Regional variation in the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) revisited: Morphology of wild and captive populations

Maxillary morphology of chimpanzees: Captive versus wild environments

Morphological studies typically avoid using osteological samples that derive from captive animals because it is assumed that their morphology is not representative of wild populations. Rearing environments indeed differ between wild and captive individuals. For example, mechanical properties of the diets provided to captive animals can be drastically different from the food present in their natural habitats, which could impact cranial morphology and dental health. Here, we examine morphological differences in the maxillae of wild versus captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) given the prominence of this species in comparative samples used in human evolution research and the key role of the maxilla in such studies. Size and shape were analysed using three-dimensional geometric morphometric methods based on computed tomography scans of 94 wild and 30 captive specimens. Captive individuals have on average larger and more asymmetrical maxillae than wild chimpanzees, and significant differences are present in their maxillary shapes. A large proportion of these shape differences are attributable to static allometry, but wild and captive specimens still differ significantly from each other after allometric size adjustment of the shape data. Levels of shape variation are higher in the captive group, while the degree of size variation is likely similar in our two samples. Results are discussed in the context of ontogenetic growth trajectories, changes in dietary texture, an altered social environment, and generational differences. Additionally, sample simulations show that size and shape differences between chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan paniscus) are exaggerated when part of the wild sample is replaced with captive chimpanzees. Overall, this study confirms that maxillae of captive chimpanzees should not be included in morphological or taxonomic analyses when the objective is to characterise the species.

Cranial morphology of captive mammals: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Captive facilities such as zoos are uniquely instrumental in conservation efforts. To fulfill their potential as bastions for conservation, zoos must preserve captive populations as appropriate proxies for their wild conspecifics; doing so will help to promote successful reintroduction efforts. Morphological changes within captive populations may be detrimental to the fitness of individual animals because these changes can influence functionality; thus, it is imperative to understand the breadth and depth of morphological changes occurring in captive populations. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis of scientific literature reporting comparisons of cranial measures between captive and wild populations of mammals. We investigate the pervasiveness of cranial differences and whether cranial morphological changes are associated with ecological covariates specific to individual species, such as trophic level, dietary breadth, and home range size.

RESULTS

Cranial measures of skull length, skull width, and the ratio of skull length-to-width differed significantly between many captive and wild populations of mammals reported in the literature. Roughly half of captive populations differed from wild populations in at least one cranial measure, although the degree of changes varied. Carnivorous species with a limited dietary breadth displayed the most consistent changes associated with skull widening. Species with a more generalized diet displayed less morphological changes in captivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Wild and captive populations of mammals differed in cranial morphology, but the nature and magnitude of their cranial differences varied considerably across taxa. Although changes in cranial morphology occur in captivity, specific changes cannot be generalized for all captive mammal populations. The nature of cranial changes in captivity may be specific to particular taxonomic groups; thus, it may be possible to establish expectations across smaller taxonomic units, or even disparate groups that utilize their cranial morphology in a similar way. Given that morphological changes occurring in captive environments like zoos have the potential to limit reintroduction success, our results call for a critical evaluation of current captive husbandry practices to prevent unnecessary morphological changes.