Sexual dimorphism in weight among the primates: The relative impact of allometry and sexual selection

Gaulin, Steven J. C.; Sailer, Lee

doi:10.1007/bf02692284

Cited by 128 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Large primates tend to express sexual dimorphism in the form of body weight dimorphism (Gaulin and Sailer, 1984). For a species that is already large, the cost of an increase in size is lower, and larger size has increased benefits in intrasexual competition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of size sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis: Another look

Lee

2005

HOMO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of size sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis: Another look

Lee

2005

HOMO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, there are other factors including developmental, phylogenetic, and genetic constraints, natural selection, and epiphenomenal factors that can influence the expression of dimorphism in species (Crook, 1972;Clutton-Brock et al, 1977;Leutenegger and Kelly, 1977;Harvey et al, 1978;Cheverud, 1982, 1985;Gaulin and Sailer, 1984;Cheverud et al, 1985;CluttonBrock, 1985;Gautier-Hion and Gautier, 1985;Leutenegger and Lubach, 1987;Shea, 1986;Oxnard, 1987;Kay et al, 1988;Ely and Kurland, 1989;Kappeler, 1990Kappeler, , 1991Kappeler, , 1996Greenfield, 1992aGreenfield, ,b, 1996Leigh, 1992Leigh, , 1995aPlavcan and van Schaik, 1992, 1997bFord, 1994;Martin et al, 1994;Hayes et al, 1995;Leigh and Shea, 1995;Mitani et al, 1996;Plavcan, 1998Plavcan, , 1999. The relative importance of these factors to the expression of dimorphism among primates has been at times a topic of heated debate.…”

Section: Sexual Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gaulin and Sailer (1984) pointed out that the measure of sexual dimorphism used in the study was biologically unrealistic, de facto creating a strong correlation between size and dimorphism. Cheverud (1982, 1985) treated a 5-kg difference in mass the same between galagoes and gorillas.…”

Section: History Of Comparative Studies Of Dimorphism-sexual Selectiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is well-known that terrestrial species tend to be more dimorphic than arboreal species (Crook, 1972;Clutton-Brock et al, 1977;Harvey et al, 1978;Leutenegger and Kelly, 1977;Gaulin and Sailer, 1984;Cheverud et al, 1985;Gautier-Hion and Gautier, 1985;Plavcan and van Schaik, 1992, 1997bMartin et al, 1994). This is commonly thought to reflect greater predation pressure on terrestrial species, assuming that they are more susceptible to predators than arboreal species.…”

Section: Models For Other Causes Of Dimorphismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sexual dimorphism in primate evolution

Plavcan

2001

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

363

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual dimorphism is a pervasive phenomenon among anthropoid primates. Comparative analyses over the past 30 years have greatly expanded our understanding of both variation in the expression of dimorphism among primates, and the underlying causes of sexual dimorphism. Dimorphism in body mass and canine tooth size is familiar, as is pelage and "sex skin" dimorphism. More recent analyses are documenting subtle differences in the pattern of skeletal dimorphism among primates. Comparative analyses have corroborated the sexual selection hypotheses, and have provided a more detailed understanding of the relationship between sexual selection, natural selection, and mating systems in primates. A clearer picture is emerging of the relative contribution of various selective and nonselective mechanisms in the evolution and expression of dimorphism. Most importantly, recent studies have shown that dimorphism is the product of changes in both male and female traits. Developmental studies demonstrate the variety of ontogenetic pathways that can lead to dimorphism, and provide additional insight into the selective mechanisms that influence dimorphism throughout the lifetime of an animal. Evidence from the fossil record suggests that dimorphism probably evolved in parallel twice, and the dimorphism in some extinct hominoids probably exceeded that of any living primate. Our advances in understanding the behavioral/ecological correlates of dimorphism in living primates have not improved our ability to reconstruct social systems in extinct species on the basis of dimorphism alone, beyond the inference of polygyny or intense male-male competition. However, our understanding of the behavioral/ecological correlates of growth and development, and of the expression of dimorphism as a function of separate changes in male and female traits, offers great potential for inferring evolutionary changes in behavior over time

show abstract

“…21] . Rensch's rule may be explained by sexual selection and fecundity selection [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] . The macro-evolutionary pattern is unresolved in Diplopoda [30] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allometry for sexual dimorphism in millipedes (Diplopoda)

Cooper¹

2018

J. Entomol. Zool. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rensch's rule predict the negative associations between sexual size dimorphism (SSD) and body sizes for relatively larger females. This prediction was tested for forest and savanna diplopods using a geometric morphometric approach using calculations of length and width to derive shape volume based on the mathematical formulae for estimated cylindrical worm-like millipede size (l.π.r 2 ) and spherical pill millipede size (4/3.π.r 3 ): (i) Centrobolus (were collected in February 1996, South Africa) SSD was 0.63-2.89 (1.52±0.35; 267) (ii) Sphaerotherium (extracted from literature) SSD was 1.49-5.36 (2.96±1.40; n≥7); (iii) savanna (Calostreptus, Doratogonus, Odontopyge and Spinotarsus were collected in February 1989, Zimbabwe) and forest helminthomorphs (collected in February 1996, South Africa) SSD was 0.88-1.62 (1.26±0.23; 1233). Interspecific variation regressed was SSD (0.63-5.36) on body sizes (n=1273) with no significant negative correlations rejecting Rensch's rule. Eco-morphological patterns were discussed.

show abstract

Sexual dimorphism in weight among the primates: The relative impact of allometry and sexual selection

Cited by 128 publications

References 28 publications

Patterns of size sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis: Another look

Patterns of size sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis: Another look

Sexual dimorphism in primate evolution

Allometry for sexual dimorphism in millipedes (Diplopoda)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About