Mykytka 1

Katherine Mykytka
Independent Research Project
Biodiversity 130 Section 011 Lab
October 31, 2006

Role of Morphological Traits in Animal Functionability

Abstract
This paper includes the results of a lab experiment involving the comparison of
several characteristics of herbivores and carnivores. These characteristics include total
skull length, snout length, width, and total size, and foramen magnum diameter distance.
This experiment was designed to see how these characteristics correlate with the eating
habits of animals. The results provide a look into the morphological features and how
they interact with one another.

Introduction
Animals have many characteristics that factor into how they are able to function.
Mammals, in particular, are characterized by a great range of behavioral, ecological, and
morphological adaptations. There is also substantial intraspecific variability (Bekoff
1984).
Specifically, an animal’s total skull length can be compared to other
characteristics of the animal in order to determine how the animal functions. Typically,
one would think that an animals total skull length would be proportionate in size to the
animals’ other characteristics. This experiment’s hypothesis is that the larger an animal’s
skull length, the larger the animal’s snout width, length, and size, and the larger the
foramen magnum diameter distance.
The foramen magnum is the opening where the spinal cord connects to the brain
(Riechert 2006). The diameter distance may also be a factor in distinguishing between
herbivores and carnivores. The hypothesis also includes the suggestion that carnivores
have larger foramen magnums than herbivores because their eating habits are more
complex with meat and therefore require larger spinal cords to harness this complexity.
Additionally, the length, width, and overall size of an animal’s snout vary, but
may also be associated with the animal’s diet. These characteristics could possibly factor
into the adeptness an animal has in being able to smell its food. This hypothesis also
proposes that herbivores have a larger snout width, length, and overall size than
carnivores. This is because the food herbivores consume is not alive, and therefore not as
visible as a carnivore’s would be. Conclusively, they must rely on their greater sense of
smell in order to find the food.
 Mykytka 2

Methods
In order to compare the total skull length with the snout width, snout width, snout
size, and foramen magnum diameter distance, measurements had to be made. To begin
the experiment, eight mammals were chosen:
Four herbivores: Cotton Rat – Sigmodon hispidus, Deer – Odocoileus virginianus,
Beaver – Castor canadensis, Muskrat – Ondatra zibethicus
Four carnivores: Fox – Vulpes vulpes, Bobcat – Lynx rufus, Raccoon – Procyon
lotor, Badger – Taxidea taxus (Newell 2000).
We then measured all the characteristics in centimeters using a ruler. If the animals’
characteristics were too large for a ruler, a yardstick was used. Each group member made
her own measurements.
Skull Length: The measurement was taken from the very back of the skull to the
very tip of the snout (or most protruding feature).
Snout Width: The measurement was taken from the left side of the snout opening,
to the right side of the snout opening.
Snout Length: The measurement was taken on top of the skull from the starting
point of the nose (before the bridge) to the very tip of the nose.
Snout Size: This measurement was taken by multiplying the snout width by the
snout length.
Foramen Magnum Diameter Distance: This measurement was taken at the back of
the skull at the spinal cord opening. The measurement was the distance
between the left side of the opening and the right side of the opening.
Once all of the measurements were taken, the data was put into Excel and graphs
were formulated. Since each group member had made her own measurements, the
measurements for the animals’ characteristics were averaged to get one measurement for
each of the animal’s five characteristics. Four individual scatterplots comparing the total
skull length and each of the other four characteristics were made, all of which plotted the
eight animals’ data. A linear trendline was then inserted to show the correlation of the
traits. Also, the correlation value (r-squared value) was taken in order to see how closely
the two grouped characteristics were related. All four r-squared values were very high, so
a bar graph was made that included ratios of correlation between total skull length and
the other four characteristics. The ratios were obtained by dividing the average total skull
lengths individually by each of the four characteristics’ averages. The bar graph also
separated the herbivores and carnivores so as to compare the two.
 Mykytka 3

Results

Table 1. Individual measurements and averages for five skull characteristics in four
herbivores and four carnivores.
Carnivores Herbivores

Raccoo
Fox Bobcat n Badger Cotton Rat Deer Beaver Muskrat
Total 14 12.5 12 12.5 2.5 28 12.5 6
Skull 14 12.5 11.5 11.7 2.3 26 12.5 5.8
Length 14.5 15 11 9.5 2.9 29 12.5 6.2
14 12.5 11.8 12.4 2.9 28 13 6.7
Averages 14.25 13.125 11.575 11.525 2.65 27.75 12.625 6.175

Snout 1 1.5 1 1.5 0.5 3.5 1.5 1

Width 0.5 1.7 1.4 0.9 0.5 2.9 1.5 0.9
3.5 3 3 2 0.3 3.5 1.5 1
2.1 2 1.3 2 0.4 2.9 2 0.7
Averages 1.775 2 1.675 1.6 0.425 3.2 1.625 0.9

Snout 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.75 7 1.5 1.5

Length 1.1 2 1.6 1.3 1 6.5 1.7 1.3
1.5 2 1.5 1.5 0.1 3.2 1.5 1.5
1.4 1.5 1.7 2.2 0.2 2.9 1.5 1
Averages 1.25 1.75 1.525 1.625 0.5125 3.2 1.55 1.4

