Componentes filogenéticos y ecológicos de la valoración morfológica del cráneo de mamíferos

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorBohórquez Herrera, Jimenaspa
dc.contributor.cvlachttp://scienti.colciencias.gov.co:8081/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0000539910spa
dc.contributor.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7541-0993spa
dc.coverage.campusCRAI-USTA Tunjaspa
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-25T21:20:16Zspa
dc.date.available2021-01-25T21:20:16Zspa
dc.date.issued2019-10-01spa
dc.descriptionLa evolución craneal de los mamíferos ha estado caracterizada por la modificación de sus estructuras anatómicas, para el desarrollo de complejas estructuras; sin embargo, a pesar de la composición de algunos arreglos ecomorfológicos craneales y mandibulares; la historia evolutiva de este grupo muestra convergencias iterativas a lo largo del tiempo, demostrando que algunos fenómenos evolutivos surgen como respuesta a condiciones similares. Desde el punto de vista filogenético, se ha demostrado que existe una relación compleja entre la cercanía filogenética, la integración y la función; sobre la definición de las formas del cráneo de los mamíferos a lo largo de la evolución. La probabilidad de comprobar la influencia de la historia evolutiva en la morfología craneal de los organismos, se incrementa cuando se analizan niveles taxonómicos bajos o cuyas secuencias de divergencia moleculares son pequeñas; contrario a cuando se analizan grupos más lejanos con divergencias mayores. La estructura craneal también se ve influenciada por factores externos durante la ontogenia de los individuos; como resultado de los ajustes evolutivos y ecológicos entre el fenotipo y el ambiente. El hábitat ha sido una de las principales fuentes de variación morfológica, mostrando especializaciones complejas para especies que viven o pasan partes de sus ciclos de vida en ambientes acuáticos, terrestres y aéreos. La dieta por su parte también es otro factor que ha determinado la evolución del tamaño, forma y robustez del cráneo y mandíbula, al igual que la forma, el tamaño y la disposición de los dientes; proporcionando especializaciones específicas para cada tipo de dieta. Las conductas de agresión también han modelado el cráneo de este grupo animal, dado que se usa como un mecanismo de ofensa, defensa, y para sus exhibiciones ritualísticas frente a las hembras.spa
dc.format.extent84spa
dc.identifier.citationBohórquez, J. (2019). Componentes filogenéticos y ecológicos de la valoración morfológica del cráneo de mamíferos. Tunja: Ediciones USTA.spa
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.15332/li.lib.2019.00043
dc.identifier.isbn978-958-5471-52-8spa
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11634/31553
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad Santo Tomásspa
dc.publisher.programProducción Editorialspa
dc.relation.referencesAdams, D.C. & D.J. Funk. 1997. Morphometric inferences on sibling species and sexual dimorphism in Neochlamisus bebbianae leaf beetles: multivariate applications of the thin-plate spline. Syst. Biol. 46 (1): 180-194.spa
dc.relation.referencesAdams, D.C. & F.J. Rohlf. 2000. Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97 (8):4106-4111.spa
dc.relation.referencesAsher, R.J., J.H. Geisler & M.R. Sánchez-Villagra. 2008. Morphology, paleontology and placental mammal phylogeny. Systematic Biology, 57 (2): 311-317.spa
dc.relation.referencesBerta, A, J.L. Sumich & K.M. Kovacks. 2006. Marine mammals: evolutionary biology. Estados Unidos, Elsevier; 547 p.spa
dc.relation.referencesBolker, J.A. 2000. Modularity in development and why it matters to evo-devo. Am. Zool. 40: 770-776.spa
dc.relation.referencesChristiansen, P. & S. Wroe. 2007. Bite forces and evolutionary adaptations to feeding ecology in Carnivores. Ecology, 88(2): 347-358.spa
dc.relation.referencesDayan, T. & D. Simberloff. 1994. Morphological relationships among coexisting heteromyids: an incisive dental character. American Naturalist. 143: 462-477.spa
dc.relation.referencesEvans, A.R. & G.D. Sanson. 2003. The tooth of perfection: Functional and spatial constraints on mammalian tooth shape. Boil. J. Linn. Soc. 78: 173- 191.spa
dc.relation.referencesGoswami, A. 2006. Morphological integration in the carnivoran skull. Evolution, 60(1): 169-183.spa
dc.relation.referencesNojima, T. 1990. A morphological consideration of the relationships of pinnipeds to other carnivorans, based on bony tentorium and bony falx. Marine Mammal Science, 6(1): 54-74.spa
dc.relation.referencesPearson, O.M. & M. Millones. 2005. Rasgos esqueletales de adaptación al clima y a la actividad entre los habitantes aborígenes de tierra del fuego. Magallania; 33(1): 37-50.spa
dc.relation.referencesAgrawal, A.A. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science, 294: 321-326.
