Digimorph
DigiMorph
Browse the Library by:
 Scientific Names
 Common Names
 What's New ?
 What's Popular?
Learn More
Overview Pages
A Production of

Endocasts

Text by Ted Macrini

Introduction

An endocast is a 3D representation of the space within a cavity. The most commonly studied endocasts of vertebrates are cranial endocasts, or 3D representations of the space within the cranial cavity (= endocranial space), which is filled in life to some degree by the brain. Other cavities of the vertebrate skull, such as the inner ear and nasal cavity, are also studied using endocasts.

frozen mammothEndocasts are important for reconstructing soft tissue anatomy of sensory organs, particularly in extinct animals. Soft tissue structures of vertebrates, such as organs, only fossilize under extraordinary conditions, as is the case with frozen Pleistocene mammals from northern Russia and Alaska (Farrand, 1961; Guthrie, 1990). Because of the extreme rarity of this type of soft tissue preservation, paleontologists rely heavily on cranial endocasts to study the brain and central nervous system in extinct animals. This branch of paleontology dealing with the fossil record of the nervous system is known as paleoneurology.

Cranial endocasts provide better approximations of the brains of some vertebrates than others based on the degree to which the brain fills the endocranial space (Jerison, 1973). The brains of mammals, birds, and at least some non-avian dinosaurs largely fill the endocranial space leaving an impression on the internal surfaces of skull bones. Because of this, the importance of cranial endocasts for studying the evolution of the brain in fossil members of these groups has long been recognized (e.g., Marsh, 1884; Simpson, 1927, 1937; Edinger, 1942, 1948, 1949, 1955, 1964, 1975; Radinsky, 1968a, b, 1973a, b, 1976, 1977; Hopson, 1979; Jerison, 1973, 1991; Kielan-Jaworowska, 1983, 1984, 1986; Hurlburt, 1996; Rowe, 1996a, b; Franzosa, 2004).

Tursiops endocastIt is important to point out that, besides the brain, the cranial cavity houses other soft tissue structures such as the meninges, blood vessels, and nerves, and therefore cranial endocasts only provide approximations of external features of the brain. Even so, the general shapes and volumes of some external features of the brain can be inferred from endocasts. However, cranial endocasts do not provide any direct information about the internal structure of the brain such as morphology of the neurons, number of neurons, neuron density, or neuron connectivity (Deacon, 1990). These absolute data can only be obtained from the brains themselves.

RooneyiaThe endocasts used to study endocranial space may either be naturally occurring or artificially generated. A natural endocast (Steinkern) is formed when sediment fills the cranial cavity of a skull and then lithifies. Natural endocasts are often exposed as the skull breaks and weathers away. Artificial endocasts are often made to visualize the endocranial space of skulls that lack a natural endocast. Artificial endocasts can be generated using conventional techniques by, for example, constructing a latex internal mold of the endocranial cavity, extracting the mold through the foramen magnum, and then using the mold to make a plaster cast (e.g., Radinsky, 1968a).

For many fossil specimens, it is not possible to generate artificial endocasts from latex molds because the cranial cavity is filled with matrix. In the past, the endocranial space of these skulls was studied using destructive techniques. This usually involved either serial sectioning of the skull (e.g., Sollas, 1904) or physical removal of surrounding bones of the braincase to reveal the natural endocast (e.g., Hofer and Wilson, 1967). These methods are obviously unfavorable for studying rare or unique specimens.

An alternative, non-destructive approach to studying these specimens is to generate digital artificial endocasts. Digital artificial endocasts are generated by first digitizing a skull via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT), and then digitally isolating the space within the endocranial cavity. Digitally generated endocasts are often referred to as ‘virtual endocasts.’

