Movements of the wing during upstroke in birds capable of powered flight are more complex than those of downstroke1,2,3. The m. supracoracoideus (SC) is a muscle with a highly derived morphology that is generally considered to be the primary elevator of the wing4,5,6. This muscle arises from the ventrally oriented sternum and its tendon of insertion passes craniodorsally through a special bony canal, around a bony process which deflects it laterally, to attach on the dorsal aspect of the humerus above the glenohumeral joint (Fig. 1). We studied the contractile properties of the SC in situ and related them to wing kinematics in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Our findings indicate that the primary role of the SC is to impart a high-velocity rotation about the longitudinal axis of the humerus. This rapid ‘twisting’ of the humerus, coupled with limited humeral elevation, is responsible for positioning the forearm and hand so that their subsequent extension orients the outstretched wing appropriately for the following downstroke. This reinterpretation of the primary function of the SC provides insight into the selective advantage of its unique musculoskeletal organization in the evolution of powered flapping flight in birds.
1 A general feature of powered locomotion based on an oscillating wing is an asymmetry in how the wing meets the environment during the downstroke compared with the upstroke parts of the wingbeat cycle7. The downstroke in birds, when primary lift and propulsion are achieved, is characterized by an outstretched wing. The more complicated upstroke involves rapid withdrawal of the wing towards the body to reduce its surface area, elevation and subsequent extension in a way that minimally retards lift and thrust gained in the previous downstroke. The distinct musculoskeletal configuration of the m. supracoracoideus (SC) was not present in the Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx8,9, nor is there firm evidence for its presence in recently described Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous species10,11,12,13,14,15. The evolution of this condition is thought to have been important for flapping powered flight in improving the function of wing elevation16,17, but the significance of its highly derived organization has not been appreciated.
We measured isometric forces of rotation (torque) about the longitudinal axis of the humerus, the extent of unrestrained humeral elevation and rotation, and the muscle's contractile properties, by direct nerve stimulation of the SC in situ. Stimulation of the SC at joint angles of elevation/depression and protraction/retraction coincident with the downstroke–upstroke transition and mid-upstroke2 imparted a substantial mean isometric torque about the longitudinal axis of the humerus (Fig. 2). A mean isometric value of 4.9N (n = 2) was recorded at the downstroke–upstroke transition. In the humeral excursion experiments, we measured in situ humeral rotations of up to 70° and maximum elevations of 50°. In three length–force experiments, we measured a mean (±s.d.) maximal tetanic force of 6.5 (±1.2)N, approximately 10 times body weight. The length of the SC coincident with the downstroke–upstroke transition corresponds to a position on the ascending limb of the active length–force curve of 3.0N (Fig. 3). In lateral view, the right humerus rotates anticlockwise about its longitudinal axis and elevates a total of 50° during upstroke (−10° to 40°); these movements correspond to muscle shortening of 3.0mm and a coincident decrease in the SC's potential for active force production (Fig. 3). The ascending arm of the active length–force curve occurs over a short distance (5mm) and is steep owing to the short fascicle lengths associated with the SC's bipinnate architecture. These data reveal that, although the SC is capable of elevation of the humerus, a far more important role is to provide a high-velocity rotation about its longitudinal axis.
Further support for this conclusion can be drawn from the mechanical organization of the SC, its electrical activity patterns reported during slow and fast flight, and the highly derived morphology of the avian shoulder. The bipinnate structure of the SC, with its relatively short but numerous fascicles characteristic of all birds we examined, is an architecture for production of high force. The SC's moment arm for humeral rotation about the longitudinal axis is short; we estimate its maximum in the starling to be 2.0mm. When a large torque (as provided by the SC) is applied across this short moment, the resultant velocity of humeral rotation and its attached distal wing element is magnified.
Aerodynamic models predict that active muscle contractile force is far more important for wing elevation in birds during slow than in fast flapping flight18. Passive aerodynamic lift is sufficient at fast flight speeds, particularly in birds with high-aspect ratio wings. In four species of birds with diverse flight styles for which electromyograms of the SC during flight have been reported, however, the muscle remains electrically active over a range of flight speeds2,4,19,20. Passive aerodynamic lift may not be implemented at the flight speeds attained in these experimental situations. The SC may act to adjust the planform of the wing's leading edge at all speeds. Electromyographic activity does not necessarily correlate with useful mechanical force21 and its presence may simply reflect outflow modulation of a central neural control program22. Or, as we believe, the activity of the SC at even high flight speeds is necessary for its most important role, that of humeral rotation.