dc.relation.referencesAgrawal, A.A. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science, 294: 321-326.
dc.relation.referencesAkamatsu, T. 2008. Cetacean bioacoustics with emphasis on recording and monitoring. Part. XVII, p. 1897-1907. En: Havelock, D., S. Kuwano & M. Vorländer (Eds). Handbook of signal processing in acoustics. Nueva York, Springer.
dc.relation.referencesAlroy, J. 2000. New methods for quantifying macroevolutionary patterns and processes. Paleobiology, 26: 707–733.
dc.relation.referencesArchibald, J.D. & D.H. Deutschmann, 2001. Quantitative analysis of the timing of the origin and diversification of extant placental orders. J. Mamm. Evol., 8: 107–124.
dc.relation.referencesAsher, R.J., J.H. Geisler & M.R. Sánchez-Villagra. 2008. Morphology, paleontology and placental mammal phylogeny. Systematic Biology, 57 (2): 311-317.
dc.relation.referencesAsher, R.J., J. Meng, J.R. Wible, M.C. McKenna, G. Rougier, D. Dashzeveg & M.J. Novacek. 2005. Stem Lagomorpha and the antiquity of Glires. Science, 307(5712): 1091–1094.
dc.relation.referencesAtchley, W.R., & B.K. Hall. 1991. A model for development and evolution of complex morphological structures. Biol. Rev. 66: 101-157.
dc.relation.referencesBerta, A, J.L. Sumich & K.M. Kovacks. 2006. Marine mammals: evolutionary biology. Estados Unidos, Elsevier; 547 p.
dc.relation.referencesBininda-Emmonds, O. R., M. Cardillo, K.E. Jones, R.D.E. MacPhee, R.M.D.
dc.relation.referencesBininda-Emmonds, O. R., M. Cardillo, K.E. Jones, R.D.E. MacPhee, R.M.D. Beck, R. Grenyer, S.A. Price, R.A. Vos, J.L. Gittleman & A. Purvis. 2007. The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature, 446: 507-512.
dc.relation.referencesBock, W.J. 1994. Concepts and methods in ecomorphology. J. Biosci. 19(4): 403-413.
dc.relation.referencesBuchanan, A.V., S.Sholtis, J. Richtsmeier & K.M. Weiss. 2009. What are genes “for” or where are traits “from”? What is the question? BioEssays; 31: 198-208.
dc.relation.referencesCampagna, C. 2009. Aggressive behavior, intraspecific; p. 18-24. En: Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig & J.G.M. Thewissen (Eds). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Estados Unidos, Academic Press. 1316 p.
dc.relation.referencesCaumul, R. & P.D. Polly. 2005. Phylogenetic and environmental components of morphological variation: Skull mandible and molar shape in marmots (Marmot, Rodentia). Evolution, 59 (11): 2460-2472.
dc.relation.referencesChristiansen, P. & S. Wroe. 2007. Bite forces and evolutionary adaptations to feeding ecology in Carnivores. Ecology, 88(2): 347-358.
dc.relation.referencesClark, C.T. & K. Smith. 1993. Cranial osteogenesis in Monodelphis domestica (Didelphidae) and Macropus eugenii (Macropodidae). J. Morph., 215: 119-149.
