Phylogeny, Ecology, and Morphological Evolution in the Atelid Cranium

Abstract

(2015) 'Phylogeny, ecology, and morphological evolution in the atelid cranium.', International journal of primatology., 36 (3). pp. 513-529. Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10764-015-9839-z Publisher's copyright statement:Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. support alternative phylogenetic relationships to molecular data. We collected geometric morphometric data from the crania of atelid taxa for phylogenetic analysis of the cranium, cranial base and face, and tested the hypotheses that cranial data maintains a phylogenetic signal, cranial base morphology most closely reflects the atelid molecular phylogeny, and facial and overall cranial morphology areshaped by diet and haveexperienced greater homoplasy. All analyses supported genus monophyly, and facial morphology maintained a strong phylogenetic signal inferring the atelid molecular phylogeny and a sister relationship between Brachyteles and Lagothrix, whereas results from the cranial base and whole cranium supported Ateles-Lagothrix and/or Alouatta-Brachyteles clades reflecting homoplasy and ecological and dietary similarities. A phylogenetic signal in the atelid face is important for future studies integrating fossil taxa, and supports evidence that congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenetics in primates is module and clade-specific.

Taxonomic variation in the supraorbital region of catarrhine primates

“…A proper understanding of biological variation is fundamental to the study of evolutionary processes, however the accurate documentation of phenotypic variation in the fossil record is particularly challenging due to its fragmentary nature. Studies have found that different elements of the primate craniofacial complex have varying levels of effectiveness in differentiating groups at different taxonomic levels (Bjarnason, Chamberlain, & Lockwood, ; Bjarnason, Soligo, & Elton, , ; Cardini & Elton, ; Lockwood, Kimbel, & Lynch, ; von Cramon‐Taubadel & Smith, ). As such, it is important to establish the extent to which aspects of the craniofacial morphology that are relatively well documented in the fossil record reflect taxonomic differentiation in extant primates.…”

“…Nevertheless, comparisons to other studies are imperfect as some used anatomical landmarks across the cranium and mandible (Cardini & Elton, , ), rather than focusing on specific areas of the craniofacial complex. As studies indicate that different craniofacial regions may differentially preserve phylogenetic histories (Bjarnason et al, ; Bjarnason et al, ; von Cramon‐Taubadel, ), it could be predicted that they may also preserve different taxonomic signals. Future research could investigate the taxonomic utility of other well‐represented regions, such as the temporal bone and basicranium, to further contextualize the results of the current study.…”

Contextualising primate origins – an ecomorphological framework

“…; Bjarnason et al. , ). This is also illustrated by recent analyses of plesiadapiform and euarchontan relationships where bats (Chiroptera), when included, routinely associate with Dermoptera (Bloch & Boyer, ; Silcox et al.…”

“…More generally, cladistic analyses of large morphological character matrices are a popular means of generating hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships that include fossils. It is important to remember, however, that these analyses routinely contravene the assumptions on which they rely, notably that of character independence, and that there is ample evidence that, although careful selection of morphological characters can help retrieve accurate phylogenies, without a detailed understanding of clade-and character-specific patterns of evolution, their results are often demonstrably wrong (Collard & Wood, 2000;Lockwood et al 2004;Bjarnason et al 2011Bjarnason et al , 2015. This is also illustrated by recent analyses of plesiadapiform and euarchontan relationships where bats (Chiroptera), when included, routinely associate with Dermoptera (Bloch & Boyer, 2002;Silcox et al 2005;Bloch et al 2007), a relationship that has been comprehensively rejected by molecular data (e.g.…”

Evolutionary patterns of shape and functional diversification in the skull and jaw musculature of triggerfishes (Teleostei: Balistidae)

“…The nature of morphological diversity is best addressed within a morphospace (Foote, ; Stayton, ). Recent advances in the methods and tools available for geometric morphometric analyses permit quantifying and comparing shape change in two or three dimensions (e.g., Ming and Xing‐Re, ; Olsen and Westneat, ) and for investigating shape transformations within the context of phylogeny (e.g., Tsuboi et al, ), ecology (e.g., Bjarnason et al, ), size (e.g., Openshaw and Keogh, ), ontogeny (e.g., D'Amore, ), or other factors that influence shape diversification in vertebrates. In this project, we developed a novel 2D landmark‐based morphometrics protocol that not only outlines the skeletal silhouette of the triggerfish cranium, but also frames the moving parts of the skull and the gross architecture of the six adductor mandibulae subdivisions.…”