4.8 Article

Ancient DNA reveals extreme egg morphology and nesting behavior in New Zealand's extinct moa

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0914096107

关键词

avian eggs; exogenous DNA; endogenous DNA; ratite; evolution

资金

  1. Royal Society of New Zealand
  2. Griffith University
  3. University of Auckland
  4. Massey University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New Zealand's extinct flightless moa radiated rapidly into a large number of morphologically diverse species, which produced an equally large range of egg morphologies. The exact number of moa species, as well as the characteristics of the eggs they laid, remains contentious. Moreover, like most extinct species, we understand little about their nesting and incubation habits. We used a modified ancient DNA extraction procedure to recover exogenous mitochondrial and nuclear DNA from the inside and outside surfaces of moa eggs. We used sequences from the inside of 69 eggshells to directly assign these remains to seven of the 10 currently recognized moa species. In addition we were able to assign, to the species level, six of the rare reconstructed whole eggs. These molecular results enabled us to identify two distinct lineages within the genus Euryapteryx. Members of these lineages differed in eggshell thickness, with one lineage being characterized by a relatively thin eggshell. Unexpectedly, several thin-shelled eggs were also shown to belong to the heaviest moa of the genera Dinornis, Euryapteryx and Emeus, making these, to our knowledge, the most fragile of all avian eggs measured to date. Moreover, sex-specific DNA recovered from the outer surfaces of eggshells belonging to species of Dinornis and Euryapteryx suggest that these very thin eggs were likely to have been incubated by the lighter males. The thin nature of the eggshells of these larger species of moa, even if incubated by the male, suggests that egg breakage in these species would have been common if the typical contact method of avian egg incubation was used.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据