The avian shoulder joint is structurally derived and functionally complex. The glenoid, best described as a hemisellar (half saddle) joint, is concavoconvex in configuration, faces dorsolaterally, and articulates with a bulbous humeral head. Jenkins23 reviewed the evolution of this joint in a comparative study and provided a new interpretation of its functional morphology based on a cineradiographic analysis of the wingbeat cycle. The articulation of the humeral head on the dorsally facing surface of the glenoid (the Labrum cavitatis glenoidalis) at the upstroke–downstroke transition allows full abduction of the wing into the parasagittal plane. Our observations further reveal that this extensive abduction of the wing, characteristic of so many flying birds, is accomplished not by simple elevation of the humerus, but primarily by rotation about its longitudinal axis.
In a classic study of the functional organization of the wing24, Sy described humeral axial rotation as a mechanism for the execution of wing upstroke in pigeons and generalized its importance for other relatively small birds with powered flight. To appreciate the functional significance of this rotation, it is necessary to consider the orientation of the humerus to the body axis. When viewed from above (in dorsal view), the angle formed by the long axis of the humerus and the bird's longitudinal axis when the wing is in the downstroke–upstroke transition position is not 90° as might be expected: the humerus is retracted back towards the body to form an acute angle with the long axis of the back. At the downstroke–upstroke transition in starlings, for example, this angle is at its maximum of 55–60° during early upstroke, and decreases to its minimum of 25–30° (that is, the humerus is retracted). Simple elevation of a retracted humerus orients the wing's ventral surface posterolaterally instead of in the more functional lateral position. Simultaneous rotation and elevation of the humerus in early upstroke is necessary so that subsequent extension of the hand and forearm during late upstroke will orient the fully outstretched wing in the parasagittal plane; that is, the wing's ventral surface will face laterally, the position appropriate for the beginning of the subsequent downstroke. Humeral rotation/retraction as described here is key to the execution of high-amplitude, high-frequency wingbeats in the European starling, a generalized member of the order Passeriformes, and may also be important in other birds, including those with longer wings, as well as for other flying vertebrates. For example, in a study of the shoulder of the Cretaceous pteryodactyloid pterosaur Santanadactylus brasilensis, which has an estimated body mass of 3.9–7.3kg and a total wingspan of 4.7m, humeral rotation was proposed to be the key to wing elevation in this species25.
In the seven preserved specimens of the Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx, there is no evidence of a derived SC with a dorsally inserting tendon, as indicated by the lack of a triosseal canal or an acrocoracoid8,9,26,27. The lack in Archaeopteryx of this organization, and therefore of rapid humeral rotation, may have restricted its ability to execute rapidly the high-amplitude wing movements associated with slow flight, take-off and landing in modern species of similar size. The early fossil record of birds since the Jurassic demonstrates a number of advanced characteristics that signal evolutionary improvements towards powered flight. For example, the glenoid of Archaeopteryx and the glenoid of the younger Lower Cretaceous Sinornis both face laterally8,9,23, which presumably limited extensive abduction of the wing into the parasagittal planeinboth species. In the recently described series of Enantiornithineandnon-Enantiornithine Mesozoic birds (that is, Eoalulavis, Neuquenornis, Cathayornis, Concornis, Ambiortis and Iberomesornis)10,12,15,28,29,30, the presence of an elongated coracoid, furcula and scapular acromion suggests that a derived SC may have been present, although an acrocoracoid or triosseal canal has not been identified de facto.
Our reinterpretation here of the primary action of the SC, that of high-velocity humeral rotation, explains a new aspect of the evolutionary significance of its highly derived morphology in birds. The selective advantage of high-velocity rotation of the humerus to position the wing appropriately for downstroke was undoubtedly an important advancement to powered flight which contributed to the extensive adaptive radiation witnessed in modern birds.
Forces of rotation and elevation. Under deep anaesthesia (ketamine 60mg per kg, xylazine 6mg per kg, with supplemental ketamine given as needed), we bisected the latissimus dorsi and rhomboideus muscles to expose the brachial plexus and isolate the nerve to the SC. A trachea tube was inserted to provide unidirectional ventilation (80% O2, 20% N2) after opening the posterior air sacs. All other components of the brachial plexus were severed to prevent stimulation of adjacent muscles, and the nerve to the SC was mounted on silver bipolar electrodes. We stabilized the bird by clamping the sternal keel, proximal coracoid and vertebral margin of the scapula to a heavy frame and body temperature was maintained at 39°C with warmed avian ringers and a heat lamp. A silver wire (0.38mm diameter) was threaded through a small hole drilled in the deltopectoral crest and attached to a Grass T4 force transducer. The humerus was stabilized by inserting a needle (23 gauge) into its distal shaft, thus allowing ‘free’ rotation about the long axis of the humerus while restricting elevation. At wing positions corresponding to the downstroke–upstroke transition and mid-upstroke, a supramaximal stimulus (0.2-ms pulse, 60Hz, 500-ms train) was delivered to the nerve of the SC. Substantial torque was produced by the SC around the longitudinal axis of the humerus in both positions. After removing the needle from the shaft of the humerus, we measured forces of humeral elevation by securing a piece of 5-0 surgical silk (compliance, 0.45μmN−1cm−1) to the humerus at midshaft. This configuration detected the elevational component of force but allowed the humerus to rotate on its long axis. Forces of elevation were consistently lower than forces of rotation.
