4.3 Article

Variation in guenon skulls (II): sexual dimorphism

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages 638-647

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.09.023

Keywords

geometric morphometrics; guenons; size; skull; static allometry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patterns of size and shape sexual dimorphism in adult guenons were examined using a large sample of skulls from almost all living species. Within species, sexual dimorphism in skull shape follows the direction of size-related shape variation of adults, is proportional to differences in size, and tends to be larger in large-bodied species. Interspecific divergence among shape trajectories, which explain within species sex differences, are small (i.e., trajectories of most species are nearly parallel). Thus, changes in relative proportions of skull regions that account for the distinctive shape of females and males are relatively conserved across species, and their magnitude largely depends on differences in size between sexes. A conservative pattern of size-related sexual dimorphism and a model of interspecific divergence in shape which strongly reflects size differences suggest a major role of size and size-related shape variation in the guenon radiation. It is possible that in the guenons, as in the neotropical primates (with whom they have obvious parallels), size has helped to determine morphological change along lines of least evolutionary resistance, influencing sexual dimorphism. In Miopithecus and Erythrocebus, the smallest and largest guenon genera, it is likely that the interaction of ecology and size contributes significantly to patterns of sexual dimorphism. The results of this study thus emphasise the need to consider allometry and size alongside ecology and behaviour when examining primate sexual dimorphism. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available