Why Study Endocasts?

comparative endocastsComparisons of the relative sizes of gross structures of the brains of extant animals are used to infer the degree of evolution of different sensory systems associated with the brain (Jerison, 1973; Butler and Hodos, 1996). This is based on the ‘principle of proper mass’ which states that the mass of the neural tissue of a particular segment of the brain is correlated with the amount of information processing involved in performing that particular function (Jerison, 1973:8). A related assumption, based on observations on extant mammals, is that gross structures of cranial endocasts of mammals provide reasonable proxies for the size of the corresponding brain feature (Edinger, 1948; Jerison, 1973). Therefore, comparative studies of different portions of endocasts of extinct mammals provide information about the evolution of different sensory systems (e.g., Radinsky, 1968a, b, 1973a, b, 1976, 1977). For example, an endocast with relatively large superior colliculus casts suggests that this individual and presumably its species had large superior colliculi and more acute eyesight in comparison to an endocast with smaller superior colliculus casts. Studies based on these types of comparisons between regions of the cranial cavity are crude, but endocasts are the best available information about the central nervous system and sensory systems of extinct taxa.

Study of the sensory systems of organisms is important for understanding behavior of those organisms. Behavior is response to stimuli and the brain is the organ in which sensory information and motor functions are coordinated. The evolution of behavior is tied to the evolution of the brain, and therefore cranial endocasts are useful for studying the behavior of extinct animals.

In addition, cranial endocasts represent a potentially large amount of unexplored phylogenetic data. The majority of morphological data for phylogenetic analyses of vertebrates comes from the exterior of the skull, including the dentition. Internal cranial morphology is poorly represented in phylogenetic analyses because of the difficulty in visualizing and studying this anatomy. The advent of CT technology has revolutionized the collection of data on the internal cranial morphology of vertebrate skulls (e.g., Rowe et al., 1995, 1999, 2005; Brochu, 2000; Larsson et al., 2000; Tykoski et al., 2002; Witmer et al., 2003; Maisey, 2004, 2005; Van Valkenburgh et al., 2004; Colbert et al., 2005; Franzosa and Rowe, 2005), and therefore provides the potential to incorporate these new data into phylogenetic analyses.

New Approaches to Previous Endocast Studies

The lack of natural cranial endocast material for a number of fossil vertebrates is an impediment to endocast studies. Furthermore, it is impossible to non-destructively generate artificial endocasts from many fossil skulls using conventional techniques. CT technology has been successfully employed to digitize skulls for non-destructive extraction of digital endocasts from fossil skulls (e.g., Brochu, 2000; Larsson et al., 2000; Marino et al., 2000, 2003; Witmer et al., 2003; Franzosa, 2004; Franzosa and Rowe, 2005; Macrini et al., 2006).

Many of the natural cranial endocast specimens that are available for study are incomplete or cannot be studied in all views (e.g., the basicranial bones often obscure the ventral surface of endocasts). Because of this, it is difficult to take accurate linear and volumetric measurements from natural endocast material. CT technology can remedy this problem. Volume measurements from CT data in some cases are more accurate than volumes taken from natural endocast material (Macrini, 2006).

Endocasts on DigiMorph

Virtual endocasts are available on DigiMorph under the 'Additional Imagery' tab for the following taxa:

Non-vertebrates:
Quercus robur (pedunculate oak)

Lizards:
Shinisaurus crocodilurus (Chinese crocodile lizard)

Pterosaurs:
Anhanguera santanae
Rhamphorhynchus muensteri

Dinosaurs including Birds:
Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (theropod dinosaur)
Alioramus altai (tyrannosauroid dinosaur)
Anas platyrhynchos (domestic duck)
Apatosaurus sp. (sauropod dinosaur)
Archaeopteryx lithographica (fossil avialan)
Bucorvus abyssinicus (northern ground hornbill)
Incisivosaurus gauthieri (oviraptorid dinosaur)
Phoenicopterus ruber (Caribbean flamingo)
Saurornithoides mongoliensis (theropod dinosaur)
Zanabazar junior (theropod dinosaur)