Excursion of the humerus. We measured the total in situ rotational excursions of the humerus during tetanus of the SC for two starlings. We measured humeral rotation by placing a 23-gauge pin guided by a rack and pinion through a small hole drilled in the distal head of the humerus. This pin served as a pivot for rotation while restricting the elevational component of movement. We placed a 26-gauge pin perpendicular to the long axis of the humerus, which served as a dial with which to measure the degree of rotation. We removed the 23-gauge pin and allowed the humerus to move during stimulation to measure humeral elevation. We stimulated the nerve tetanically (60Hz; 500-ms train duration) and measured humeral rotation with a protractor.
Active and passive length–force. We measured the muscle's passive and active properties at a series of lengths (Fig. 3, top; abscissa) within the muscle's normal in vivo excursion. We established the active length–force curves from maximal twitch responses (single stimulus, 0.2-ms pulse) and measured maximum whole-muscle tetanic force (60Hz, 500-ms train) at the end of each experiment at the length coincident with maximum twitch force. After isolating the nerve to the SC (as already described), we deflected the deltoid and propatagialis muscles from the dorsal aspect of the humerus, cut the bone around the tendon's site of attachment, and removed the bone chip together with the tendon. With the bird stabilized to a heavy frame by clamping the sternal keel, proximal coracoid and vertebral margin of the scapula, the bone/tendon structure was secured to the force transducer with a silk tie (compliance, 0.45μmN−1cm−1). A force transducer (Grass FT4) was mounted on an adjustable rack and pinion (millimetre calibration), which allowed us to change the muscle's length in millimetre increments. We generated passive length–force curves by lengthening the muscle in 1.0-mm increments over its physiological working range. We returned the muscle to the length of ‘zero’ passive force after each measurement before pulling it to a new length. The active length–force curve was generated by following the same length-change protocol and delivering a single supramaximal stimulus (0.2ms) to the nerve at each length. We correlated absolute muscle length to wing angle of elevation and depression (Fig. 3, bottom; abscissa) by manipulating the contralateral wing in the bird after killing (sodium pentobarbital, 100mgkg−1). We dissected the origin of the SC from its attachment on the coracoclavicular membrane and sternum and attached it to a rack and pinion. This configuration allowed us to manipulate wing elevation, depression and rotation, and to correlate these with changes in tendon excursion. We manipulated the humerus in 10° increments above and below the horizontal.
Brown, R. H. J. Flapping flight. Ibis 93, 333–359 (1951).
Dial, K. P., Goslow, G. E. J & Jenkins, F. A. J The functional anatomy of the shoulder in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). J. Morphol. 207, 327–344 (1991).
Simpson, S. F. The flight mechanism of the pigeon Columba livia during take-off. J. Zool. 200, 435–443 (1983).
Dial, K. P., Kaplan, S. R., Goslow, G. E. J & Jenkins, F. A. J Afunctional analysis of the primary upstroke and downstroke muscles in the domestic pigeon (Columba livia) during flight. J. Exp. Biol. 134, 1–16 (1988).
Norberg, U. M. Vertebrate Flight 1–291 (Springer, Berlin, (1989)).
Rayner, J. M. V. The evolution of vertebrate flight. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 34, 269–287 (1988).
Spedding, G. R., Rayner, J. M. V. & Pennycuick, C. J. Momentum and energy in the wake of a pigeon (Columba livia) in slow flight. J. Exp. Biol. 111, 81–102 (1984).
Ostrom, J. H. Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 8, 91–182 (1976).
Ostrom, J. H. Some hypothetical anatomical stages in the evolution of avian flight. Smithson. Contr. Paleobiol. 27, 1–21 (1976).
Sanz, J. L. et al. An Early Cretaceous bird from Spain and its implications for the evolution of avian flight. Nature 382, 442–445 (1996).
Hou, L., Zhou, Z., Martin, L. D. & Feduccia, A. Abeaked bird from the Jurassic of China. Nature 377, 616–618 (1995).
