Testing the reliability of the rearticulation of osteological primate pelves in comparative morphological studies.

The evolution of human pelvic form is primarily studied using disarticulated osteological material of living and fossil primates that need rearticulation to approximate anatomical position. To test whether this technique introduces errors that impact biological signals, virtual rearticulations of the pelvis in anatomical position from computed tomography scans were compared with rearticulated models from the same individuals for one female and one male of Homo sapiens, Pan troglodytes, Macaca mulatta, Lepilemur mustelinus, Galago senegalensis, and Nycticebus pygmaeus. "Cadaveric" pelvic bones were first analyzed in anatomical position, then the three bones were segmented individually, intentionally scattered, and "rearticulated" to test for rearticulation error. Three-dimensional landmarks and linear measurements were used to characterize the overall pelvis shape. Cadaveric and rearticulated pelves were not identical, but inter-specific and intra-specific shape differences were higher than the landmarking error in the cadaveric individuals and the landmarking/rearticulation error in the rearticulated pelves, demonstrating that the biological signal is stronger than the noise introduced by landmarking and rearticulation. The rearticulation process, however, underestimates the medio-lateral pelvic measurements in species with a substantial pubic gap (e.g., G. senegalensis, N. pygmaeus) possibly because the greater contribution of soft tissue to the pelvic girdle introduces higher uncertainty during rearticulation. Nevertheless, this discrepancy affects only the caudal-most part of the pelvis. This study demonstrates that the rearticulation of pelvic bones does not substantially affect the biological signal in comparative 3D morphological studies but suggests that anatomically connected pelves of species with wide pubic gaps should be preferentially included in these studies.