Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
(27 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The majority of insect allometric studies have identified exaggerated morphologies in males (review by Emlen & Nijhout, 2000;Bernstein & Bernstein, 2002;Emlen, Hunt & Simmons, 2005;Tomkins, Katiaho & LeBas, 2005;Mattos, Mermudes & Moura, 2014). Examples of positive static allometry in females are not common in the literature (but see Kelly, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of insect allometric studies have identified exaggerated morphologies in males (review by Emlen & Nijhout, 2000;Bernstein & Bernstein, 2002;Emlen, Hunt & Simmons, 2005;Tomkins, Katiaho & LeBas, 2005;Mattos, Mermudes & Moura, 2014). Examples of positive static allometry in females are not common in the literature (but see Kelly, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of insect allometric studies have identified exaggerated morphologies in males (review by Emlen & Nijhout, 2000;Bernstein & Bernstein, 2002;Emlen, Hunt & Simmons, 2005;Tomkins, Katiaho & LeBas, 2005;Mattos, Mermudes & Moura, 2014). Examples of positive static allometry in females are not common in the literature (but see Kelly, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies first became popular in the families Scarabaeidae and Lucanidae where head and/or thoracic horns and mandibles, respectively, are frequently exaggerated (for reviews of earlier studies and other families see Eberhard & Gutiérrez, 1991;Emlen & Nijhout, 2000;Emlen, Hunt & Simmons, 2005;Miller & Wheeler, 2005;Kawano, 2006). In recent years, static allometry studies have included many other beetle families, including Anthribidae (prothorax length; Mattos, Mermudes & Moura, 2014), Cantharidae (male genitalia; Bernstein & Bernstein, 2002), Dytiscidae (body size; Fairn, Alarie & Schulte-Hostedde, 2007a), Gyrinidae (body size; Fairn, Alarie & Schulte-Hostedde, 2007b), and Leiodidae (mandibular horns; Miller & Wheeler, 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7). Although the latter data could be random, it could also suggest existence of two sympatric species or/and sexual dimorphism, phenomena that are not infrequent in Anthribidae (see, for example, size difference in Systaltocerus platyrhynus Labram & Imhoff, 1840;Mattos et al 2014). Moreover, no adequate data are available to test relations of the Hubei specimens to D. chinensis, while the geographical gap of at least 1,400 km strongly suggest separate evolutionary histories likely worthy of separate Linnaean names.…”
Section: Phylogenetic and Taxonomic Uncertainties Data Limitations Amentioning
confidence: 99%