculature occurred during the evolution of modern mammals, the optimization of mandibular function to increase bite force while reducing joint loads did not occur until after the emergence of the neomorphic mammalian jaw joint. This suggests that miniaturization provided a selective regime for the evolution of the mammalian jaw joint, followed by the integration of the postdentary bones into the mammalian middle ear.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Mandibular sizes and evolutionary relationships of cynodonts, mammaliaforms and mammals.
Fig. 2: Biomechanical analysis of cynodont and mammaliaform taxa for simulated unilateral biting at canines and most-posterior tooth.
Fig. 3: Von-Mises-stress contour plots of mandibular joint region.
Fig. 4: Muscle activation patterns and joint stress calculations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All relevant data (three-dimensional osteological, finite element analysis and multibody dynamics analysis models and computer code) are available via the DataBris repository of the University of Bristol (https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.n5f4ogftag0r2fbffh8u7waok).

References

  1. Kemp, T. S. The Origin and Evolution of Mammals (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. et al. Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs—Origins, Evolution, and Structure (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2004).

  3. Crompton, A. W. in Studies in Vertebrate Evolution (eds Joysey, K. A. & Kemp, T. S.) 231–253 (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1972).

  4. Luo, Z.-X. Transformation and diversification in early mammal evolution. Nature 450, 1011–1019 (2007).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Crompton, A. W. & Hylander, W. L. in The Ecology and Biology of Mammal-like Reptiles (eds Hotton, N. III et al.) 263–282 (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1986).

  6. Bramble, D. M. Origin of the mammalian feeding complex: models and mechanisms. Paleobiology 4, 271–301 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barghusen, H. R. in Morphology of the Maxillomandibular Apparatus (ed. Schumacher, G. H.) 26–32 (Georg Thieme, Leipzig, 1972).

  8. DeMar, R. & Barghusen, H. R. Mechanics and the evolution of the synapsid jaw. Evolution 26, 622–637 (1972).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Luo, Z.-X. Developmental patterns in Mesozoic evolution of mammal ears. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42, 355–380 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Allin, E. F. Evolution of the mammalian middle ear. J. Morphol. 147, 403–437 (1975).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sidor, C. A. Evolutionary trends and the origin of the mammalian lower jaw. Paleobiology 29, 605–640 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Manley, G. A. Evolutionary paths to mammalian cochleae. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 13, 733–743 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Luo, Z.-X. et al. New evidence for mammaliaform ear evolution and feeding adaptation in a Jurassic ecosystem. Nature 548, 326–329 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reichert, C. in Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin (ed. Müller, J.) 120–222 (W. Thome, Berlin, 1837).

  15. Gaupp, E. W. T. Die Reichertsche Theorie (Hammer-, Amboss und Kieferfrage). Archiv für Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 1912, 1–426 (1913).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Urban, D. J. et al. A new developmental mechanism for the separation of the mammalian middle ear ossicles from the jaw. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 284, 20162416 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Anthwal, N., Urban, D. J., Luo, Z. X., Sears, K. E. & Tucker, A. S. Meckel’s cartilage breakdown offers clues to mammalian middle ear evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0093 (2017).

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hylander, W. L. The functional significance of primate mandibular form. J. Morphol. 160, 223–239 (1979).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Herring, S. W., Rafferty, K. L., Liu, Z. J. & Marshall, C. D. Jaw muscles and the skull in mammals: the biomechanics of mastication. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 131, 207–219 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu, Z. J. & Herring, S. W. Bone surface strains and internal bony pressures at the jaw joint of the miniature pig during masticatory muscle contraction. Arch. Oral Biol. 45, 95–112 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Crompton, A. W. in Functional Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology (ed. Thomason, J. J.) 55–75 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995).

