Size as a Line of Least Evolutionary Resistance: Diet and Adaptive Morphological Radiation in New World Monkeys

Abstract

Abstract. New World monkeys (NWM) display substantial variation (two orders of magnitude) in body size. Despite this, variation in skull size and associated shape show a conserved allometric relationship, both within and between genera. Maximum likelihood estimates of quantitative ancestral states were used to compare the direction of morphological differentiation with the phenotypic (p max ) and genetic (g max ) lines of least evolutionary resistance (LLER). Diversification in NWM skulls occurred principally along the LLER defined by size variation. We also obtained measures of morphological amount and pace of change using our skull data together with published genetic distances to test whether the LLER influenced the amount and pace of diversification. Moreover, data on an ecological factor (diet) was obtained from the literature and used to test the association of this niche-related measure with the morphological diversification. Two strategies were used to test the association of LLER with the morphological and dietary amount and pace of change, one focusing on both contemporary genera and maximum likelihood reconstructed ancestors and the other using only the 16 contemporary genera in a phylogenetic comparative analysis. Our results suggest that the LLER influenced the path, amount, and pace of morphological change. Evolution also occurred away from the LLER in some taxa but this occurred at a slower pace and resulted in a relatively low amount of morphological change. We found that longer branch lengths (time) are associated with larger differences in p max orientation. However, on a macroevolutionary scale there is no such trend. Diet is consistently associated with both absolute size differences and morphological integration patterns, and we suggest that this ecological factor might be driving adaptive radiation in NWM. Invasion of diet-based adaptive zones involves changes in absolute size, due to metabolic and foraging constraints, resulting in simple allometric skull diversification along the LLER. While it is clear that evolutionary change occurred along the LLER, it is not clear whether this macroevolutionary pattern results from a conservation of within-population genetic covariance patterns or long-term adaptation along a size dimension or whether both constraints and selection were inextricably involved.

Go big or go fish: morphological specializations in carnivorous bats

“…In addition to absolute differences in body and skull size, we found positive allometry in skull shape with respect to skull size across bats that consume animal prey. This adds to a body of work stressing the role of allometry in underlying morphological diversity in the mammalian feeding apparatus [17,[60][61][62][63][64][65]. In carnivorous bats, larger sizes are associated with cranial and mandibular traits that increase bite force, gape and jaw closing speed: a taller sagittal crest provides larger attachment area for the temporalis muscle; a longer rostrum produces a wider gape that can accommodate larger prey, and enables faster jaw closure in prey capture [66].…”

Plain faces are more expressive: comparative study of facial colour, mobility and musculature in primates

“…Even though facial patterning is not related to size, we confirmed that larger primates, which have a larger facial nucleus, tend to have more expressive faces. Evolution of differences in body size can constitute a line of least resistance that could facilitate the evolution of differences in these and many other functional traits [21]. The evolution of larger bodies, potentially coupled with increased reliance on vision for other ecological tasks (e.g.…”

Etho-Eco-Morphological Mismatches, an Overlooked Phenomenon in Ecology, Evolution and Evo-Devo That Supports ONCE (Organic Nonoptimal Constrained Evolution) and the Key Evolutionary Role of Organismal Behavior

“…Furthermore, they noted that some explicit phylogenetic studies-e.g., of primates such as Old and New World monkeys-actually "did fail to recover or recovered only a weak relationship between ecological variation, including differences in diet, and cranial form (e.g., McBrayer, 2004;Cardini and Elton, 2008;Jones and Goswami, 2010;Perez et al, 2011)." In addition, in some studies dietary variables could predict a great proportion of variation of cranial shape, but only when phylogeny was ignored, because when it was taken into account many fewer anatomical features remained associated to ecology (e.g., Perez-Barberia and Gordon, 1999;Marroig and Cheverud, 2005). Based on the results of their lemur phylogenetic study, Baab et al (2014Baab et al ( , p. 1472 thus stated that "overall, lemur cranial morphology retains a strong phylogenetic signal... the correlation between diet and cranial form is weak when the underlying phylogeny is taken into account, a pattern also documented in other vertebrate lineages."…”