The shape of contention: Adaptation, history, and contingency in ungulate mandibles

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1489-1503

  Raia, Pasquale ^a,b   Carotenuto, Francesco ^a   Meloro, Carlo ^c   Piras, Paolo ^b,d   Pushkina, Diana ^e,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

^b Center for Evolutionary Ecology   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

^d ROMA TRE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITÉ DE POITIERS   (France)

^f UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Feeding adaptation; Geometric morphometrics; Herbivore digestive strategy; Mandible; Ungulates

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; BONE; DIET; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; ECOMORPHOLOGY; GRAZING; HERBIVORE; HERITABILITY; MORPHOMETRY; PHYLOGENY; TOOTH; UNGULATE;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; HISTOLOGY; MAMMAL; MANDIBLE; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; MAMMALS; MANDIBLE; PHYLOGENY;

ARTIODACTYLA; UNGULATA;

EID: 77953753767     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00921.x     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Adams D C. Phylogenetic meta-analysis. Evolution 2008, 62:567-572.
2. Arnold S J. Investigating the origins of performance advantage: adaptation, exaptation and lineage effects. Phylogenetics and ecology 1994, 123-168. Eggleton PVane-Wright R. Pp, , eds, Academic Press, London
3. Arthur W. Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evol. Develop. 2001, 3:271-278.
4. Beldade P, Koops K, Brakefield P M. Developmental constraints versus flexibility in morphological evolution. Nature 2002, 416:844-847.
5. Blomberg S P, Garland T. Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. J. Evol. Biol. 2002, 15:899-909.
6. Blomberg S P, Garland T, Ives A R. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 2003, 57:717-745.
7. Bookstein F L. 'Size and shape': a comment on semantics. Syst. Zool. 1989, 38:173-180.
8. Bookstein F L. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Geometry and biology 1991, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
9. Borcard D, Legendre P. Environmental control and spatial structure in ecological communities: an example using oribatid mites Acari, Oribatei. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 1994, 1:37-61.
10. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 1992, 73:1045-1055.
11. Brakefield P M. Evo-devo and constraints on selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21:362-368.
12. Carbone C, Teacher A, Rowcliffe J M. The costs of carnivory. PLoS 2007, 5:E22.
13. Cardini A, Elton S. Sample size and sampling error in geometric morphometric studies of size and shape. Zoomorphology 2007, 126:121-134.
14. Cardini A, Tongiorgi P. Yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris) 'in the shape space' (Rodentia, Sciuridae): sexual dimorphism, growth and allometry of the mandible. Zoomorphology 2003, 126:121-134.
15. Clauss M. Higher masseter muscle mass in grazing than in browsing ruminants. Oecologia 2008, 157:377-385.
16. Clauss M, Hummel J. The digestive performance of mammalian herbivores: why big may not be that much better. Mammal. Rev. 2005, 35:174-187.
17. Clauss M, Frey R, Kiefer B, Lechner-Doll M, Loehlein W, Polster C, Rössner G E, Streich W J. The maximum attainable body size of herbivorous mammals: morphophysiological constraints on foregut, and adaptations of hindgut fermenters. Oecologia 2003, 136:14-27.
18. Cubo J, Ponton F, Laurin M, de Margerie E, Castanet J. Phylogenetic signal in bone microstructure of Sauropsids. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54:562-574.
19. Cubo J, Legendre P, de Ricqlès A, Montes L, de Margerie E, Castanet J, Desdevises Y. Phylogenetic, functional, and structural components of variation in bone growth rate of amniotes. Evol. Develop. 2008, 10:217-227.
20. Demment M W, Van Soest P J. A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am. Nat. 1985, 125:641-672.
21. Desdevises Y, Legendre P, Azouzi L, Morand S. Quantifying phylogenetically structured environmental variation. Evolution 2003, 57:2647-2652.
