The Evolution of Convergent Structure in Caribbean Anolis Communities

Losos, Jonathan B.

doi:10.2307/2992583

Cited by 141 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Often this habitat divergence is coupled with differences in body size. Large-and small-bodied ecomorphs with different patterns of habitat utilization are present in several prominent examples of ecological speciation, including coregonid whitefishes 46 , sticklebacks 47 and Anolis lizards 48 . This may indicate that size-based competition-mediated habitat use has a broader role in evolution of species boundaries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition-driven speciation in cichlid fish

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theoretically, competition can initiate divergence in habitat use between individuals of a species, leading to restricted gene flow and eventual speciation. Evidence that sister species differ in habitat use is commonplace and consistent with this mechanism, but empirical experimental support is surprisingly scarce. Here we provide evidence that competition has taken a key role in the evolution of genetically distinct ecomorphs of the Lake Tanganyika cichlid fish Telmatochromis temporalis. Experiments show that differences in substrate use between a large-bodied rock-living ecomorph and a neighbouring small-bodied shell-living ecomorph are mediated by size-dependent competition that drives assortative mate-pair formation. Specifically, adults of the larger ecomorph outcompete adults of the smaller ecomorph on favoured rock substrate, compelling the smaller adults to use shell habitat. These results support a role for competition in maintaining reproductive isolation, and highlight the need to identify ecological processes that impose selection to improve our understanding of speciation and adaptive radiation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition-driven speciation in cichlid fish

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, I reconstructed the evolution of habitat specialists (termed "ecomorphs") in two island radiations of Anolis lizards, inferring that the habitat specialists not only had evolved in almost the same order on both islands, but also that early in the radiation, ancestral species on both islands had nearly identical "generalist" morphologies ( Figure 4; Losos, 1992). More recently, phylogenetic methods have been used to infer all manner of ancestral character states, such as the visual pigment of the ancestral archosaur (Chang et al, 2002) and the genome size of dinosaurs (Organ et al, 2007), as well as reconstructing the evolution of spectral sensitivity in vertebrate opsins and receptor sensitivity in steroid hormones (Dean and Thornton, 2007;Liberles, 2007).…”

Section: Our Ability To Reconstruct Particular Past Events Is Limitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: The Limitations of Phylogenies in Comparative Biology

Losos

2011

The American Naturalist

Self Cite

244

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last 30 years have seen a revolution in comparative biology. Prior to that time, systematics was not at the forefront of the biological sciences, and few scientists considered phylogenetic relationships when investigating evolutionary questions. By contrast, systematic biology is now one of the most vigorous disciplines in biology, and the use of phylogenies is not only requisite in macroevolutionary studies, but has been applied to a wide range of topics and fields that no one could possibly have envisioned 30 years ago. My message is simple: phylogenies are fundamental to comparative biology, but they are not the be all and end all. Phylogenies are powerful tools for understanding the past, but like any tool, they have their limitations. In addition, phylogenies are much more informative about pattern than they are about process. The best way to fully understand the past-both pattern and process-is to integrate phylogenies with other types of historical data as well as with direct studies of evolutionary process. 3I start with two observations about evolutionary biology. First, as attendance at the 2010 joint meeting of the American Society of Naturalists, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Systematic Biologists attests, evolutionary biology is a thriving science. One sign of the health of this science, evident to any participant at the meeting, is the number of young people entering the field. This leads to my second observation. Evolutionary biology is inherently about history, the progression of life through time.Given these two points, I begin my essay by providing a service to the younger members of the field. In my ASN Presidential Address (from which this essay is adapted), I asked all members of the audience born since 1980 to raise their hands. My estimate, looking out upon the assembled masses, was that approximately 61.31% of the audience (was in this fledgling class. 1 These young workers, then, do not personally know the field of evolutionary biology before the year 2000 or so, much less what it was like in the 1970's, before their birth. So, in the spirit of a historical science, I briefly review what life was like in that ancient time. A Short History of Modern Comparative ApproachesAhh, the 1970's: bell bottoms and big hair. Disco, Abba and Led Zep. Happy Days, Grease, and Star Wars. Tricky Dick and Watergate. Not to mention the Oil Embargo (the result of a time when we relied on oil imported from the Middle East for much of our energy).But what about evolutionary biology? In particular, the more historical, systematic, macroevolutionary side of the field, which is so vibrant today. What was it like? In a word, it was non-existent. The importance of a historical, evolutionary perspective was realized, at least by some (e.g., Mayr, 1976), but systematics itself was a scientific backwater. The construction of phylogenies often was more an art than a science; evolutionary trees were constructed using simplistic algorithms or none at all. The use of phylogenies t...

show abstract

“…Examples from other animal groups (e.g., Losos, 1992;Losos et al, 1998) suggest that recurrent evolution of similar ecomorphs may occur mainly under allopatric conditions. For cophylines it is relevant that the two major arboreal clades, Platypelis/Cophyla and Anodonthyla, clearly diVer in their centers of diversity and endemism: While Anodonthyla occur in three endemic species in southeastern Madagascar and are absent from the north, most species of Platypelis occur in the north and Cophyla is endemic to this biogeographic domain (Glaw and Vences, 1994).…”

Section: Ecological Diversiwcation Fossoriality and Arborealitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recurrent ecological adaptations revealed through a molecular analysis of the secretive cophyline frogs of Madagascar

Andreone

Vences

Vieites

et al. 2005

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cophyline microhylid frogs of Madagascar show a wide range of habitat specialization, ranging from terrestrial/burrowing and semi-arboreal to entirely arboreal species. The classiWcation of these frogs is thus far mainly based upon morphological, largely osteological, characters that might be homoplastic. Using 1173 bp of DNA sequences from the mitochondrial 12S and 16S rRNA genes, we here present a molecular phylogeny for 28 species of all known genera, except for the genus Madecassophryne. The resulting maximum likelihood tree contained four major clades: one represented by the genus Anodonthyla, the second by Cophyla and Platypelis, the third by several terrestrial and semi-arboreal species of the genus Plethodontohyla, and the fourth by species of the genera StumpYa, Plethodontohyla, and Rhombophryne. The results conWrm that several cophyline lineages adapted independently to similar habitats, with multiple shifts among terrestriality and arboreality. The direction of these shifts cannot be ascertained due to unclariWed relationships among the most basal lineages, but for one terrestrial species (Anodonthyla montana), it is most parsimonious to assume that it evolved from arboreal ancestors. Our results suggest that the genus Plethodontohyla is probably paraphyletic, and that the classiWcation of this and of the genus Rhombophryne needs to be re-assessed. 

show abstract

The Evolution of Convergent Structure in Caribbean Anolis Communities

Cited by 141 publications

References 0 publications

Competition-driven speciation in cichlid fish

Competition-driven speciation in cichlid fish

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: The Limitations of Phylogenies in Comparative Biology

Recurrent ecological adaptations revealed through a molecular analysis of the secretive cophyline frogs of Madagascar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About