Mammals and their ancestors:
Bathygenys reevesi (oreodont)
Canis lupus (gray wolf)
Dasypus novemcinctus (nine-banded armadillo)
Dasyurus hallucatus (northern quoll)
Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum)
Felis sylvestris (feral domestic cat)
Hadrocodium wui (mammaliaform)
Herpetotherium fugax (metatherian)
Manis tricuspis (African tree pangolin)
Monodelphis domestica (gray short-tailed opossum)
Morganucodon oehleri (mammaliaform)
Obdurodon dicksoni (fossil platypus)
Ornithorhynchus anatinus (duckbill platypus)
Orycteropus afer (aardvark)
Phascolarctos cinereus (koala)
Procavia capensis (rock hyrax)
Pucadelphys andinus (metatherian)
Tachyglossus aculeatus (short-nosed echidna)
Tapirus indicus (Asian tapir)
Tapirus terrestris (lowland tapir)
Trichechus senegalensis (West African manatee)
Tursiops truncatus (bottlenose dolphin)
Vincelestes neuquenianus (therian)
Vombatus ursinus (common wombat)
Zaglossus bruijni (long-nosed echidna)

Literature Cited

Brochu, C. A. 2000. A digitally-rendered endocast for Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20:1-6.

Butler, A. B., and W. Hodos. 1996. Comparative Vertebrate Neuroanatomy. Evolution and Adaptation. Wiley-Liss, New York, New York, 514 pp.

Colbert, M. W., R. Racicot, and T. Rowe. 2005. Anatomy of the cranial endocast of the bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus, based on HRXCT. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 12:195-207.

Deacon, T. W. 1990. Rethinking mammalian brain evolution. American Zoologist 30:629-705.

Edinger, T. 1942. The pituitary body in giant animals fossil and living: a survey and a suggestion. Quarterly Review of Biology 17:31-45.

Edinger, T. 1948. Evolution of the horse brain. Geological Society of America Memoir 25:1-177.

Edinger, T. 1949. Paleoneurology versus comparative brain anatomy. Confinia Neurologica 9:5-24.

Edinger, T. 1955. Hearing and smell in cetacean history. Monatsschrift für Psychiatrie und Neurologie 129:37-58.

Edinger, T. 1964. Midbrain exposure and overlap in mammals. American Zoologist 4:5-19.

Edinger, T. 1975. Paleoneurology 1804-1966. An annotated bibliography. Advances in Anatomy, Embryology and Cell Biology (Ergebnisse der Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte) 49:1-258.

Farrand, W. R. 1961. Frozen mammoths and modern geology. Science 133:729-735.

Franzosa, J. W. 2004. Evolution of the Brain in Theropoda (Dinosauria). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 357 pp.

Franzosa, J. W., and T. Rowe. 2005. Cranial endocast of the Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Acrocanthosaurus atokensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25:859-864.

Guthrie, R. D. 1990. Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe: the Story of Blue Babe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 323 pp.

Hofer, H. O., and J. A. Wilson. 1967. An endocranial cast of an early Oligocene primate. Folia Primatologica 5:148-152.

Hopson, J. A. 1979. Paleoneurology; pp. 39-146 in C. Gans, R. G. Northcutt, and P. Ulinski (eds.), Biology of the Reptilia, Volume 9, Neurology A. Academic Press, London, England.

Hurlburt, G. R. 1996. Relative Brain Size in Recent and Fossil Amniotes: Determination and Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 250 pp.

Jerison, H. J. 1973. Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence. Academic Press, New York, New York, 482 pp.

Jerison, H. J. 1991. Fossil brains and the evolution of the neocortex; pp. 5-19 in B. L. Finlay, G. Innocenti, and H. Scheich (eds.), The Neocortex: Ontogeny and Phylogeny. NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series A: Life Sciences Vol. 200, Plenum Press, New York, New York.

Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. 1983. Multituberculate endocranial casts. Palaeovertebrata 13:1-12.

Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. 1984. Evolution of the therian mammals in the late Cretaceous of Asia. Part VI. Endocranial casts of eutherian mammals. Palaeontologia Polonica 46:157-171.

Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. 1986. Brain evolution in Mesozoic mammals; pp. 21-34 in K. M. Flanagan, and J. A. Lillegraven (eds.), Vertebrates, Phylogeny, and Philosophy. Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, Special Paper 3.

Larsson, H. C. E., P. C. Sereno, and J. A. Wilson. 2000. Forebrain enlargement among nonavian dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20:615-618.

Macrini, T. E. 2006. The evolution of endocranial space in mammals and non-mammalian cynodonts. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, 278 pp.