dc.relation.referencesCoburne, M.T. & P.T. Sharpe. 2003. Tooth and jaw: molecular mechanisms of patterning in the first bronchial arch. Arch. Oral Biol., 48: 1-14.
dc.relation.referencesDayan, T. & D. Simberloff. 1994. Morphological relationships among coexisting heteromyids: an incisive dental character. American Naturalist. 143: 462-477.
dc.relation.references_____. 1998. Size patterns among competitors: ecological character displacement and character release in mammals, with special reference to island populations. Mammal Review, 28 (3): 99-124.
dc.relation.referencesDavies, J.T, S.A. Fritz, R. Grenyer, C.D. Orme, J. bielby, O.R. BinindaEmonds, M. Cardillo, K.E. Jones, J.L. Gittleman, G.M. Mace & A. Purvis. 2008. Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity. PNAS, 105 (1): 11556-11563. .
dc.relation.referencesDuarte, L.C., L. Rabello, F.J. Von Zuben & S. Furtado. 2000. Variation in mandible shape in Thrichomys apereoides (Mammalia: Rodentia): Geometric analysis of a complex morphological structure. Systematic Biology, 49(3): 563-578
dc.relation.referencesDumont, E.R. 2007. Feeding mechanisms in bats: variation within the constraints of flight. Integrative and comparative biology, 47(1): 137-146.
dc.relation.referencesEvans, A.R. & G.D. Sanson. 2003. The tooth of perfection: Functional and spatial constraints on mammalian tooth shape. Boil. J. Linn. Soc. 78: 173- 191.
dc.relation.referencesFordyce, R.E. 2001. Cetacea (Whale, porpoises and dolphins). Wiley Online Libray, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences; v. 658.
dc.relation.referencesFreeman, P.W. 1998. Form, function and evolution in skulls and teeth of Bats; p. 140-156. En: Kunz, T.H. & P.A. Racey (Eds). Bat biology and conservation. Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution Press.
dc.relation.referencesGarland, T. Jr. & S.A. Kelly. 2006. Review: phenotypic plasticity and experimental evolution. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 209: 2344-2361.
dc.relation.referencesGinsberg, J.R. 2000. Biodiversity of mammals; v. 3, p. 77-810. En: Levin, S.A. (Ed). 2000. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Estados Unidos, Academic Press. 4666 p.
dc.relation.referencesGoswami, A. 2006. Morphological integration in the carnivoran skull. Evolution, 60(1): 169-183.
dc.relation.referencesGoswami, A., N. Milne & S. Wroe. 2010. Biting through constraints: cranial morphology, disparity and convergence across living and fossil carnivorous mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences; 278: 1831-1839.
dc.relation.referencesHillson, S. 1986. Teeth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
dc.relation.referencesJewell, P.A. 1976. Selection for reproductive success, p. 71-109. En: Austin, C.R. & R.V. Short, Frs (Eds). The evolution of reproduction. London, Cambridge University Press. 189 p.
dc.relation.referencesJones, K.E. & A. Goswami. 2010. Quantitative analysis of the influences of phylogeny and ecology on phocid and otariid pinniped (Mammalia; Carnivora) cranial morphology. Journal of Zoology; 280: 297-308.
dc.relation.referencesKardong, K.V. 2001. Vertebrados: Anatomía comparada, función, evolución. España, McGraw-Hill/Interamericana. 732 p.
dc.relation.referencesKetten, D.R. 1992. The marine mammal ear: specializations for aquatic audition and echolocation, p. 717-750. En: Webster, D.B., R.R. Fay & A.N. Popper (Eds). The evolutionary biology of hearing. Nueva York, Springer-Verlag.
dc.relation.references_____ 1997. Structure and function in whale ears. Bioacoustics, 8: 103-135.
dc.relation.referencesLencastre, F. & L. Oliveira. 2011. Skull morphology and functionality of extant Felidae (Mammalia: Carnivora): a phylogenetic and evolutionary perspective. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 161: 414-462.
