Evolution of hind limb morphology of Titanosauriformes (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) analyzed via 3D Geometric Morphometrics reveals wide-gauge posture as an exaptation for gigantism

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Páramo et al. used 3D geometric morphometric analyses of the articulated femur, tibia, and fibula of 17 macronarian taxa (known to preserve these three skeletal elements) to investigate morphological changes that occurred in the hind limb through the evolutionary history of this sauropod clade. A principal components analysis was completed to understand the distribution of the morphological variation. A supertree was constructed to place evolutionary trends in morphological variation into phylogenetic context, and hind limb centroid size was used to investigate potential relationships between skeletal anatomy and gigantism. The majority of the results did not yield statistically significant differences, but they did identify interesting shape-change trends, especially within subclades of Titanosauria. Many previous studies have attempted to elucidate a link between wide-gauge posture and gigantism, which in this study Páramo et al. investigate among several titanosaurian subclades. They propose that morphologies associated with wide-gauge posture arose in parallel with increasing body size among basal members of Macronaria and that this connection became less significant once wide-gauge posture was acquired within Titanosauria. The authors also suggest that other biomechanical factors influenced the independent evolution of subclades within Titanosauria and that these influences resulted in instances of convergent evolution. Therefore, they infer that, overall, wide-gauge posture was not significantly correlated with gigantism, though some morphological aspects of hind limb skeletal anatomy appear to have been associated with gigantism. Their work also supports previous findings of a decrease in body size within Titanosauriformes (which they found to be not significant with shape variables but significant with Pagel's lambda). Collectively, their results support and build on previous work to elucidate more specifics on the evolution of this enigmatic clade. Further study will show if their hypotheses stand or if the inclusion of additional specimens and taxa yields alternative results.

Strengths:

Páramo et al. were diligent in their efforts to digitize and prepare specimens for this study while also minimizing user bias. Their previous work provided a strong platform for this study, specifically for their robust methodology. Between their supplemental files (which include details about specimen digitization and preparation) and the main body of the manuscript, the authors fully provide their results in detailed tables and figures. Their conclusions on evolutionary trends within Titanosauria are reasonably well supported (see weaknesses below) and they provide important details that enhance our understanding of the evolution of this clade and complement previous findings. Their discussion of links between morphology and various biomechanical adaptations is important, and future studies can use these results to investigate such biomechanical adaptations. The trends they identify within the subclades of Titanosauria are very interesting and highlight the diversity of this clade. It is possible that additional investigations of the evolution of these subclades could unite findings in sauropod myology and biomechanics, each of which has been suggested to vary among titanosaurian taxa without a clear phylogenetic or evolutionary distribution. The authors suggest that certain common morphologies arose via convergent evolution among titanosaurian subclades, such as members of Colossosauria exhibiting morphologies more similar to basal titanosaurians than derived saltasaurines. While this conclusion about convergent evolution is not well explained, only future testing will determine if this hypothesis remains supported. Additionally, the authors discuss the influence of uncertainty on the phylogenetic position of some taxa, and this reminds readers to view their findings as tentative trends that may be illuminated through further quantitative analyses. If one accepts the use of hind limb centroid size as a reliable approximation of body size (see concerns in Weaknesses below) then their data also support a hypothesis of decreasing body size through titanosaurian evolution (with PC 2 further differentiating small titanosaurian taxa from one another), providing an opportunity for future analyses to further investigate these interesting trends.

Weaknesses:

Several sentences throughout the manuscript could benefit from citations. For example, the discussion of using hind limb centroid size as a proxy for body mass has no citations attributed. This should be cited or described as a new method for estimating body mass with data from extant taxa presented in support of this relationship. This particular instance is a very important point to include supporting documentation because the authors' conclusions about evolutionary trends in body size are predicated on this relationship.

An additional area of concern is the lack of any discussion of taphonomic deformation in Section 3.3 Caveats of This Study, the results, or the methods. The authors provide a long and detailed discussion of taphonomic loss and how this study does a good job of addressing it; however, taphonomic deformation to specimens and its potential effects on the ensuing results were not addressed at all. Hedrick and Dodson (2013) highlight that, with fossils, a PCA typically includes the effects of taphonomic deformation in addition to differences in morphology, which results in morphometric graphs representing taphomorphospaces. For example, in this study, the extreme negative positioning of Dreadnoughtus on PC 2 (which the authors highlight as "remarkable") is almost certainly the result of taphonomic deformation to the distal end of the holotype femur, as noted by Ullmann and Lacovara (2016).

The authors investigated 17 taxa and divided them into 9 clades, with only Titanosauria and Lithostrotia including more than two taxa (and four clades are only represented by one taxon). While some of these clades represent the average of multiple individuals, the small number of plotted taxa can only weakly support trends within Titanosauria. If similar general trends could be found when the taxa are parsed into fewer, more inclusive clades, it would support and strengthen their claims. Of course, the authors can only study what is preserved in the fossil record, and titanosaurian remains are often highly fragmentary; these deficiencies should therefore not be held against the authors. They clearly put effort and thought into their choices of taxa to include in this study, but there are limitations arising from this low sample size that inherently limit the confidence that can be placed on their conclusions, and this caveat should be more clearly discussed. Specifically, the authors note that their dataset contains many lithostrotians, but they do not discuss unevenness in body size sampling. As neither their size-category boundaries nor the taxa which fall into each of them are clearly stated, the reader must parse the discussion to glean which taxa are in each size category. It should be noted that the authors include both Jainosaurus and Dreadnoughtus as 'large' taxa even though the latter is estimated to have been roughly five times the body mass of the former, making Dreadnoughtus the only taxon included in this extreme size category. The effects that this may have on body size trends are not discussed. Additionally, few taxa between the body masses of Jainosaurus and Dreadnoughtus have been included even though the hind limbs of several such macronarians have been digitized in prior studies (such as Diamantinasaurus and Giraffititan; Klinkhamer et al. 2018). Also, several members of Colossosauria are more similar in general body size to Dreadnoughtus than Jainosaurus, but unfortunately, they do not preserve a known femur, tibia, and fibula, so the authors could not include them in this study. Exclusion of these taxa may bias inferences about body size evolution, and this is a sampling caveat that could have been discussed more clearly. Future studies including these and other taxa will be important for further evaluating the hypotheses about macronarian evolution advanced by Páramo et al. in this study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors report a quantitative comparative study regarding hind limb evolution among titanosaurs. I find the conclusions and findings of the manuscript interesting and relevant. The strength of the paper would be increased if the authors were to improve their reporting of taxon sampling and their discussion of age estimation and the potential implications that uncertainty in these estimates would have for their conclusions regarding gigantism (vs. ontogenetic patterns).