2018
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.23439
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A multivariate ecogeographic analysis of macaque craniodental variation

Abstract: We found evidence for environmental adaptation in macaque body and craniodental size, primarily driven by selection for thermoregulation. This pattern cannot be explained by the within-species pattern, indicating an evolved genetic basis for the between-species relationship. The dietary signal in relative tooth size, by contrast, can largely be explained by phylogeny. This cautions against adaptive interpretations of phenotype-environment associations when phylogeny is not explicitly modelled.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The landmark configurations were registered by Procrustes superimposition 82 and symmetrised by averaging original and reflected sets of landmarks for each individual. Because of the unbalanced sex composition of the groups, we corrected for sexual dimorphism by subtracting from each individual the sex-specific mean shape and than adding the overall mean 83 . The same treatment was applied to correct for sexual dimorphism in centroid size values.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The landmark configurations were registered by Procrustes superimposition 82 and symmetrised by averaging original and reflected sets of landmarks for each individual. Because of the unbalanced sex composition of the groups, we corrected for sexual dimorphism by subtracting from each individual the sex-specific mean shape and than adding the overall mean 83 . The same treatment was applied to correct for sexual dimorphism in centroid size values.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Theorists have recently endeavored to develop phylogenetic comparative methods capable of evaluating phylogenetic patterns in multivariate datasets (e.g., Adams 2014b, Adams 2014c, Adams and Collyer 2015, Bartoszek, et al 2012, Goolsby 2015, Klingenberg and Marugán-Lobón 2013, Revell and Harmon 2008. These methods are gaining prominence in the field, and are increasingly used to address evolutionary hypotheses in multivariate phenotypic datasets in a manner analogous to what has long been possible for univariate traits (e.g., Chira, et al 2018, Felice and Goswami 2017, Grunstra, et al 2018, Martinez, et al 2018, Zelditch, et al 2015. In this review, we survey the recent advances for evaluating evolutionary trends in multivariate phenotypes, highlight some biological insights discovered through use of multivariate phylogenetic comparative approaches, and identify several areas for future analytical development.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…S6 available on Dryad). As a typical allometric pattern in primates and other placentals, muzzle length is correlated with body size and is of functional relevance (e.g., Singleton 2002 ; Frost et al 2003 ; Mitteroecker et al 2004 ; Cardini and Polly 2013 ; Grunstra et al 2018 ; van der Geer et al 2018 ). Regressing out cranial size (centroid size) from the small-scale shape data thus partially increased the consistency of the recovered phylogenetic tree with the molecular data ( Supplementary Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%