Species richness in agamid lizards: Chance, body size, sexual selection or ecology?

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 659-669

  Stuart Fox, Devi ^a,c   Owens, Ian P F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Agamidae; Comparative analysis; Dichromatism; Sexual selection; Species richness

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; LIZARD; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPECIES RICHNESS;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY CONSTITUTION; CLASSIFICATION; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENT; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; LIZARD; MALE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEX DIFFERENTIATION;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; BODY CONSTITUTION; CLASSIFICATION; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENT; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; LIZARDS; MALE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEX DIFFERENTIATION; SEX FACTORS;

AGAMIDAE; AMPHIBIA; ANIMALIA; REPTILIA; SQUAMATA;

EID: 0037932582     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00573.x     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Ackerly, D.D. 2000. Taxon sampling, correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Evolution 54: 1480-1492.
2. Agapow, P.-M. & Isaac, N.J.B. 2002. MACROCAIC: revealing correlates of species richness by comparative analysis. Diver. Distrib. 8: 41-43.
3. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Arnold, E.N. 1992. The Rajasthan toad-headed lizard, Phrynocephalus laungwalaensis (Reptilia: Agamidae) represents a new genus. J. Herpetol. 26: 467-472.
5. Arise, J.C. & Johns, G.C. 1999. Proposal for a standardized temporal scheme of biological classification for extant species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 96: 7358-7363.
6. Barraclough, T.G. & Vogler, A.P. 2000. Detecting the geographical pattern of speciation from species-level phylogenies. Am. Natur. 155: 419-434.
7. Barraclough, T.G., Harvey, P.H. & Nee, S. 1995. Sexual selection and taxonomic diversity in passerine birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 259: 211-215.
8. Barraclough, T.G., Vogler, A.P. & Harvey, P.H. 1998. Revealing the factors that promote speciation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353: 241-249.
9. Barts, M. & Wilms, T. 1997. Catalogue of Valid Species and Synonyms, Vol. 4 (Agamidae) - A Bibliography. Herprint International, Bredell.
10. Bennett, P.M. & Owens, I.P.F. 2002. Evolutionary Ecology in Birds: Life Histories, Mating Systems and Extinction. Oxford University Press, London.
11. Blackburn, T.M. & Gaston, K.J. 1995. Some methodological issues in macroecology. Am. Natur. 151: 68-83.
12. Carson, H.L. 1997. Sexual selection: a driver of genetic change in Hawaiian Drosophila. J. Hered. 88: 343-352.
13. Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Murray, London.
14. Das, I. 1996. Biogeography of the Reptiles of South Asia. Kreiger Publishers, Malabar.
15. Dial, K.P. & Marzluff, J.M. 1988. Are the smallest organisms the most diverse? Ecology 69: 1620-1624.
16. Dial, K.P. & Marzluff, J.M. 1989. Nonrandom diversification within taxonomic assemblages. Syst. Zool. 38: 26-37.
17. van Doorn, G.S., Noest, A.J. & Hogeweg, P. 1998. Sympatric speciation and extinction driven by environment dependent sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. October, 265: 1915-1919.
18. Fusco, G. & Cronk, Q.C.B. 1995. A new method for evaluating the shape of large phylogenies. J. Theor. Biol. 175: 235-243.
19. Gage, M.J.G., Parker, G.A., Nylin, S. & Wiklund, C. 2002. Sexual selection and speciation in mammals, butterflies and spiders. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 2309-2316.
20. Gardezi, T. & Da Silva, J. 1999. Diversity in relation to body size in mammals: a comparative study. Am. Natur. 53: 110-123.
21. Gaston, K.J. & Blackburn, T.M. 1997. Age, area and avian diversification. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 62: 239-253.
22. Gittleman, J.L. & Purvis, A. 1998. Body size and species richness in primates and carnivores. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265: 113-119.
23. Guyer, C. & Slowinski, J.B. 1991. Comparisons of observed phylogenetic topologies with null expectations among three monophyletic lineages. Evolution 45: 340-350.
24. Guyer, C. & Slowinski, J.B. 1993. Adaptive radiation and the topology of large phylogenies. Evolution 47: 253-263.
25. Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M.D. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, New York.
26. Higashi, M., Takimoto, G. & Yamamura, N. 1999. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Nature 402: 523-526.
27. Honda, M., Ota, H., Kobayashi, M., Nabhitanhata, J., Yong, H.-S., Sengoku, S. & Hikida, T. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships of the family Agamidae (Reptilia: Iguania) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Zool. Sci. 17: 527-537.
28. Houde, A.E. 1997. Sex, Color and Mate-Choice in Guppies. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
29. Hutchinson, G.E. & MacArthur, R.H. 1959. A theoretical ecological model of size distributions among species of animals. Am. Natur. 93: 117-125.
30. Joger, U. 1991. A molecular phylogeny of agamid lizards. Copeia 1991: 616-622.
31. Katzourakis, A., Purvis, A., Azmeh, S., Rotheray, G. & Gilbert, F. 2001. Macroevolution of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae): the effect of using higher level taxa in studies of biodiversity, and correlates of species richness. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 219-227.
32. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ravigne, V. 2002. Speciation by natural and sexual selection: models and experiments. Am. Natur. 159: S22-S35.
33. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 78: 3721-3725.
34. Losos, J.B. 1985. An experimental demonstration of the species-recognition role of Anolis dewlap colour. Copeia 1985: 905-910.
35. MacArthur, R.H., Recher, H.F. & Cody, M.L. 1966. On the relation between habitat selection and species diversity. Am. Natur. 100: 319-332.
36. Macedonia, J.M. & Stamps, J.A. 1994. Species recognition in Anolis grahami (Sauria, Iguanidae): evidence from responses to video playbacks of conspecific and heterospecific displays. Ethology 98: 246-264.
37. Macedonia, J.M., Evans, C.S. & Losos, J.B. 1994. Male Anolis lizards discriminate video-recorded conspecific and heterospecific displays. Anim. Behav. 47: 1220-1223.
38. Macey, J.R., Schulte II, J.A., Larson, A., Ananjeva, N.B., Wang, Y., Pethiyagoda, R., Rastegar-Pouyani, N. & Papenfuss, T.J. 2000. Evaluating trans-Tethys migration: an example using Acrodont lizard phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49: 233-256.
39. Magurran, A.E. 1998. Population differentiation without speciation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353: 275-286.
40. Martins, E.P. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 296-299.
41. Marzluff, J.M. & Dial, K.P. 1991. Life history correlates of taxonomic diversity. Ecology 72: 428-439.
42. May, R.M. 1986. The search for patterns in the balance of nature: advances and retreats. Ecology 67: 1115-1126.
43. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
44. Melville, J., Schulte II, J.A. & Larson, A. 2001. A molecular phylogenetic study of ecological diversification in the Australian lizard genus Ctenophorus. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 291: 339-353.
45. Mitra, S., Landel, H. & Pruett Jones, S. 1996. Species richness covaries with mating system in birds. Auk 113: 544-551.
46. Mitter, C., Farrell, B. & Wiegmann, B. 1988. The phylogenetic study of adaptive zones: has phytophagy promoted insect diversification? Am. Natur. 132: 107-128.
47. Moller, A.P. & Cuervo, J.J. 1998. Speciation and feather ornamentation in birds. Evolution 52: 859-869.
48. Moody, S. 1980. Phylogenetic and historical biogeographic relationships of the genera in the Agamidae (Reptilia, Lacertilia). PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI.
49. Moody, S. 1988. Rediscovery and taxonomic identity of Oreodeira gracilipes Girard, 1857 (Lacertilia: Agamidae). Herpetologica 44: 108-113.
50. Nee, S., Mooers, A.O. & Harvey, P.H. 1992. Tempo and mode of evolution revealed from molecular phylogenies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 89: 8322-8326.
51. Nee, S., Barraclough, T.G. & Harvey, P.H. 1996. Temporal changes in biodiversity: detecting patterns and identifying causes. In: Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Difference (K. J. Gaston, ed), pp. 230-252. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.
52. Olsson, M. & Madsen, T. 1998. Sexual selection and sperm competition in reptiles. In: Sexual Selection and Sperm Competition (T. R. Birkhead & A. P. Moller, eds), pp. 503-577. Academic Press, London.
53. Orme, C.D.L., Isaac, N.J.B. & Purvis, A. 2002. Are most species small? Not within species-level phylogenies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 1279-1287.