dc.relation.referencesLemos, B., C.D. Meiklejohn, M. Ciceres, & D.L. Hartl. 2005. Rates of divergence in gene expression profiles of primates, mice, and flies: stabilizing selection and variability among functional categories. Evolution, 59: 126- 137.
dc.relation.referencesLuo, Z. 2007. Transformation and diversification in early mammal evolution. Nature, 450: 1011-1019.
dc.relation.referencesMayr, E. 1956. Geographical character gradients and climate adaptation. Evolution, 10(1): 105-108.
dc.relation.referencesMeiri, S. & T. Dayan. 2003. On the validity of Bergmann’s rule. Journal of Biogeography. 30: 331-351.
dc.relation.referencesMessenger, S.L. & J.A. McGuire. 1998. Morphology, molecules and the phylogenetics of cetaceans. Systematic Biology; 47(1): 90-124.
dc.relation.referencesMonteiro, L.R., L.C. Duarte & S.F. Reis. 2003. Environmental correlates of geographical variation in the skull and mandible shape of the punaré rat, Thricomys apereoides (Rodentia: Echimyidae). J. Zool. (Lond). 261:47- 57.
dc.relation.referencesNelson, J.E. 1992. Developmental staging in a marsupial Dasyurus hallucatus. Anat. Embry., 185: 335-354.
dc.relation.referencesNojima, T. 1990. A morphological consideration of the relationships of pinnipeds to other carnivorans, based on bony tentorium and bony falx. Marine Mammal Science, 6(1): 54-74.
dc.relation.referencesPankakoski, E., I. Koivisto & H. Hyvarinen. 1992. Reduced developmental stability as an indicator of heavy metal pollution in the common shrew Sorex araneus. Acta Zool. Fenn. 191: 137-144.
dc.relation.referencesPauly, D., R. Froese & V. Christensen. 1998. How pervasive is “Fishing down marine food webs”: response to Caddy Et al. Science 282: 183.
dc.relation.referencesPauly, D., V. Christensen & C. Walters. 2000. Ecopath, Ecosim and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science; 57: 697–706.
dc.relation.referencesPearson, O.M. & M. Millones. 2005. Rasgos esqueletales de adaptación al clima y a la actividad entre los habitantes aborígenes de tierra del fuego. Magallania; 33(1): 37-50.
dc.relation.referencesPérez, S.I. & L.R. Monteiro. 2009. Nonrandom factors in modern human morphological diversification: a study of craniofacial variation in southern south American populations. Evolution; 63(4): 978-993.
dc.relation.referencesPolly, P.D. 2000. Development and evolution occlude: evolution of development in mammalian teeth. PNAS, 97: 14019-14021.
dc.relation.referencesPuts, D.A. 2010. Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31: 157-175.
dc.relation.referencesRadinsky, L.B. 1981. Evolution of skull shape in carnivores. I. Representative modern carnivores. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 15: 369-388.
dc.relation.references_____ 1984. Ontogeny and phylogeny in horse skull evolution. Evolution, 38(1): 1-15.
dc.relation.references_____ 1985. Approaches in evolutionary morphology: A search of patterns. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16: 1-14.
dc.relation.referencesRich, T.H., J.A. Hopson, A.N. Musser, T.F. Flannery & P. Vickers-Rich. 2005. Independent origins of middle ear bones in monotremes and therians. Science, 307: 910-914.
dc.relation.referencesRicklefs, R.E. & D.B. Miles. 2004. Ecological and evolutionary inferences from morphology: an ecological perspective, p. 13-41. En: Wainwright, P.C. & S.M. Reilly (Eds). Ecological Morphology: Integrative Organismal Biology. The Chicago University Press. Estados Unidos. 367 p.
dc.relation.referencesRohlf, F.J. & D.E. Slice 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zool., 39:40-59.
dc.relation.referencesRowe, T.B., T.P. Eiting, T.E. Macrini & R.A. Ketcham. 2005. Organization of the olfactory and respiratory skeleton of the nose of the Gray short-tailed opossum Monodelphis domestica. J. Mammal. Evol., 12(3-4): 303-336.