  22. Lautenschlager, S., Gill, P., Luo, Z. X., Fagan, M. J. & Rayfield, E. J. Morphological evolution of the mammalian jaw adductor complex. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 92, 1910–1940 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reed, D. A., Iriarte-Diaz, J. & Diekwisch, T. G. A three dimensional free body analysis describing variation in the musculoskeletal configuration of the cynodont lower jaw. Evol. Dev. 18, 41–53 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rowe, T. in Mammal Phylogeny (eds Szalay, F. S. et al.) 129–145 (Springer, New York, 1993).

  25. Kemp, T. S. The origin of higher taxa: macroevolutionary processes, and the case of the mammals. Acta Zool. 88, 3–22 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hanken, J. & Wake, D. B. Miniaturization of body size: organismal consequences and evolutionary significance. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24, 501–519 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gill, P. G. et al. Dietary specializations and diversity in feeding ecology of the earliest stem mammals. Nature 512, 303–305 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Close, R. A., Friedman, M., Lloyd, G. T. & Benson, R. B. Evidence for a mid-Jurassic adaptive radiation in mammals. Curr. Biol. 25, 2137–2142 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pacheco, C. P., Martinelli, A. G., Pavanatto, A. E., Soares, M. B. & Dias-da-Silva, S. Prozostrodon brasiliensis, a probainognathian cynodont from the Late Triassic of Brazil: second record and improvements on its dental anatomy. Hist. Biol. 30, 475–485 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lautenschlager, S. Reconstructing the past: methods and techniques for the digital restoration of fossils. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160342 (2016).

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Lautenschlager, S. Cranial myology and bite force performance of Erlikosaurus andrewsi: a novel approach for digital muscle reconstructions. J. Anat. 222, 260–272 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lautenschlager, S. Estimating cranial musculoskeletal constraints in theropod dinosaurs. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 150495 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Thomason, J. J. Cranial strength in relation to estimated biting forces in some mammals. Can. J. Zool. 69, 2326–2333 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ashman, R. B. & Rho, J. Y. Elastic modulus of trabecular bone material. J. Biomech. 21, 177–181 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Curtis, N. et al. Predicting muscle activation patterns from motion and anatomy: modelling the skull of Sphenodon (Diapsida: Rhynchocephalia). J. R. Soc. Interface 7, 153–160 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dumont, E. R., Grosse, I. R. & Slater, G. J. Requirements for comparing the performance of finite element models of biological structures. J. Theor. Biol. 256, 96–103 (2009).

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Bright, J. A. The importance of craniofacial sutures in biomechanical finite element models of the domestic pig. PLoS ONE 7, e31769 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing  https://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank P. Brewer, S. Chapman (Natural History Museum, London), O. Rauhut, G. Roessner (Bayerische Staatssammlung für Historische Geologie und Palaeontologie, Munich), K. Angielczyk, W. Simpson (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), G. Hantke and A. Kitchener (National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh) for access to specimens in their care. T. Rowe and J. Maisano (University of Texas, Austin) generously provided digital datasets of specimens. A. Neander (University of Chicago), G. Roessner, D. Sykes (Natural History Museum London), K. Robson Brown (University of Bristol), O. Katsamenis and M. Mavrogordato (University of Southampton) assisted with computed tomography scanning. E. Ghirardello prepared the specimens and performed property testing on hedgehog mandible material. We thank J. Hopson (University of Chicago) for discussion. This work was funded by NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) grants NE/K01496X/1 (to E.J.R.) and NE/K013831/1 (to M.J.F.), and support from the University of Chicago (to Z.-X.L.).

