Head shape allometry and proximate causes of head sexual dimorphism in Podarcis lizards: Joining linear and geometric morphometrics

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 93, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 111-124

  Kaliontzopoulou, Antigoni ^a,b   Carretero, Miguel A ^b   Llorente, Gustavo A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b CENTRO DE INVESTIGAÇÃO EM BIODIVERSIDADE E RECURSOS GENÉTICOS   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Development; Iberian Peninsula; Lacertidae; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BODY SIZE; LIZARD; MORPHOMETRY; ONTOGENY; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

EURASIA; EUROPE; IBERIAN PENINSULA; SOUTHERN EUROPE;

LACERTIDAE; PODARCIS; PODARCIS BOCAGEI; PODARCIS CARBONELLI; SQUAMATA;

EID: 37249025761     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00921.x     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Adams DC. 2004. Character displacement via aggressive interference in Appalachian salamanders. Ecology 85: 2664 2670.
2. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ. 2000. Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 4106 4111.
3. Anderson RA, Vitt LJ. 1990. Sexual selection versus alternative causes of sexual dimorphism in teiid lizards. Oecologia 84: 145 157.
4. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Andrews RM, Stamps JA. 1994. Temporal variation in sexual size dimorphism of Anolis limifrons in Panama. Copeia 1994: 613 622.
6. Arnold EN. 1998a. Structural niche, limb morphology and locomotion in lacertid lizards (Squamata, Lacertidae): a preliminary survey. Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History (Zoology) 64: 63 89.
7. Arnold EN. 1998b. Cranial kinesis in lizards, variations, uses and origins. Evolutionary Biology 30: 323 357.
8. Baird TA, Vitt LJ, Baird TD, Cooper WE Jr, Caldwell JP, Pérez-Mellado V. 2003. Social behavior and sexual dimorphism in the Bonaire whiptail, Cnemidophorus marinus (Squamata: Teiidae): the role of sexual selection. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 1781 1790.
9. Barahona F, Barbadillo LJ. 1998. Inter- and intraspecific variation in the post-natal skull of some lacertid lizards. Journal of Zoology 245: 393 405.
10. Barbadillo LJ, Bawens D. 1997. Sexual dimorphism of tail length in lacertid lizards: test of a morphological constraint hypothesis. Journal of Zoology 242: 473 482.
11. Barreto-Caldas F, Honrado J, Paiva AP. 1999. Vegetação da área de paisagem Protegida do Litoral de Esposende (Portugal). Quercetea 1: 39 59.
12. Bellairs Ad'A, Kamal AM. 1981. The chondrocranium and the development of the skull in recent reptiles. In: Gans C, Parsons TS, eds. Biology of the reptilia, Vol. 11: morphology F. London: Academic Press, 1 263.
13. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 57: 289 300.
14. Bohonak AJ. 2002. Software for reduced major axis regression, Version 1.2. San Diego, CA: State University.
15. Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16. Braña F. 1996. Sexual dimorphism in lacertid lizards: male head increase vs female abdomen increase? Oikos 75: 511 523.
17. Brown JH, West GB, Enquist BJ. 2000. Scaling in biology: patterns and processes, causes and consequences. In: Brown JH, West GB, eds. Scaling in biology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1 24.
18. Bruner E, Constantini D, Fanfani A, Dell'Omo G. 2005. Morphological variation and sexual dimorphism of the cephalic scales in Lacerta billineata. Acta Zoologica 86: 245 254.
19. Bull CM, Pamula Y. 1996. Sexually dimorphic head sizes and reproductive success in the sleepy lizard Tiliqua rugosa. Journal of Zoology 240: 511 521.
20. Butler M, Losos J. 2002. Multivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecological Monographs 72: 541 559.
21. Carpenter GC. 1995. Modelling dominance: the influence of size, colouration, and experience on dominance relations in tree lizards (Urosaurus ornatus). Herpetological Monographs 99: 88 101.