22. Diniz-Filho J A F, Bini L M. Macroecology, global change and the shadow of forgotten ancestors. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2008, 17:11-17.
23. Diniz-Filho J A F, de Sant'Ana C E R, Bini L M. An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 1998, 52:1247-1262.
24. Dryden I L, Mardia K V. Statistical shape analysis 1998, John Wiley and Sons, New York
25. Felsenstein J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 1985, 125:1-15.
26. Feranec R S. Ecological generalization during adaptive radiation: evidence from Neogene mammals. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2007, 9:555-577.
27. Finarelli J A, Flynn J J. Ancestral state reconstruction of body size in the Caniformia Carnivora, Mammalia: the effects of incorporating data from the fossil record. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:301-313.
28. Fortelius M, Solounias N. Functional characterization of ungulate molars using the abrasion-attrition wear gradient: a new method for reconstructing paleodiets. American Museum Novitates 2000, 3301:1-36.
29. Freckleton R P, Harvey P H, Pagel M. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 2002, 160:712-726.
30. Frontier S. Étude de la décroissance des valeurs propres dans une analyse en composantes principales: comparaison avec le modèle du bâton brisé. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1976, 25:67-75.
31. Garland T, Harvey P H, Ives A R. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 1992, 41:18-32.
32. Garland T, Bennett A F, Rezende E L. Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology. J. Exp. Biol. 2005, 208:3015-3035.
33. Gordon I J, Illius A W. Incisor arcade structure and diet selection in ruminants. Funct. Ecol. 1988, 2:15-22.
34. Gould S J. The structure of evolutionary theory 2002, Harvard Univ. Press, Harvard, MA
35. Gould S J, Vrba E S. Exaptation-a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 1982, 8:4-15.
36. Greaves W S. A relationship between premolar loss and jaw elongation in selenodont artiodactyls. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 1991, 101:121-129.
37. Greaves W S. A relationship between premolar loss and jaw elongation in selenodont artiodactyls. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2008, 101:121-129.
38. Hair J F, Anderson R E, Tatham R L, Black W C. Multivariate data analysis 1998, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
39. Hansen T F, Orzack S H. Assessing current adaptation and phylogenetic inertia as explanations of trait evolution: the need for controlled comparisons. Evolution 2005, 59:2063-2072.
40. Janis C M. The evolutionary strategy of the Equidae and the origin of rumen and cecal digestion. Evolution 1976, 30:757-774.
41. Janis C M. A climatic explanation for patterns of evolutionary diversity in ungulate mammals. Palaeontology 1989, 32:463-481.
42. Janis C M. Correlation of cranial and dental variables with dietary preferences in mammals: a comparison of macropodoids and ungulates. Mem. Qd Mus. 1990, 281:349-366.
43. Janis C M. Correlations between craniodental morphology and feeding behaviour in ungulates: reciprocal illumination between living and fossil taxa. Functional morphology in vertebrate paleontology 1995, 76-98. Thomason J J. Pp, , ed, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
44. Janis C M. An evolutionary history of browsing and grazing ungulates. The ecology of browsing and grazing 2008, 21-45. Gordon I JPrins H H T. Pp, , eds, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
45. Janis C M, Constable E. Can ungulate craniodental features determine digestive physiology?. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 1993, 13. 43A
46. Janis C M, Ehrhardt D. Correlation of relative muzzle width and relative incisor width with dietary preference in ungulates. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 1988, 92:267-284.
47. Janis C M, Fortelius M. On the means whereby mammals achieve increased functional durability of their dentitions, with especial reference to limiting factors. Biol. Rev. 1988, 63:197-230.
