chapter  2
Methodology and Material
Pages 14

The general phylogenetic framework for the comparisons provided in the present work is set out in Fig. 1.1 (see also Figs. 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, and 9.1). In order to facilitate the comparisons between the head, neck, pectoral and forelimb muscles of vertebrates, we carefully chose to include in the tables provided in Chapters 3-10: the lamprey Lampetra japonica (Agnatha), the shark Squalus acanthias (Elasmobranchii), the ratfi sh Hydrolagus colliei (Holocephali) [non-osteichthyan vertebrates: tables of Chapter 3]; the bichir Polypterus bichir (Cladistia), the swordfi sh Psephurus gladius (Chondrostei), the gar Lepisosteus osseus (Ginglymodi), the bowfi n Amia calva (Halecomorphi), the basal teleostean Elops saurus and the clupeocephalan teleostean Danio rerio (Teleostei) [actinopterygian osteichthyans: tables of Chapters 4 and 8]. Regarding sarcopterygian osteichthyans [tables of Chapters 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10], we include the coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae (Actinistia), the lungfi sh Lepidosiren paradoxa (Dipnoi), the salamander Ambystoma ordinarium (Caudata or Urodela), the caecilian Siphonops paulensis (Gymnophiona), the frog Bufo (or Rhinella) arenarum (Anura), the ‘lizard’ Timon lepidus (Lepidosauria), the turtle Trachemys scripta (Testudines), the crocodylian Caiman latirostris (Crocodylia) and the bird Gallus domesticus (Aves). We also include a member of the phylogenetically most plesiomorphic extant mammal clade, the Monotremata (Ornithorhynchus anatinus, or ‘platypus‘), a member of the Rodentia, the Norwegian rat (Rattus norvegicus; because rats are often considered as ‘anatomically generalized’ therian mammals but at the same time are somewhat closely related to primates), a member of the colugos (or ‘fl ying lemurs’) (Cynocephalus volans), and a member of the tree-shrews (Tupaia sp.). That is, we include in these tables members of the two groups that are usually considered the closest living relatives of primates (colugos and tree-shrews: Fig. 1.1). The latter group is represented in the tables by

our own species, Homo sapiens. It is important to explain that, apart from these taxa, we have dissected numerous specimens of other vertebrate taxa. The dissected specimens are from the Colección Mamíferos Lillo of the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (CML), the Primate Foundation of Arizona (PFA), the Department of Anatomy (GWU-ANA) and the Department of Anthropology (GWU-ANT) of the George Washington University, the Department of Anatomy of Howard University (HU-ANA), the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (USNM), the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo (CMZ), the Yerkes National Primate Research Center (YNPRC), the Duke Lemur Center (DLC), the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales de Madrid (MNCN), the Centro Nacional Patagónico de Argentina (CONICET), the Macquarie University of Australia (MU), the herpetological collection of Diamante-CONICETArgentina (DIAMR), the Fundación Miguel Lillo of Argentina (FML), the San Diego State University (SDSU), the Laboratory of Functional and Evolutionary Morphology of the University of Liège (LFEM), the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP), the Chinese Academy of Sciences at Wuhan (CASW), the California Academy of Sciences (CAS), the Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris (MNHN), the Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale (MRAC), the Université Nationale du Bénin (UNB), the collection of Anthony Herrel (AH), the herpetological collection of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem-Israel (HUJ), the “Museo de Zoologia of the San Pablo University-Brasil” (MZUSP), the Tupinambis Project Tucumán-Argentina (PT), the personal collection of Richard Thomas in Puerto Rico University (RT), and the Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University (YPM). The list of specimens examined by us is given below; the number of specimens dissected is followed by an abbreviation that refers to the state of the specimen (alc = alcohol fi xed; fre = fresh; for = formalin embalmed; c&s = trypsin-cleared and alizarine-stained). In our dissections, other than their color, there were no notable differences regarding the attachments, overall confi guration and general appearance of the muscles of fresh, alcohol fi xed, and formalin embalmed specimens.