Chiappe, L. M. & Calvo, J. O. Neuquenornis volans, a new Late Cretaceous bird (Enantiornithes: Avisuridae) from Patagonia, Argentina. J. Vert. Paleo. 14, 230–246 (1994).
Hou, L. Alate mesozoic bird from inner Mongolia. Vert. Pal Asiatica 32, 258–266 (1994).
Sereno, P. C. & Rao, C. Early evolution of avian flight and perching: New evidence from the Lower Cretaceous of China. Science 255, 845–848 (1992).
Zhou, Z., Jin, F. & Zhang, J. Preliminary report on a Mesozoic bird from Liaoning, China. Chinese Sci. Bull. 37 (16), 1365–1368 (1992).
Olson, S. L. & Feduccia, A. Flight capability and the pectoral girdle of Archaeopteryx. Nature 278, 247–248 (1979).
Rayner, J. M. V. in Biomechanics in Evolution(eds Rayner, J. M. V. & Wootton, R. J.) 183–212 (Cambridge Univ. Press, (1991)).
Rayner, J. M. V. Form and function in avian flight. Curr. Ornithol. 5, 1–77 (1988).
Meyers, R. A. Gliding flight in the American kestrel (Falco sparverius): An electromyographic study. J. Morphol. 215, 213–224 (1993).
Tobalske, B. W. & Dial, K. P. Neuromuscular control and kinematics of intermittent flight in budgerigars (Melopstittacus undulatus). J. Exp. Biol. 187, 1–18 (1994).
Spector, S. A., Gardiner, P. F., Zernicke, R. Z., Roy, R. R. & Edgerton, V. R. Muscle architecture and force-velocity characteristics of cat soleus and medial gastrocnemius: Implications for motor control. J. Neurophysiol. 44, 951–960 (1980).
Cohen, A. H., Rossignol, S. & Grillner, S. Neural Control of Rhythmic Movements in Vertebrates 1–500 (Wiley, New York, (1988)).
Jenkins, F. A. J The evolution of the avian shoulder joint. Am. J. Sci. 293A, 253–367 (1993).
Sy, M. Funktionell-anatamische Untersuchungen am Vogelflügel. J. Ornithol. 84, 253–267 (1936).
Hazelhurst, G. A. & Rayner, J. M. V. An unusual flight mechanism in the pterosauria. Paleontology 35, 927–941 (1992).
Wellnhofer, P. in Archaeopteryx 1–30 Ein neues Exemples von Archaeopteryr(Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstätt, (1988)).
Wellnhofer, P. in Archaeopteryx 1–47 Das siebte Exemplar von Archaeosteryx aus den Solnhofener Schichten. (Freunde des Jure-Museums Eichstätt, (1993)).
Sanz, J. L., Chiappe, L. M. & Buscalioni, A. D. The osteology of Concornis lacustris (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the lower Cretaceous of Spain and a reexamination of its phylogenetic relationships. Novitates 3133, 1–23 (1995).
Kurochkin, E. N. Atrue carinate bird from Lower Cretaceous deposits in Mongolia and other evidence of Early Cretaceous birds in Asia. Cretaceous Res. 6, 271–278 (1985).
Sanz, J. L. & Bonaparte, J. F. Anew order of birds (class Aves) from the Lower Cretaceous (Spain). Nat. Hist. Mus. L.A. County Sci. Ser. 36, 39–49 (1992).
We thank L. Chiappe, K. Earls, J. Gray-Chickering, C. Kovacs, F. A. Jenkins Jr, D.Ritter, J. Ostrom and T. A. McMahon for critically reviewing the manuscript and for their encouragement; M. Morimoto and A. Valore for technical assistance; and L. L. Meszoely and K.Brown-Wing for Figs 1 and 3, and Fig. 2, respectively. This work was supported by a grant from the NSF.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Poore, S., Sánchez-Haiman, A. & Goslow, G. Wing upstroke and the evolution of flapping flight. Nature 387, 799–802 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/42930
This article is cited by
Geometric Morphometry of the Breast-Shoulder Apparatus of Greater Antillean Anolis Lizards: In Situ Investigation of a Composite Skeletal Assemblage and Its Relationship to Ecomorphological Categorization
Evolutionary Biology (2022)
Winged forelimbs of the small theropod dinosaur Caudipteryx could have generated small aerodynamic forces during rapid terrestrial locomotion
Scientific Reports (2018)
Wing bone geometry reveals active flight in Archaeopteryx
Nature Communications (2018)
Pectoral girdle morphology of Mesozoic birds and the evolution of the avian supracoracoideus muscle
Journal of Ornithology (2017)
Diet shift induced rapid evolution of size and function in a predatory bird
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.