54. Owens, I.P.F. & Hartley, I.R. 1998. Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265: 397-407.
55. Owens, I.P.F., Bennett, P.M. & Harvey, P.H. 1999. Species richness among birds: body size, life-history, sexual selection or ecology? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 1-7.
56. Paterson, H.E.H. 1993. Evolution of the Recognition Concept of Species. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
57. Payne, R.J.H. & Krakauer, D.C. 1997. Sexual selection, space, and speciation. Evolution 51: 1-9.
58. Perez-Mellado, V. & De la Riva, I. 1993. Sexual size dimorphism and ecology: the case of a tropical lizard, Tropidurus melanopleurus (Sauria: Tropiduridae). Copeia 1993: 969-976.
59. Price, T. 1997. Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 352: 519-529.
60. Price, T. 1998. Sexual selection and natural selection in bird speciation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353: 251-260.
61. Price, T. & Schluter, D. 1993. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 253: 117-122.
62. Purvis, A. 1996. Using interspecific phylogenies to test macroevolutionary hypotheses. In: New Uses for New Phylogenies (P. H. Harvey, A. J. Leigh Brown, J. Maynard Smith & S. Nee, eds), pp. 153-168. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
63. Purvis, A. & Rambaut, A. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 11: 247-251.
64. Purvis, A., Nee, S. & Harvey, P.H. 1995. Macroevolutionary inferences from primate phylogeny. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260: 329-333.
65. Purvis, A., Gittleman, J.L., Cowlishaw, G. & Mace, G.M. 2000. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 1947-1952.
66. Purvis, A., Katzourakis, A. & Agapow, P.-M. 2002. Evaluating phylogenetic tree shape: two modifications to Fusco and Cronk's method. J. Theor. Biol. 214: 99-103.
67. Ratcliffe, L.M. & Grant, P.R. 1983. Species recognition in Darwin's finches (Geospiza, Gould). II. Geogrpahic variation in mate preference. Anim. Behav. 31: 1154-1165.
68. Raup, D.M., Gould, S.J., Schopf, D.J. & Simberloff, D. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. J. Geol. 81: 525-542.
69. Ricklefs, R.E. & Renner, S.S. 1994. Species richness within families of flowering plants. Evolution 48: 1619-1636.
70. Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press, London.
71. Rosenzweig, M.L. 1997. Tempo and mode of speciation. Science 277: 1622-1623.
72. Saetre, G.P., Moum, T., Bures, S., Kral, M., Adamjan, M. & Moreno, J. 1997. A sexually selected character displacement in flycatchers reinforces premating isolation. Nature 387: 589-592.
73. Schluter, D. 1996. Ecological causes of adaptive radiation. Am. Natur. 148: S40-S64.
74. Seehausen, O. & van Alphen, J.M. 1999. Can sympatric speciation by disruptive sexual selection explain rapid evolution of cichlid diversity in Lake Victoria? Ecol. Lett. 2: 262-271.
75. Shine, R. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. Q. Rev. Biol. 64: 419-443.
76. Simpson, G.G. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.
77. Slowinski, J.B. & Guyer, C. 1989. Testing the stochasticity of patterns of organismal diversity: an improved null model. Am. Natur. 134: 907-921.
78. Smith, M.A. 1935. The Fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, Reptilia and Amphibia, Vol. II. Sauria. Taylor & Francis, London.
79. Stamps, J.A. 1983. Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism and territoriality. In: Lizard Ecology: Studies of a Model Organism (R. B. Huey, E. R. Pianka & T. W. Schoener, eds), pp. 169-204. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
80. Stanley, S.M. 1973. An explanation for Cope's rule. Evolution 27: 1-26.
81. Stanley, S.M. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. Freeman Press, San Francisco.
82. Storr, G. 1981. Three new Agamid lizards from Western Australia. Records West Aust. Mus. 8: 599-607.
83. Tokarz, R.R. 1995. Mate choice in lizards: a review. Herpetol. Monogr. 9: 17-40.
84. Turner, G.F. & Burrows, M.T. 1995. A model of sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 260: 287-292.
85. van Valen, L. 1973. Body size and numbers of plants and animals. Evolution 27: 27-35.
86. West-Eberhard, M.J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58: 155-183.
87. Williams, E.E. 1977. Species recognition, dewlap function and faunal size. Am. Zool. 17: 261-270.
88. Witten, G.J. 1984. Relationships of Tympanocryptis aurita Storr, 1981. Records West Aust. Museum 11: 399-401.