48. Jernvall J, Fortelius M. Common mammals drive the evolutionary increase of hypsodonty in the Neogene. Nature 2002, 417:538-540.
49. Jernvall J, Hunter J P, Fortelius M. Molar tooth diversity, disparity, and ecology in Cenozoic ungulate radiations. Science 1996, 274:1489-1492.
50. Josse S, Moreau T, Laurin M. Stratigraphic tools for Mesquite. 2006, http://mesquiteproject.org/packages/stratigraphicTools/, version 1.0. Available at
51. Lavin S R, Karasov W H, Ives A R, Middleton K M, Garland T. Morphometrics of the avian small intestine compared with that of nonflying mammals: a phylogenetic approach. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2008, 81:526-550.
52. Legendre P, Legendre L. Numerical ecology 1998, 2nd English edition, Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam
53. MacFadden B J. Cenozoic mammalian herbivores from the Americas: reconstructing ancient diets and terrestrial communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2000, 31:33-59.
54. MacFadden B J, Solounias N, Cerling T E. Ancient diets, ecology, and extinction of 5-million-year-old horses from Florida. Science 1999, 283:824-827.
55. Martins E P, Hansen T F. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 1997, 149:646-667. (Erratum, American Naturalist 153:448)
56. Martins E P, Diniz-Filho J A F, Housworth E A. Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 2002, 56:1-13.
57. Meloro C, Raia P, Piras P, Barbera C, O'Higgins P. The shape of the mandibular corpus in large fissiped carnivores: allometry, function and phylogeny. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2008, 154:832-845.
58. Mendoza M, Palmqvist P. Hypsodonty in ungulates: an adaptation for grass consumption or for foraging in open habitat?. J. Zool. 2007, 274:134-142.
59. Mendoza M, Janis C M, Palmqvist P. Characterizing complex craniodental patterns related to feeding behaviour in ungulates: a multivariate approach. J. Zool. Lond. 2002, 258:223-246.
60. Miles D B, Dunham A E. Historical perspectives in ecology and evolutionary biology: the use of phylogenetic comparative analyses. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1993, 24:587-619.
61. Monteiro L R. Multivariate regression models and geometric morphometrics: the search for causal factors in the analysis of shape. Syst. Biol. 1999, 48:192-199.
62. Mullin S K, Taylor P. The effects of parallax on geometric morphometric data. Computers Biol. Med. 2002, 32:455-464.
63. Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O'Hara R B. Vegan: community ecology package. 2008, http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html, Community Ecology Package. R package version 1.15-3. Available at
64. Orzack S H, Sober E. Adaptation, phylogenetic inertia, and the method of controlled comparisons. Adaptationism and optimality 2001, 45-63. Orzack S H, Sober E. Pp, , eds, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
65. Pérez-Barberia F J, Gordon I J. The functional relationship between feeding type and jaw and cranial morphology in ungulates. Oecologia 1999, 118:157-165.
66. Pérez-Barberia F J, Gordon I J. Relationships between oral morphology and feeding style in the Ungulata: a phylogenetically controlled evaluation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 2001, 268:1021-1030.
67. Popowics T E, Herring S W. Teeth, jaws and muscles in mammalian mastication. Feeding in domestic vertebrates from Structure to behaviour 2006, 61-83. Bels V, Pp, , ed, CABI, Cambridge, MA
68. Radinsky L. Patterns in the evolution of ungulate jaw shape. Am. Zool. 1985, 25:303-314.
69. Raia P. Morphological correlates of tough food consumption in carnivores. Ital. J. Zool. 2004, 71:45-50.
70. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2008, http://www.R-project.org, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, Available at
71. Revell L J, Harmon L J, Collar D C. Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. Syst. Biol. 2008, 57:591-601.
72. Rivals F, Schulz V, Kaiser T M. Climate-related dietary diversity of the ungulate faunas from the middle Pleistocene succession OIS 14-12. at the Caune de l'Arago France. Paleobiology 2008, 34:117-127.
