Bite-force performance and head shape in a sexually dimorphic crevice-dwelling lizard, the common chuckwalla [Sauromalus ater (= obesus)]

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 88, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 215-222

  Lappin, A Kristopher ^a   Hamilton, Paul S ^b   Sullivan, Brian K ^c  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY WEST   (United States)

Author keywords

Antagonistic selection; Bite force; Crevice dwelling; Sexual dimorphism

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; COPULATION; FLIGHT; LIZARD; PREDATOR; ROCK; SEXUAL SELECTION;

IGUANIDAE; SAUROMALUS ATER; SQUAMATA;

EID: 33744492330     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2006.00615.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey : Princeton University Press.
2. Carothers JH. 1984. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in some herbivorous lizards. American Naturalist 124 : 244 254.
3. Deban SM O'Reilly JC Theimer T. 1994. Mechanism of defensive inflation in the chuckwalla, Sauromalus obesus. Journal of Experimental Zoology 270 : 451 459.
4. Endler JA. 1983. Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 9 : 173 190.
5. Endler JA. 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist 139 : 125 153.
6. Grether GF Grey RM. 1996. Novel cost of a sexually selected trait in the rubyspot damselfly Hetaerina americana: conspicuousness to prey. Behavioral Ecology 4 : 465 473.
7. Gvozdik L Van Damme R. 2003. Evolutionary maintenance of sexual dimorphism in head size in the lizard Zootoca vivipara: a test of two hypotheses. Journal of Zoology 259 : 7 13.
8. Herrel A Aerts P De Vree F. 1998. Ecomorphology of the lizard feeding apparatus: a modelling approach. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 48 : 1 25.
9. Herrel A De Grauw E Lemos-Espinal JA. 2001a. Head shape and bite performance in xenosaurid lizards. Journal of Experimental Zoology 290 : 101 107.
10. Herrel A De Vree F. 1999. Kinematics of intraoral transport and swallowing in the herbivorous lizard Uromastix acanthinurus. Journal of Experimental Biology 202 : 1127 1137.
11. Herrel A O'Reilly JC Richmond AM. 2002. Evolution of bite performance in turtles. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 : 1083 1094.
12. Herrel A Spithoven L Van Damme R De Vree F. 1999. Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galloti: testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses. Functional Ecology 13 : 289 297.
13. Herrel A Van Damme R Vanhooydonck B De Vree F. 2001b. The implications of bite performance for diet in two species of lacertid lizards. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79 : 662 670.
14. Hews DK. 1990. Examining hypotheses generated by field measures of sexual selection on male lizards, Uta palmeri. Evolution 44 : 1956 1966.
15. Hollingsworth BD. 1998. The systematics of chuckwallas (Sauromalus) with a phylogenetic analysis of other iguanid lizards. Herpetological Monographs 12 : 38 191.
16. Kwiatkowski MA. 2001. Natural and sexual selection on color variation in the chuckwalla, Sauromalus obesus. PhD Thesis, Arizona State University.
17. Kwiatkowski MA Sullivan BK. 2002a. Mating system structure and population density in a polygynous lizard, Sauromalus obesus (= ater). Behavioral Ecology 13 : 201 208.
18. Kwiatkowski MA Sullivan BK. 2002b. Geographic variation in sexual selection among populations of an iguanid lizard, Sauromalus obesus (= ater). Evolution 56 : 2039 2051.
19. Lappin AK. 1999. Evolutionary ecomorphology of the feeding biology of crotaphytid lizards. PhD Thesis, University of California.
20. Lappin AK Husak JF. 2005. Weapon performance, not size, determines mating success and potential reproductive output in the collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris). American Naturalist 166 : 426 436.
21. LeBas N. 2001. Microsatellite determination of male reproductive success in a natural population of the territorial ornate dragon lizard, Ctenophorus ornatus. Molecular Ecology 10 : 193 203.
22. Macedonia JM Brandt Y Clark DL. 2002. Sexual dichromatism and differential conspicuousness of the common collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) from Utah and New Mexico, USA. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 77 : 67 85.
23. Macedonia JM Husak JF Brandt YM Lappin AK Baird TA. 2004. Sexual dichromatism and color conspicuousness in three populations of collared lizards (Crotaphytus collaris) from Oklahoma. Journal of Herpetology 38 : 340 354.
24. Molina-Borja M Padron-Fumero M Alfonso-Martin T. 1998. Morphological and behavioural traits affecting the intensity and outcome of male contests in Gallotia galloti galloti (family Lacertidae). Ethology 104 : 314 322.
25. Nagy KA. 1973. Behavior, diet, and repoduction in a desert lizard, Sauromalus obesus. Copeia 1973 : 19 102.
26. Perry G LeVering K Girard I Garland T Jr.. 2004. Locomotor performance and social dominance in male Anolis cristatellus. Animal Behaviour 67 : 37 47.
27. Petren K Case TJ. 1997. A phylogenetic analysis of body size evolution and biogeography in chuckwallas (Sauromalus) and other iguanines. Evolution 51 : 206 219.
28. Pryke SR Andersson S Lawes MJ. 2001. Sexual selection of multiple handicaps in the red-collared widowbird: female choice of tail length but not carotenoid display. Evolution 55 : 1452 1463.
29. Rodda GH. 1992. The mating behavior of Iguana iguana. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 534 : 1 40.
30. Shine R Shetty S. 2001. The influence of natural selection and sexual selection on the tails of sea-snakes (Laticauda colubrina). Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 74 : 121 129.
31. Tracy CR. 1999. Differences in body size among chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus) populations. Ecology 80 : 259 271.
32. Vitt LJ Cooper WE Jr.. 1985. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in the skink Eumeces laticeps: an example of sexual selection. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63 : 995 1002.
33. Wikelski M Trillmich F. 1997. Body size and sexual size dimorphism in marine iguanas fluctuate as a result of opposing natural and sexual selection: an island comparison. Evolution 51 : 922 936.