Snout 1 2.25 1.5 2.25 0.375 24.5 2.25 1.5

Size 0.55 3.4 2.04 1.17 0.5 18.85 2.72 1.17
(lengthxwidth) 4.26 2 1.5 4.48 0.3 11.2 2.25 1.5
1 2.25 4.5 2 0.2 20 2.25 1.5
Averages 1.7025 2.475 2.535 2.475 0.343 18.64 2.36 1.4175

Foramen 1 1 0.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 1.5 1

Magnum 0.8 1.5 1.3 1.2 0.5 1.9 1.6 1
Diameter 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.4 2.4 1.5 1
Distance 1 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 2.8 1.4 0.4
Averages 1 1.225 1.15 1.325 0.55 2.4 1.5 0.85
 Mykytka 4

3.5
y = 0.1137x
+ 0.1222
3 R2 = 0.7688

2.5

1.5

1
Snout W idth (cm )

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total Sk ull Leng th (cm )

Figure 1. Scatterplot of average total skull length and snout width for eight mammals
with linear trendline.

Snout width correlated with the total skull length as shown by the r-squared value
(0.7688) and the closeness of the points to the trendline. There are one or two possible
outliers that do not correlate as closely.

6
y = 0.2354x - 1.2364
5 R2 = 0.8358

2
Snout Length (cm )

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total SkullTotal Snout
Length Length (cm )
(cm)

Figure 2. Scatterplot of average total skull length and snout length for eight mammals
with linear trendline

Snout length correlated with the total skull length as shown by the r-squared value
(0.8358) and the closeness of the points to the trendline. With the exception of one, all of
the snout lengths are small - less than two centimeters.
 Mykytka 5

20

y = 0.8926x - 8.0005
R2 = 0.8761
15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Snout Size (length x width) (cm^2)
-5
Total Skull Length (cm)

Figure 3. Scatterplot of average total skull length and snout size for eight mammals with
linear trendline

Snout size correlated with total skull length as shown by the r-squared value (0.8761) and
the closeness of the points to the trendline. With the exception of one, all of the snout
sizes are very close together and less than about three centimeters.

2.5 y = 0.0767x +
0.2188

2 R2 = 0.7633

1.5
(cm)

0.5

Foramen
0 Magnum Diameter Distance
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total Skull Length (cm)

Figure 4. Scatterplot of average total skull length and foramen magnum diameter distance
for eight mammals with linear trendline

Foramen magnum diameter distance correlated with total skull length as shown by the r-
squared value (0.7633). The majority of the diameter distances seem to be between 0.5
and 1.5 centimeters, with the exception of one point.
 Mykytka 6

Ratios (Characteristic)/Total Snout Length

Figure 5. Bar graph of ratio correlations of average skull length to four characteristics
(skull width, skull length, skull size, and foramen magnum diameter distance) separated
into herbivores and carnivores

The ratio of snout width to total skull length was slightly higher in carnivores than
herbivores, while the ratio of snout length to total skull length in herbivores was a fair
amount larger than carnivores. The ratio of the overall snout size to the total skull length
was notably larger in herbivores than carnivores, and the ratio of foramen magnum
diameter distance to total skull length in herbivores maintained to be larger than
carnivores as well. While all of the characteristics showed to have a dominant category,
all of the ratios are fairly low.

Discussion
As shown by each of the scatterplots, the snout width, length, and size, and the
foramen magnum diameter distance all directly correlate with total skull length. They
have a positive correlation that means as the skull length increased, so did the other four
characteristics. This data supports the first hypothesis that the larger an animal’s skull
length, the larger the animal’s snout width, length, and size, and the larger the foramen
magnum diameter distance. The information gained here is to be expected. Animals
 Mykytka 7

typically have physical characteristics that are proportionate to one another. This
conclusion was the only actual finite one to be made in this experiment.
The hypothesis that carnivores have larger foramen magnums than herbivores, as
shown by the bar graph, turned out to be untrue. In this case, herbivores actually have a
larger ratio of total skull length to foramen magnum distance than carnivores.
The hypothesis that herbivores have a larger snout width, length, and overall size
than carnivores did not really get a clear answer. While the herbivores greatly exceeded
the carnivores in their ratio of skull length to snout size, both the ratios of the two groups
for skull length to snout length and width were closer together. Therefore, this data does
not conclusively support the hypothesis.
Additionally, any conclusions made in this experiment cannot be certain of
definite validity. Since only eight mammals were studied, four herbivores and four
carnivores, there really wasn’t a wide enough sample size to make any assumptions on
the overall groups of herbivores and carnivores.
Due to a lack of precise restrictions on measurement points and inaccurate tools
for measure, it was hard to come up with a valid conclusion for this experiment.
Furthermore, the measured characteristics did not all fall into the same category of study
with one another (snout characteristics and foramen magnum distance) so the experiment
was a little varied in its purpose.
If another experiment were to be repeated in this manner or subject matter, it
would be helpful to have complete uniform standards of measurement, along with the
suggestion that cohesive characteristics be chosen.

Literature Cited

Bekoff, M. (1984). Life history patterns and the comparative social

ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, 191-
232. Retrieved October 30, 2006 from JSTOR database.

Newell, T. (2000). Ondatra zibethicus. Retrieved October 29, 2006, from Animal
Diversity Web. Web site: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/
information/Ondatra_zibethicus.html

Riechert, S. (2006). Adaptation and natural selection. Biodiversity, 47-60.