73. Rohlf F J. Relative warp analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. Contributions to morphometrics 1993, 131-159. Marcus L FBello EGarcía-Valdecasas A. Pp, , eds, Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid
74. Rohlf F J. Shape distances, shape spaces and the comparison of morphometric methods. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000a, 6:217-220.
75. Rohlf F J. On the use of shape space to compare morphometrics methods. HYSTRIX, Ital. J. Mammal. 2000b, 11:9-26.
76. Rohlf F J. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution 2001, 55:2143-2160.
77. Rohlf F J. tpsSmall v. 1.20. Stony Brook 2003, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State Univ. of New York, NY
78. Rohlf F J. tpsDig 2.10. Stony Brook 2006a, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State Univ. of New York, NY
79. Rohlf F J. tpsRelw v. 1.44. Stony Brook 2006b, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State Univ. of NewYork, NY
80. Rohlf F J. A comment on phylogenetic correction. Evolution 2006c, 60:1509-1515.
81. Rohlf F J. NTSYSpc v. 2.20k 2006d, Exeter Software, New York
82. Rohlf F J. 2007, tpsRegr v. 1.34. Stony Brook. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State Univ. of New York, NY
83. Rohlf F J, Slice D E. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool. 1990, 39:40-59.
84. Schubert B W, Ungarb P S, Sponheimerc M, Reed K E. Microwear evidence for Plio-Pleistocene bovid diets from Makapansgat Limeworks Cave, South Africa. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimat. Palaeoecol. 2006, 241:301-319.
85. Schwenk K. A utilitarian approach to evolutionary constraint. Zool. Anal. Complex Sys. 1995, 98:251-262.
86. Seilacher A. Arbeitskonzept zur Konstruktionsmorphologie. Lethaia 1970, 3:393-396.
87. Sheets D. IMP Integrated Morphometrics Package. 2006, http://www3.canisius.edu/~sheets/morphsoft.html, Available at
88. Solounias N, Dawson-Saunders B. Dietary adaptations and paleoecology of the Late Miocene ruminants from Pikermi and Samos in Greece = Paléoécologie et adaptation du régime alimentaire des ruminants du Miocène supérieur de Pikermi et de Samos, Grèce. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimat. Palaeoecol. 1988, 65:149-172.
89. Solounias N, Moelleken S M C. Dietary adaptation of some extinct ruminants determined by premaxilary shape. J. Mammal. 1993, 74:1059-1071.
90. Solounias N, Semprebon G. Advances in the reconstruction of ungulate ecomorphology with application to early fossil equids. Am. Mus. Novit. 2002, 3366:1-49.
91. Solounias N, Fortelius M, Freeman P. Molar wear rates in ruminants: a new approach. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 1994, 31:219-227.
92. Solounias N, Moelleken S M C, Plavcan J M. Predicting the diet of extinct bovids using masseteric morphology. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 1995, 15:795-805.
93. Solounias N, Teaford M, Walker A. Interpreting the diet of extinct ruminants: the case of a non-browsing giraffid. Paleobiology 1988, 14:287-300.
94. Smith F A, Lyons S K, Ernest S K M, Jones K E, Kaufman D M, Dayan T, Marquet P A, Brown J H, Haskell J P. Body mass of late Quaternary mammals. Ecology 2003, 84:3403.
95. Spencer L M. Dietary adaptations of Plio-Pleistocene Bovidae: implications for hominid habitat use. J. Hum. Evol. 1997, 32:201-228.
96. Stirton R A. Observations on evolutionary rates in hypsodonty. Evolution 1947, 1:34-41.
97. Strömberg C A E. The evolution of hypsodonty in equids: testing a hypothesis of adaptation. Paleobiology 2006, 32(2):236-258.
98. Van Valen L. A functional index of hypsodonty. Evolution 1960, 14:531-532.
99. Walker A, Hoeck H N, Perez L. Microwear of mammalian teeth as an indicator of diet. Science 1978, 201:908-910.
100. Westoby M, Leishmann M R, Lord J M. On misinterpreting the 'phylogenetic correction'. J. Ecol. 1995, 83:531-534.
101. Williams S H, Kay R F. A comparative test for adaptive explanations for hypsodonty in ungulates and rodents. J. Mammal. Evol. 2001, 8:207-229.
102. Zelditch M L, Swiderski D L, Sheets H D, Fink W L. Geometric morphometrics for biologists. A primer 2004, Elsevier, Amsterdam