dc.relation.referencesRowe, T.B., T.P. Eiting, T.E. Macrini & R.A. Ketcham. 2005. Organization of the olfactory and respiratory skeleton of the nose of the Gray short-tailed opossum Monodelphis domestica. J. Mammal. Evol., 12(3-4): 303-336.
dc.relation.referencesRychlik, L., G. Ramalhinho & D. Polly. 2006. Response to environmental factors and competition: skull, mandible and tooth shapes in Polish water shrews (Neomys, Soricidae, Mammalia). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. 44(4): 339-351.
dc.relation.referencesSacco, T. & B. Van Valkenburgh. 2004, Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behavior in the bears (Carnivora: Ursidae). J. Zool., Lond. 263: 41- 54.
dc.relation.referencesSalesa, M.J., M. Antón, A. Turner & J. Morales. 2005. Aspects of the functional morphology in the cranial and cervical skeleton of the sabre-toothed cat Paramachairodus ogygia (Kaup, 1832) (Felidae, Machairodontinae) from the Late Miocene of Spain: implications for the origins of the machairodont killing bite. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society; 144(3): 366-377.
dc.relation.references_____ 2006. Inferred behavior and ecology of the primitive sabre-toothed cat Paramachairodus (Felidae, Machairodontinae) from the late Miocene of Spain. Journal of Zoology; 268 (3): 243-254.
dc.relation.referencesSchmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: Why is animal size so important? Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
dc.relation.referencesSchluter, D. 2000. The ecology of adaptive radiation. New York, Oxford University Press. 292 p.
dc.relation.referencesShackleton, D.M. & C.C. Shank. 1984. A review of the social behavior of feral and wild sheep and goats. Journal of animal science, 58(2): 500-509.
dc.relation.referencesSmith, K.K. 1997. Comparative patterns of craniofacial development in Eutherian and Metatherian mammals. Evolution; 51(5): 1663-1678.
dc.relation.referencesSpinage, C.A. 2010. Territoriality and social organization of the Uganda defassa waterbuck Kobus defassa ugandae. Journal or Zoology, 159 (3): 329-361.
dc.relation.referencesStadler, T. 2011. Mammalian phylogeny reveals recent diversification rate shifts. PNAS; 108(15): 6187-6192.
dc.relation.referencesStalkin, M. 1980. Ecological character displacement. Ecology, 61: 163-177.
dc.relation.references_____ 1987. Gene flow and the geographic structure of natural populations. Science, 236(4803)
dc.relation.referencesStebbins, G.L. 1974. Flowering Plants: Evolution Above the Species Level. London, Belknap Press. 480 p.
dc.relation.referencesStedman, H.H., B.W. Kozyac, A. Nelson, D.M. Thesier, L.T. Su, D.W. Low, C.R. Bridges, J.B. Shrager, N. Minugh-Purvis & M.A. Mitchell. 2004. Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the humane lineage. Nature, 428: 415-418.
dc.relation.referencesSteppan, S.J. 1997. Phylogenetic analysis of phenotypic covariance structure. II. Reconstructing matrix evolution. Evolution, 51 (2): 587-594.
dc.relation.referencesStraney, D.O. & J.L. Patton. 1980. Phylogenetic and environmental determinants of geographic variation of the pocket mouse Perognathus goldmani Osgood. Evolution, 34: 888-903.
dc.relation.referencesStynder, D., R. Ackermann & J. Sealy. 2007. Craniofacial variation and population continuity during the South African Holocene. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 164(4): 489-500.
dc.relation.referencesSzabo-Rogers, H.L., L.E. Smithers, W. Yakob & K.J. Liu. 2010. New directions in craniofacial morphogenesis. Developmenatl Biology, 341: 84-94.
dc.relation.referencesVan der Molen, S., N. Martínez & R. González. 2007. Introducción a la morfometría geométrica: Curso teórico-práctico. Centro Nacional Patagónico, Universitat de Barcelona. 82 p.
dc.relation.referencesVan Valkenburgh, B. 2007. Déjà vu: the evolution of feeding morphologies in the Carnivora. Integrative and Comparative Biology; 47(1): 147-163.
