4.5 Article

Macroevolution of sexually selected weapons: weapon evolution in chameleons

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 77, Issue 10, Pages 2277-2290

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/evolut/qpad138

Keywords

lizard; macroevolution; male-male competition; phylogeny; sexual dimorphism; sexual selection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study analyzes weapon evolution in chamaeleonid lizards, finding that all 11 weapons have evolved multiple times and that their origins are generally more frequent than losses. The study also identifies hotspots for weapon evolution associated with larger male body size.
The evolution of sexually selected traits is a major topic in evolutionary biology. However, large-scale evolutionary patterns in these traits remain understudied, especially those traits used in male-male competition (weapons sensu lato). Here, we analyze weapon evolution in chamaeleonid lizards, both within and between the sexes. Chameleons are an outstanding model system because of their morphological diversity (including 11 weapon types among similar to 220 species) and a large-scale time-calibrated phylogeny. We analyze these 11 traits among 165 species using phylogenetic methods, addressing many questions for the first time in any group. We find that all 11 weapons have each evolved multiple times and that weapon origins are generally more frequent than their losses. We find that almost all weapons have each persisted for >30 million years (and some for >65 million years). Across chameleon phylogeny, we identify both hotspots for weapon evolution (up to 10 types present per species) and coldspots (all weapons absent, many through loss). These hotspots are significantly associated with larger male body size, but are only weakly related to sexual-size dimorphism. We also find that weapon evolution is strongly correlated between males and females. Overall, these results provide a baseline for understanding large-scale patterns of weapon evolution within clades.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available