Relationship between size and shape in the sexually dimorphic beetle Prosopocoilus inclinatus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae)

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 81, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 219-233

  Tatsuta, Haruki ^a,d   Mizota, Koji ^b   Akimoto, Shin Ichi ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b MIYAGI UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Japan)

^c HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Japan)

Author keywords

Elliptic Fourier analysis; Exaggerated character; Morphometrics; Multivariate allometry; Phenotypic variability; Stag beetle

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BEETLE; MORPHOMETRY; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM;

COLEOPTERA; LUCANIDAE; PROSOPOCOILUS INCLINATUS; PSEUDOLUCANUS CAPREOLUS;

EID: 1242300199     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2003.00279.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Geometry and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bookstein FL, Strauss RE, Humphries JM, Chernoff BC, Elder RL, Smith GR. 1982. A comment upon the uses of Fourier methods in systematics. Systematic Zoology 31: 85-92.
3. Cannon CH, Manos PS. 2001. Combining and comparing morphometric shape descriptors with a molecular phylogeny: the case of fruit type evolution in Bornean Lithocarpus (Fagaceae). Systematic Biology 50: 860-880.
4. Choe JC, Crespi BJ. 1997. The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Eberhard WG. 1982. Beetle horn dimorphism: making the best of a bad lot. The American Naturalist. 119: 420-426.
6. Emlen DJ. 1994. Environmental control of horn length dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 256: 131-136.
7. Emlen DJ, Nijhout HF. 2000. The development and evolution of exaggerated morphologies in insects. Annual Review of Entomology 45: 661-708.
8. Ferson S, Rohlf FJ, Koehn RK. 1985. Measuring shape variation of two-dimensional outlines. Systematic Zoology 34: 59-68.
9. Fisher RA. 1958. The genetic theory of natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Inukai T. 1924. Statistical studies on the variation of stagbeetles. Transactions of Sapporo Natural History Society 6: 77-91.
11. Johnson MS, Black R. 2000. Associations with habitat versus geographic cohesiveness: size and shape of Bembicium vittatum Phillipi (Gastropoda: Littorinidae) in the Houtman Abrolhos Islands. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 71: 563-580.
12. Kuhl FP, Giardina GR. 1982. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 18: 236-258.
13. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism sexual selection and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292-305.
14. Mantel N. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27: 209-220.
15. McLellan T, Endler JA. 1998. The relative success of some methods for measuring and describing the shape of complex objects. Systematic Biology 47: 264-281.
16. Møller AP, Swaddle JP. 1997. Asymmetry, developmental stability, and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Monti L, Baylac M, Lalanne-Cassou B. 2001. Elliptic Fourier analysis of the form of genitalia in two Spodoptera species and their hybrids (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 72: 391-400.
18. Mosimann JE, James FC. 1979. New statistical methods for allometry with application to Florida red-winged blackbirds. Evolution 33: 444-459.
19. Rhen T. 2000. Sex-limited mutations and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 54: 37-43.
20. Rice WR. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223-225.
21. Rice WR. 1992. Sexually antagonistic genes: experimental evidence. Science 256: 1436-1439.
22. Rohlf FJ. 1990. Fitting curves to outlines. In: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL, eds. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop, the university of Michigan museum of zoology, 167-177.
23. Rohlf FJ. 1998. TpsDIG, Version 1.26. Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
24. Rohlf FJ. 2000. NTSYS-pc, Version 2.1. Numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system. New York: Exeter Software.
25. Rohlf FJ, Archie JW. 1984. A comparison of Fourier methods for the description of wing shape in mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Systematic Zoology 33: 302-317.
26. SAS Institute Inc. 1988. SAS/STAT user's guide, 6.03 ed. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.
27. Shiokawa T, Iwahashi O. 2000. Mating success of small sized males of Japanese stag beetle Prosopocoilus dissimilis okinawanus Nomura. Japanese Journal of Entomology (New Series) 3: 157-165 [In Japanese with English summary].
28. Simonoff JS. 1996. Smoothing methods in statistics. New York: Springer.
29. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry, 3rd edn. New York: Freeman.
30. SPSS Inc. 1998. SYSTAT 8.0 Statistics. Chicago: SPSS.
31. Tatsuta H, Akimoto S. 1998. Sexual differences in the pattern of spatial variation in the brachypterous grasshopper Podisma sapporensis (Orthoptera: Podisminae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 1450-1455.
32. Tatsuta H, Mizota K, Akimoto S. 2001. Allometric patterns of heads and genitalia in the stag beetle Lucanus maculifemoratus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 94: 462-466.
33. Walker JA, Bell MA. 2000. Net evolutionary trajectories of body shape evolution within a microgeographic radiation of threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Journal of Zoology, London 252: 293-302.
34. Wolfenbarger LL, Wilkinson GS. 2001. Sex-linked expression of a sexually selected trait in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Evolution 55: 103-110.
35. Wu C-I, Johnson NA, Palopoli MF. 1996. Haldane's rule and its legacy: why are there so many sterile males? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 281-284.