dc.relation.referencesVan Valkenburgh, B. & K. Koepfli. 1993. Cranial and dental adaptations to predation in canids. Zool. Soc. Lond. Symp. 65: 15-37.
dc.relation.referencesViguier, B. 2002. Is the morphological disparity of lemur skulls (Primates) controlled by phylogeny and/or environmental constraints? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 76: 577-590.
dc.relation.referencesWainwright. 2004. Functional morphology as a tool in ecological research; p. 42-59. En: Wainwright, P.C. & S.M. Reilly (Eds). Ecological Morphology: Integrative Organismal Biology. The Chicago University Press. Estados Unidos. 367 p.
dc.relation.referencesWainwright, P.C. & S.M. Reilly (Eds). 2004. Ecological Morphology: Integrative organismal biology. The Chicago University Press. Estados Unidos. 367 p.
dc.relation.referencesWalker, E.P., F. Warnick, S. Hamlet, K.I. Lange, M.A. Davis, H.E. uible & P.F. Wright. 1975. Mammals of the World, 3a ed. Londres, The Johns Hopkins University Press. V. I y II, 1500 p.
dc.relation.referencesWebster, D. & M. Webster. 1974. Comparative vertebrate morphology. New York, Academic Press. 516 p.
dc.relation.referencesWible, J.R., G.W. Rougier, M.J. Novacek & R.J. Asher. 2007. Cretaceous eutherians and Laurasian origin for placental mammals near the K/T boundary. Nature; 447: 1003-1006.
dc.relation.referencesWilmore, K.E., C.C. Roseman, J. Rogers, J.T. Richtsemier & J.M. Cheverud. 2009. Genetic variation in Baboon craniofacial sexual dimorphism. Evolution; 63(3):799-806.
dc.relation.referencesWozencraft, W.C. 1993. Carnivora; p. 279-348. En: Wilson, D.E. & D.M. Reeder (Eds). Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press.
dc.relation.referencesWroe, S. & N. Milne. 2007. Convergence and remarkably consistent constraint in the evolution of carnivore skull. Evolution, 61(5): 1251-1260.
dc.relation.referencesWroe, S., C. McHenry & J. Thomason. 2005. Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatoruy behavior in fossil taxa. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 272: 619-625.
dc.relation.referencesYablokov, A.V. 1986. Population biology. Progress and problems of studies on natural populations. Moscú, Mir Publishers
dc.relation.referencesZaharov, V.M., E. Pankakoski, B.I. Sheftel, A. Peltonen & A. Hanski. 1991. Developmental stability and population dynamics in the Common shrew, Sorex araneus. American Naturalist. 138: 797-810.
dc.relation.referencesZelditch, M. L., and Carmichael, A. C. 1989. Ontogenetic variation in patterns of developmental and functional integration in skulls of Sigmodon fulviventer. Evolution; 43: 1738–1747.
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia*
dc.rights.localAbierto (Texto Completo)spa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/*
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad Santo Tomásspa
dc.sourcereponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad Santo Tomásspa
dc.subject.keywordcranial evolutionspa
dc.subject.keywordecomorphological arrangementsspa
dc.subject.keywordphenomena evolutionaryspa
dc.subject.keywordphylogenetic closenessspa
dc.subject.keywordintegración y la funciónspa
dc.subject.proposalfilogeniaspa
dc.subject.proposalInvestigaciónspa
dc.subject.proposalbiologíaspa
dc.titleComponentes filogenéticos y ecológicos de la valoración morfológica del cráneo de mamíferosspa
dc.type.categoryGeneración de Nuevo Conocimiento: Libro resultado de investigaciónspa
dc.type.localLibrospa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
Componentes Filogenéticos y Ecológicos de la Valoración Morfológica del Craneo de Mamíferos.pdf
Tamaño:
5.13 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Componentes Filogenéticos y Ecológicos de la Valoración Morfológica del Cráneo de Mamíferos
Descargar

Bloque de licencias

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Thumbnail USTA
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
807 B
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción:
Descargar

Colecciones

Producción Editorial