Macrini, T. E., T. Rowe, and M. Archer. 2006. Description of a cranial endocast from a fossil platypus, Obdurodon dicksoni (Monotremata, Ornithorhynchidae), and the relevance of endocranial characters to monotreme monophyly. Journal of Morphology 267:1000-1015.

Maisey, J. G. 2004. Endocranial morphology in fossil and recent chondrichthyans; pp. 139-170 in G. Arriata, M. V. H. Wilson, and R. Cloutier (eds.), Recent Advances in the Origin and Radiation of the Vertebrates. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich, Germany.

Maisey, J. G. 2005. Braincase of the Upper Devonian shark Cladoides wildungensis (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii), with observations on the braincase in early chondrichthyans. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 288:1-103.

Marino, L., M. D. Uhen, N. D. Pyenson, and B. Frohlich. 2003. Reconstructing cetacean brain evolution using computed tomography. Anatomical Record (Part B) 272B:107-117.

Marino, L., M. D. Uhen, B. Frohlich, J. M. Aldag, C. Blane, D. Bohaska, and F. C. Whitmore, Jr. 2000. Endocranial volume of mid-late Eocene Archaeocetes (Order: Cetacea) revealed by computed tomography: implications for cetacean brain evolution. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 7:81-94.

Marsh, O. C. 1884. Dinocerata. A monograph of an extinct order of gigantic mammals. United States Geological Survey 10:1-237.

Radinsky, L. 1968a. A new approach to mammalian cranial analysis, illustrated by examples of prosimian primates. Journal of Morphology 124:167-180.

Radinsky, L. 1968b. Evolution of somatic sensory specialization in otter brains. Journal of Comparative Neurology 134:495-505.

Radinsky, L. 1973a. Are stink badgers skunks? Implications of neuroanatomy for mustelid phylogeny. Journal of Mammalogy 54:585-593.

Radinsky, L. 1973b. Evolution of the canid brain. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 7:169-202.

Radinsky, L. 1976. The brain of Mesonyx, a middle Eocene mesonychid condylarth. Fieldiana Geology 33:323-337.

Radinsky, L. 1977. Brains of early carnivores. Paleobiology 3:333-349.

Rowe, T. 1996a. Brain heterochrony and origin of the mammalian middle ear; pp. 71-95 in M. Ghiselin, and G. Pinna (eds.), New perspectives on the history of Life. California Academy of Sciences, Memoir 20, San Francisco, California.

Rowe, T. 1996b. Coevolution of the mammalian middle ear and neocortex. Science 273:651-654.

Rowe, T., C. A. Brochu, and K. Kishi. 1999. Cranial morphology of Alligator mississippiensis and phylogeny of Alligatoroidea. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Memoir 6, 19:1-100 + CD-ROM.

Rowe, T., W. Carlson, and W. Bottorff. 1995. Thrinaxodon: Digital Atlas of the Skull. CD-ROM (Second Edition, for Windows and Macintosh platforms), University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Rowe, T. B., T. P. Eiting, T. E. Macrini, and R. A. Ketcham. 2005. Organization of the olfactory and respiratory skeleton in the nose of the gray short-tailed opossum Monodelphis domestica. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 12:303-336.

Simpson, G. G. 1927. Mesozoic Mammalia. IX. The brain of Jurassic mammals. American Journal of Science 214:259-268.

Simpson, G. G. 1937. Skull structure of the Multituberculata. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 73:727-763.

Sollas, W. J. 1904. A method for the investigation of fossils by serial sections. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 196:259-265.

Tykoski, R. S., T. B. Rowe, R. A. Ketcham, and M. W. Colbert. 2002. Calsoyasuchus valliceps, a new crocodyliform from the early Jurassic Kayenta Formation of Arizona. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22:593-611.

Van Valkenburgh, B., J. Theodor, A. Friscia, A. Pollack, and T. Rowe. 2004. Respiratory turbinates of canids and felids: a quantitative comparison. Journal of Zoology (London) 264:281-293.

Witmer, L. M., S. Chatterjee, J. Franzosa, and T. Rowe. 2003. Neuroanatomy of flying reptiles and implications for flight, posture and behaviour. Nature 425:950-953.

©2002-2005 - UTCT/DigiMorph.org Funding by NSF
Comments to info@digimorph.org