22. Carretero MA, Llorente GA. 1993. Morfometría en una comunidad de lacértidos mediterráneos, y su relación con la ecología. Historia Animalium 2: 77 99.
23. Carretero MA, Ribeiro R, Barbosa D, Sá-Sousa P, Harris DJ. 2006. Spermatogenesis in two Iberian Podarcis lizards: Relationships with male traits. Animal Biology 56: 1 12.
24. Carretero MA, Sá-Sousa P, Barbosa D, Harris DJ, Pinho C. 2002. Sintopía estricta entre Podarcis bocagei y Podarcis carbonelli. Boletin de la Asociación Herpetológica Española 13: 20 24.
25. Clarke MRB. 1980. The reduced major axis of a bivariate sample. Biometrika 67: 441 446.
26. Cooper WE Jr, Vitt LJ. 1989. Sexual dimorphism of head and body size in an iguanid lizard: paradoxical results. American Naturalist 133: 729 735.
27. Corti M, Rohlf FJ. 2001. Chromosomal speciation and phenotypic evolution in the house mouse. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 73: 99 112.
28. Cox RM, Skelly SL, John-Alder HB. 2005. A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution 57: 1653 1669.
29. Curran-Everett D. 2000. Multiple comparisons: philosophies and illustrations. American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 279: R1 R8.
30. Darwin C. 1874. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. New York, NY: Humboldt.
31. Diaz JA. 1993. Breeding coloration, mating opportunities, activity, and survival in the lacertid lizard Psammodromus algirus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 1104 1110.
32. Direcção Geral do Ambiente. 1995. Atlas do Ambiente. Lisboa: Direcção Geral do Ambiente.
33. Dryden IL, Mardia KV. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
34. 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.
35. Fitch HS. 1981. Sexual size differences in reptiles. Miscellaneous Publications of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, no. 70. Lawerence KS, University of Kansas Museum of Natural History.
36. Gvoždík L, Van Damme R. 2003. Evolutionary maintainance of sexual dimorphism in head size in the lizard Zootoca vivipara: a test of two hypotheses. Journal of Zoology 259: 7 13.
37. Haas G. 1973. Muscles of the jaws and associated structures in the Rhynchocephalia and Squamata. In: Gans C, Parsons TS, eds. Biology of the reptilia, Vol. 4: morphology D. New York, NY: Academic Press, 285 490.
38. Haenel GJ, John-Alder HB. 2002. Experimental and demographic analyses of growth rate and sexual size dimorphism in a lizard, Sceloporus undulatus. Oikos 96: 70 81.
39. Harris DJ, Sá-Sousa P. 2001. Species distinction and relationships of the Western Iberian Podarcis lizards (Reptilia, Lacertidae) based on morphology and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Herpetological Journal 11: 129 136.
40. Harris DJ, Sá-Sousa P. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Iberian Wall Lizards (Podarcis): is Podarcis hispanica a species complex? Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 23: 75 81.
41. Herrel A, Aerts P, Fret J, De Vree F. 1999a. Morphology of the feeding system in agamid lizards: ecological correlates. Anatomical Record 254: 496 507.
42. Herrel A, de Grauw E, Lemos-Espinal JA. 2001a. Head shape and bite performance in xenosaurid lizards. Journal of Experimental Zoology 290: 101 107.
43. Herrel A, Spithoven L, Van Damme R, De Vree F. 1999b. Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galloti: testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses. Functional Ecology 13: 289 287.
44. Herrel A, Van Damme R, De Vree F. 1996. Sexual dimorphism of head size in Podarcis hispanica atrata: testing the dietary divergence hypothesis by bite force analysis. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 46: 253 262.
45. 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.
46. Heulin B. 1988. Observations sur l'organisation de la reproduction et sur les comportements sexuels et agonistiques chez Lacerta vivipara. Vie Milieu 38: 177 187.
47. Hews DK. 1990. Examining hypotheses generated by field measures of sexual selection on male lizards, Uta palmeri. Evolution 44: 1956 1966.
