Skip Navigation

American Zoologist 1966 6(3):399-419; doi:10.1093/icb/6.3.399
© 1966 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by OLSON, E. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The Middle Ear—Morphological Types in Amphibians and Reptiles

EVERETT C. OLSON
Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois

The middle ear regions of reptiles and amphibians frequently are grouped into morphological types on the basis of structural resemblances. The arrays of animals resulting from such a grouping have a fair degree of taxonomic continuity. The types in most instances include a "central" pattern, presumed to be primitive, and modifications that are considered to have been derived from the "central" type by evolutionary processes. Some understanding of phylogeny, thus, is a necessary precursor to the formation of the groups. This raises problems when, as is often the case, the groups based on ear structures are used as a basis for phylogenetic interpretations. Among reptiles the theropsid-sauropsid case is the best known.

The principal morphological types are described and discussed. The middle ear, as a sound-transmitting apparatus and in its associations with the masticatory apparatus, is highly susceptible to adaptive modifications. Some morphological types, such as those in archosaurs and labyrinthodonts, are quite stable. Others show marked evolutionary diversity. The middle ear structures, hence, appear quite useful as phylogenetic indicators within morphological types but less so when relationships between types are considered.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.