Female-biased sexual size dimorphism in tinamous: A comparative test fails to support Rensch's rule

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 519-527

  Tubaro, Pablo L ^a   Bertelli, Sara ^b  

^a MUSEO ARGENTINO DE CIENCIAS NATURALES BERNARDINO RIVADAVIA   (Argentina)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE TUCUMÁN   (Argentina)

Author keywords

Allometric relationship; Comparative method; Tinamidae

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; MORPHOMETRY; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM;

AVES; FALCONIFORMES; STRIGIFORMES; TINAMIDAE; TINAMIFORMES;

EID: 0344152312     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00252.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abouheif E, Fairbairn DJ. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch's rule. American Naturalist 149: 540-562.
2. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
3. Andersson M, Norberg A. 1981. Evolution of reversed sexual size dimorphism and role partitioning among predatory birds, with a size scaling of flight performance. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 15: 105-130.
4. Beebe W. 1925. The Variegated Tinamou Crypturus variegatus variegatus (Gmelin). Zoologica 6: 195-227.
5. Bertelli S, Giannini NO, Goloboff PA. 2002. A phylogeny of tinamous (Aves, Palaeognathiformes) based on integumentary characters. Systematic Biology 51: 1-21.
6. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
7. Davies SJJF. 2002. Ratites and tinamous. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Earhart CM, Johnson NK. 1970. Size dimorphism and food habits of North American owls. Condor 72: 251-264.
9. Fairbairn DJ. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 28: 659-687.
10. Fairbairn J, Shine R. 1993. Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in seabirds of the Southern Hemisphere. OIKOS 68: 139-145.
11. Felsenstein J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125: 1-15.
12. Figuerola J. 1999. A comparative study on the evolution of reversed size dimorphism in monogamous waders. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 67: 1-18.
13. Groth JG, Barrowclough GF. 1999. Basal divergences in birds and the phylogenetic utility of the nuclear RAG-1 gene. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 12: 115-123.
14. Handford P, Mares MA. 1985. The mating system of ratites and tinamous: an evolutionary perspective. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 25: 77-104.
15. Harvery PH, Pagel MD. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Harvey PH, Purvis A. 1991. Comparative methods for explaining adaptations. Nature 351: 619-624.
17. Jehl JR Jr, Murray BG Jr. 1986. The evolution of normal and reverse sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds and other birds. In: Johnston RF, ed. Current ornithology, Vol. 3. New York: Plenum, 1-86.
18. Jenni DA, Collier G. 1972. Polyandry in the American jacancas. Auk 89: 743-765.
19. Jönsson PE, Alerstam T. 1990. The adaptive significance of parental role division and sexual size dimorphism in breeding shorebirds. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 41: 301-314.
20. Lancaster DA. 1964a. Life history of the Boucard Tinamou in British Honduras. Part II: Breeding biology. Condor 66:253-276.
21. Lancaster DA. 1964b. Biology of the Brushland Tinamou, Nothoprocta cinerascens. American Museum Natural History Bulletin 127: 269-314.
22. Lovich JE, Gibbons JW. 1992. A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth, Development, and Aging 56: 269-281.
23. Martin TE, Badyaev AV. 1996. Sexual dichromatism in birds: importance of nest predation and nest location for females versus males. Evolution 50: 2454-2460.
24. Mueller H. 1990. The evolution of reversed sexual dimorphism in size in monogamous species of birds. Biological Review 65: 553-585.
25. Mueller H, Meyer K. 1985. The evolution of reversed sexual dimorphism in size: a comparative analysis of the Falconiformes of the western Paleartic. Current Ornithology 2: 65-101.
26. Olsen P, Olsen J. 1987. Sexual size dimorphism in raptors: intrasexual competition in the large sex for a scarce breeding resource, the smaller sex. Emu 87: 59-62.
27. Pagel MD. 1992. A method for the analysis of comparative data. Journal of Theoretical Biology 156: 431-442.
28. Payne RB. 1984. Sexual selection, lek and arena behavior, and sexual size dimorphism in birds. Ornithological Monographs 33: 1-52.
29. Purvis A, Rambaut A. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analyzing comparative data. Computer Applied Biosciences 11: 247-251.
30. Reiss MJ. 1989. The allometry of growth and reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Rensch B. 1950. Die abhangigkeit der relativen sexualdifferenz von der korpergroße. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 1: 58-69.
32. Rensch B. 1960. Evolution above the species level. New York: Columbia University Press.
33. Reynolds RT. 1972. Sexual dimorphism in Accipiter Hawks: a new hypothesis. Condor 74: 191-197.
34. Ross HA. 1979. Multiple clutches and shorebird egg and body weight. American Naturalist 113: 618-622.
35. Saether BE, Kålås JA, Löfaldli L, Andersen R. 1986. Sexual size dimorphism and reproductive ecology in relation to mating system in waders. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28: 273-284.
36. Selander RK. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68: 113-151.
37. Selander RK. 1972. Sexual selection and dimorphism in birds. In: Campbell B, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971. Chicago: Aldine, 180-230.
38. Seth-Smith D. 1930. The tinamous. Aviculture Magazine. 8: 323-326.
39. Sibley CG, Ahlquist J. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of birds. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
40. Skutch AF. 1963. Life history of the Little Tinamou. Condor 65: 224-231.
41. Snyder NFR, Wiley JW. 1976. Sexual dimorphism in hawks and owls of North America. Ornithological Monographs 20: 1-96.
42. Storer RW. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and food habits in three North American accipiters. Auk 83: 423-436.
43. Székely T, Reynolds JD, Figuerola J. 2000. Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural selection. Evolution 54: 1404-1413.
44. Temeles EJ, Pan IL, Brennan JL, Horwitt JN. 2000. Evidence for ecological causation of sexual dimorphism in a hummingbird. Science 289: 441-443.
45. Wallace AR. 1889. Darwinism. London: Macmillan.
46. Webster MS. 1992. Sexual dimorphism, mating system and body size in New World Blackbirds (Icterinae). Evolution 46: 1621-1641.
47. Wheeler P, Greenwood PJ. 1983. The evolution of reversed sexual dimorphism in birds of prey. OIKOS 40: 145-149.