48. Hews DK. 1996. Size and scaling of sexually-selected traits in the lizard, Uta palmeri. Journal of Zoology 238: 743 757.
49. Husack JF, Lappin AK, Fox SF, Lemos-Espinal JA. 2006. Bite-force performance predicts dominance in male venerable collared lizards (Crotaphytus antiquus). Copeia 2006: 301 306.
50. Kaliontzopoulou A. 2004. Efecto de la simpatría en la morfología de dos especies del género Podarcis en Portugal. DEA Thesis, University of Barcelona.
51. Kaliontzopoulou A, Carretero MA, Llorente GA. 2005. Differences in the pholidotic patterns of Podarcis bocagei and P. carbonelli and implications for species determination. Revista Española de Herpetología 19: 71 86.
52. Kaliontzopoulou A, Carretero MA, Llorente GA. 2007. Multivariate and geometric morphometrics in the analysis of sexual dimorphism variation in Podarcis lizards. Journal of Morphology 268: 152 165.
53. Klingenberg CP. 1998. Heterochrony and allometry: the analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biological Reviews 73: 79 123.
54. Kratochvil L, Fokt M, Rehak I, Frynta D. 2003. Misinterpretation of character scaling: a tale of sexual dimorphism in body shape of common lizards. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 1112 1117.
55. Kratochvil L, Frynta D. 2002. Body size, male combat and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in eublepharid geckos (Squamata: Eublepharidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 76: 303 314.
56. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292 305.
57. López P, Martín J. 2001. Fighting rules and rival recognition reduce costs of aggression in male lizards, Podarcis hispanica. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49: 111 116.
58. McArdle BH. 1988. The structural relationship: regression in biology. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66: 2329 2339.
59. Molina-Borja M. 1981. Etograma del lagarto de Tenerife, Gallotia galloti galloti (Sauria - Lacertidae). Doñana Acta Vertebrata 8: 43 78.
60. Molina-Borja M. 1987. Additions to the ethogram of the lizard Gallotia galloti from Tenerife, Canary Islands. Vieraea 17: 171 178.
61. Monteiro LR, Abe AS. 1997. Allometry and morphological integration of the skull of Tupinambis merianae (Lacertilia: Teiidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 18: 397 405.
62. Mosimann JE. 1970. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 65: 930 945.
63. Olsson M, Shine R, Wapstra E, Ujvari B, Madsen T. 2002. Sexual dimorphism in lizard body shape: the roles of sexual selection and fecundity selection. Evolution 56: 1538 1542.
64. Pérez-Mellado V. 1981. La lagartija de Bocage, Podarcis bocagei (SEOANE, 1884): primeros datos sobre su distribución, colorido y ecología. Amphibia-Reptilia 3-4: 253 268.
65. Pérez-Mellado V. 1997a. Podarcis bocagei (Seoane, 1884). In: Salvador A, ed. Fauna Ibérica, Vol. 10: reptiles. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, 243 257.
66. Pérez-Mellado V. 1997b. Género Podarcis (Wagler, 1830). In: Salvador A, ed. Fauna Ibérica, Vol. 10: reptiles. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, 242 306.
67. Pinho C, Ferrand N, Harris DJ. 2004. Genetic variation within the Podarcis hispanica species complex - new evidence from protein electrophoretic data. In: Pérez-Mellado V, Riera V, Perera A, eds. The biology of lacertid lizards. Evolutionary and ecological perspectives. Menorca: Institut Menorquí d'Estudis, Recerca, 269 277.
68. Pinho C, Ferrand N, Harris DJ. 2006. Reexamination of the Iberian and North African Podarcis (Squamata: Lacertidae) phylogeny based on increased mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 38: 266 273.
69. Preest MR. 1994. Sexual size dimorphism and feeding energetics in Anolis carolinensis: why do females take smaller prey than males? Journal of Herpetology 28: 292 298.
70. Rice WR, Chippindale AK. 2001. Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14: 685 693.
71. Rohlf FJ. 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. Journal of Classification 16: 197 223.
72. Rohlf FJ. 2003. tpsSmall, Version 1.20. Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York.
73. Rohlf FJ. 2004. tpsRegr, Version 1.29. Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York.
74. Rohlf FJ. 2005a. tpsDig, digitize landmarks and outlines, Version 2.04. Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York.
75. Rohlf FJ. 2005b. tpsRelw, relative warps analysis, Version 1.42. Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York.
76. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39: 40 59.
77. Rutherford P. 2004. Proximate mechanisms that contribute to female-biased sexual size dimorphism in an anguid lizard. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 817 822.
78. Saenz D, Conner RN. 1996. Sexual dimorphism in head size of the mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turcicus (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Texas Journal of Science 48: 207 212.
79. Sá-Sousa P. 2001a. A controversa sistemática das lagartixas do género Podarcis Wagler, 1830 (Sauria, Lacertidae) em Portugal. PhD Thesis, University of Lisbon.
80. Sá-Sousa P. 2001b. Comparative chorology between Podarcis bocagei and P. carbonellae (Sauria: Lacertidae) in Portugal. Revista Española de Herpetología 15: 85 97.
81. Sá-Sousa P, Almeida AP, Rosa H, Vicente L, Crespo EG. 2000. Genetic and morphological relationships of the Berlenga wall lizard (Podarcis bocagei berlengensis: Lacertidae). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 38: 95 102.
82. Sá-Sousa P, Harris DJ. 2002. Podarcis carbonelli Perez-Mellado, 1981 is a distinct species. Amphibia-Reptilia 23: 459 468.
83. Schoener TW. 1967. The ecological significance of sexual dimorphism in size in the lizard Anolis conspersus. Science 155: 474 477.
84. Schoener TW. 1977. Competition and the niche. In: Gans C, Tinkle DW, eds. Biology of the reptilia, Vol. 7: ecology and behaviour A. New York, NY: Academic Press, 35 136.
85. Schwarzkopf L. 2005. Sexual dimorphism in body shape without sexual dimorphism in body size in water skinks (Eulamprus quoyii). Herpetologica 61: 116 123.
86. Shea BT. 1992. Developmental perspective on size change and allometry in evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 1: 125 134.
87. Shine R. 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Quarterly Review of Biology 64: 419 461.
88. Shine R. 1990. Proximate determinants of sexual differences in adult body size. American Naturalist 135: 278 283.
89. Slatkin M. 1984. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 622 630.
90. Slice DE. 1999. Morpheus et al. Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York.
91. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. New York, NY: WH Freeman.
92. Sprent P. 1972. The mathematics of size and shape. Biometrics 28: 23 37.
93. Stamps J. 1983. Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism and territoriality. In: Huey RB, Pianka ER, Schoener TW, eds. Lizard ecology: studies of a model organism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 169 204.
94. Stamps J. 1993. Sexual size dimorphism in species with asymptotic growth after maturity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 50: 123 145.
95. Stayton CT. 2005. Morphological evolution of the lizard skull: a geometric morphometrics survey. Journal of Morphology 263: 47 59.
96. Thompson D'AW. 1917. On growth and form. London: Macmillan.
97. Thompson GG, Withers PC. 2005. Size-free differences between male and female Western Australian dragon lizards (Agamidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 26: 55 63.
98. Verbeek B. 1972. Ethologische Untersuchungen an einigen europaischen Eidechsen. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 23: 122 151.
99. Vidal M, Ortiz JC, Ramirez CC, Lamborot M. 2005. Intraspecific variation in morphology and sexual dimorphism in Liolaemus tenuis (Tropiduridae). Amphibia-Reptilia 26: 343 351.
100. 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.
101. Watkins GG. 1996. Proximate causes of sexual size dimorphism in the iguanian lizard Microlophus occipitalis. Ecology 77: 1473 1482.
102. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.