Reviewer information

Nature thanks C. A. Sidor and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Stephan Lautenschlager, Pamela G. Gill & Emily J. Rayfield

  2. School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Stephan Lautenschlager

  3. Earth Science Department, The Natural History Museum, London, UK

    Pamela G. Gill

  4. Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Zhe-Xi Luo

  5. School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hull, Hull, UK

    Michael J. Fagan

Authors
  1. Stephan Lautenschlager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamela G. Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhe-Xi Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael J. Fagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emily J. Rayfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.L., P.G.G., Z.-X.L., M.J.F. and E.J.R. conceived and designed the study. S.L., P.G., Z.-X.L. and E.J.R. arranged logistics of specimens for computed tomography scanning and collected computed tomography data. Z.-X.L. provided access to additional specimens and data. S.L. processed computed tomography data, performed digital restorations and reconstructions, and performed computational analyses. M.J.F. and E.J.R. contributed to finite element and multibody dynamics analyses. S.L., P.G., Z.-X.L., M.J.F. and E.J.R equally contributed to the analysis of results. S.L. prepared main text, figures and supplementary data. S.L., P.G., Z.-X.L., M.J.F. and E.J.R. equally contributed to editing, commenting and revising the manuscript and figures. E.J.R. and M.J.F. acquired funding.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Stephan Lautenschlager or Emily J. Rayfield.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Relative bite forces and biomechanical performance measures of cynodont and mammaliaform taxa.

a, Relative bite forces for original-sized models. b, Relative bite forces for models scaled to the same size (with T. liorhinus as reference). Relative bite forces calculated as the ratio between muscle forces and resultant bite forces (obtained from reaction forces of finite element models). Range of values represents results for unilateral and bilateral bite simulations. c–f, Average per element values for Von Mises stress (c), displacement (d), maximum principal strain (e) and minimum principal strain (f). Range of values represents results for unilateral and bilateral bite simulations (for original-sized models). Sample size for each species, n = 1.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Biomechanical analysis results of cynodont and mammaliaform taxa for simulated unilateral biting at canines and last tooth.

Results for models scaled to the same size (with T. liorhinus as reference). a–g, Multibody dynamics analysis plots showing bite forces and joint forces (working and balancing side) during jaw opening and closing cycles. Range bars denote values obtained from reaction forces of finite element models. Peak values represent maximum bite force obtained from multibody dynamics analysis models. h–n, Finite element von-Mises-stress contour plots for bite at canine and last tooth (indicated by red arrows). Scale bars in h, j–n, 10 mm; i, 50 mm. Sample size for each species, n = 1.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Tensile and compressive stress contour plots of mandibular joint region.

Results shown for unilateral bite at the canine (upper rows) and the last tooth position (lower rows), each for the jaw joint of the working side and the balancing side in dorsal view. All contour plot images are scaled to the same size.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Bite-force magnitude versus von Mises stress for different muscle activation patterns.

Results shown for unilateral bite at the canine tooth position. Relative bite force measured as bite force in relation to von Mises stress occurring in the jaw joint.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Bite-force magnitude versus von Mises stress for different muscle activation patterns.

Results shown for unilateral bite at the last tooth position. Relative bite force measured as bite force in relation to von Mises stress occurring in the jaw joint.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Bite-force magnitude versus tensile stress for different muscle activation patterns.

Results shown for unilateral bite at the canine tooth position. Relative bite force measured as bite force in relation to tensile stress occurring in the jaw joint.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Bite-force magnitude versus tensile stress for different muscle activation patterns.

Results shown for unilateral bite at the last tooth position. Relative bite force measured as bite force in relation to tensile stress occurring in the jaw joint.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Bite-force magnitude versus compressive stress for different muscle activation patterns.

Results shown for unilateral bite at the canine tooth. Relative bite force measured as bite force in relation to compressive stress occurring in the jaw joint.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Bite-force magnitude versus compressive stress for different muscle activation patterns.

Results shown for unilateral bite at the last tooth. Relative bite force measured as bite force in relation to compressive stress occurring in the jaw joint.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, Supplementary Text and References cited in the Supplementary Information.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lautenschlager, S., Gill, P.G., Luo, ZX. et al. The role of miniaturization in the evolution of the mammalian jaw and middle ear. Nature 561, 533–537 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0521-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0521-4

Keywords

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing