Sexual size and shape dimorphism in an agamid lizard, Japalura swinhonis (Squamata: Lacertilia: Agamidae)

Zoological Studies

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 351-361

  Kuo, Chi Yun ^a,b   Lin, Yu Teh ^a   Lin, Yao Sung ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTER   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Allometry; Intersexual resource partitioning; Life history adaptation; Morphometrics; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

AGAMIDAE; ANIMALIA; CITRUS MAXIMA; JAPALURA; LACERTILIA; SQUAMATA;

EID: 72549087524     PISSN: 10215506     EISSN: 1810522X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ : Princeton Univ. Press.
2. Beuttel K, JB Losos. 1999. Ecological morphology of Caribbean anoles. Herpetol. Monogr. 13: 1-28.
3. Bjorndal KA, AB Bolten, CJ Lagueux, DR Jackson. 1997. Dietary overlap in three sympatric congeneric freshwater turtles (Pseudemys) in Florida. Chelon. Conserv. Biol. 2: 430-433.
4. Bookstein FL. 1989. Size and shape: a comment on semantics. Syst. Zool. 38: 173-180.
5. Bull CM, Y Pamula. 1996. Sexually dimorphic head sizes and reproductive success in the sleepy lizard Tiliqua rugosa. J. Zool. 240: 511-521.
6. Butler MA, JB Losos. 2002. Multivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecol. Monogr. 72: 541-559.
7. Butler MA, TW Schoener, JB Losos. 2000. The relationship between sexual size dimorphism and habitat use in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Evolution 54: 259-272.
8. Censky EJ. 1997. Female mate choice in the non-territorial lizard Ameiva plei (Teiidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40: 221-225.
9. Cooper WEJ, LJ Vitt. 1989. Sexual dimorphism of head and body size in an iguanid lizard: paradoxical results. Am. Nat. 133: 729-735.
10. Cooper WEJ, LJ Vitt. 1993. Female mate choice of large male broad-headed skinks. Anim. Behav. 45: 683-693.
11. Cox RM, SL Skelly, HB John-Alder. 2003. A comparative study of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution 57: 1653-1669.
12. Duvall D, SJ Beaupre. 1998. Sexual strategy and size dimorphism in rattlesnakes: integrating proximate and ultimate causation. Am. Zool. 38: 152-165.
13. Goodall DW. 1973. Sample similarity and species correlation. In RH Whittaker, ed. Ordination and classification of communities. The Hague: Junk, pp. 106-156.
14. Goodman BA, AK Krockenberger, L Schwarzkopf. 2007. Master of them all: performance specialization does not result in trade-offs in tropical lizards. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9: 527-546.
15. Gould SJ. 1975. Allometry in primates, with an emphasis on scaling and evolution of the brain. Contrib. Primatol. 5: 244-292.
16. Günther A. 1864. The reptiles of British India. London: Ray Society.
17. Herrel A, R Van Damme, F De Vree. 1996. Testing the niche divergence hypothesis by bite force analysis. Neth. J. Zool. 46: 253-262.
18. Hofmann S, K Henle. 2006. Male reproductive success and intrasexual selection in the common lizard determined by DNA-microsatellite. J. Herpetol. 40: 1-6.
19. Hurlbert SH. 1978. The measurement of niche overlap and some relatives. Ecology 59: 67-77.
20. Irschick DJ, JB Losos. 1998. A comparative analysis of the ecological significance of maximal locomotor performance in Caribbean Anolis lizards. Evolution 52: 219-226.
21. Irschick DJ, B Vanhooydonck, A Herrel, J Meyers. 2005. Intraspecific correlations among morphology, performance and habitat use within a green anole lizard (Anolis carolinensis) populations. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 85: 211-221.
22. John-Alder HB, RM Cox, EN Taylor. 2007. Proximate developmental mediators of sexual dimorphism in size: case studies from squamate reptiles. Integr. Comp. Biol. 47: 258-271.
23. Johnson JB, LD McBrayer, D Saenz. 2005. Allometry, sexual size dimorphism, and niche partitioning in the Mediterranean gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus). SW Nat. 50: 435-439.
24. Katsikaros K, R Shine. 1997. Sexual dimorphism in the tusked frog, Adelotus brevis (Anura: Myobatrachidae): the roles of natural and sexual selection. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 60: 39-51.
25. Kuo CY, YS Lin, YK Lin. 2007. Resource use and morphology of two sympatric Japalura lizards (Iguania: Agamidae). J. Herpetol. 41: 713-723.
26. Lin JY. 1979. Ovarian, fat body and liver cycles in the lizards, Japalura swinhonis formosensis (Lacertilia: Agamidae). J. Asian Ecol. 1: 29-38.
27. Lin JY, KH Lu. 1982. Population ecology of the lizard Japalura swinhonis formosensis (Sauria: Agamidae) in Taiwan. Copeia 1982: 425-434.
28. Lindeman PV. 2000. Evolution of the relative width of the head and alveolar surfaces in map turtles (Testudines: Emydidae: Graptemys). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 69: 549-576.
29. Losos JB. 1990. Ecomorphology, performance capability, and scaling of west Indian Anolis lizards: an evolutionary analysis. Ecol. Monogr. 60: 369-388.
30. Malhotra A, RS Thorpe. 1997. Size and shape variation in the Lesser Antillean anole, Anolis oculatus (Sauria: Iguanidae) in relation to habitat. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 60: 53-72.
31. Monnet JM, MI Cherry. 2002. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 269: 2301-2307.
32. Mosimann J. 1970. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. J. Am. Statistical Assoc. 65: 930-945.
33. Olsson M, R Shine, E Wapstra, B Ujvari, T Madsen. 2002. Sexual dimorphism in lizard body shape: the role of sexual selection and fecundity selection. Evolution 56: 1538-1542.
34. Preest MR. 1994. Sexual size dimorphism and feeding energetics in Anolis carolinensis: Why do females take smaller prey than males? J. Herpetol. 28: 292-298.
35. Schoener TW. 1969. Models of optimal size for solitary predators. Am. Nat. 103: 277-313.
36. Schulte JA, JB Losos, FB Cruz, H Náñez. 2004. The relationship between morphology, escape behaviour and microhabitat occupation in the lizard clade Liolaemus (Iguanidae: Tropidurinae*: Liolaemini). J. Evol. Biol. 17: 408-420.
37. Schwarzkopf L. 2005. Sexual dimorphism in body shape without sexual dimorphism in body size in water skinks (Eulamprus quoyii). Herpetologica 61: 116-123.
38. Shan G. 2001. Natural portraits of lizards in Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Big Tree Culture Enterprise. (in Chinese)
39. Shine R. 1992. Relative clutch mass and body shape in lizards and snakes: is reproductive investment constrained or optimized? Evolution 46: 828-833
40. Stamps JA. 1993. Sexual size dimorphism in species with asymptotic growth after maturity. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 50: 123-145.
41. Tague RG. 2005. Big-bodied males help us recognize that females have big pelvis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 127: 392-405.
42. Thompson GG, PC Withers. 2005. Size-free shape differences between male and female Western Australian dragon lizards (Agamidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 26: 55-63.
43. Verwaijen D, R Van Damme, A Herrel. 2002. Relationships between head size, bite force, prey handling efficiency and diet in two sympatric lacertid lizards. Funct. Ecol. 16: 842-850.
44. Vitt LJ. 1983. Reproduction and sexual dimorphism in the tropical Teiid lizard Cnemiphorus ocellifer. Copeia 1983: 359-366.
45. Vitt LJ, JD Congdon. 1978. Body shape, reproductive effort, and relative clutch mass in lizards: resolution of a paradox. Am. Nat. 112: 595-608.
46. Watkins GG. 1996. Proximate causes of sexual size dimorphism in the Iguanian lizard Microlophus occipitalis. Ecology 77: 1473-1482.
47. Wei SY, JY Lin. 1981. Behavioural study of Japalura swinhonis formosensis (Sauria: Agamidae). Tunghai J. Biol. 22: 33-48. (in Chinese)
48. Znari M, EE Mouden. 1997. Seasonal changes in the diet of adult and juvenile Agama impalearis (Lacertilia: Agamidae) in the central Jbilet Mountains, Morocco. J. Arid Environ. 37: 403-412.