4.1 Article

Skull morphology of two cryptic bat species: Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus - a 3D geometric morphometrics approach with landmark reconstruction

期刊

ACTA CHIROPTEROLOGICA
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 113-126

出版社

MUSEUM & INST ZOOLOGY PAS-POLISH ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.3161/150811009X465730

关键词

geometric morphometrics; skull morphology; diet; cryptic species; Pipistrellus spp.; landmark reconstruction

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differences in skull morphology between two cryptic species of bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus (n = 14) and P pygmaeus (n = 15), originating from Great Britain, were investigated. Four different data sets were analysed: (1) 23 landmarks and (2) 26 landmarks on the dorsal and ventral sides of the cranium, respectively, (3) 49 landmarks on the upper jaw, and (4) 34 landmarks on the labial side of the mandible. For almost all data sets, when compared within sex groups, P pipistrellus were significantly larger than P pygmaeus; the biggest difference being observed in the mandible size. Interspecific differences in shape, analysed by Principal Component Analysis and Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) of the Procrustes superimposed landmarks, were also mostly visible in the mandible, and were related to dietary differences between the species. For example, the longer and more upright canines of P pipistrellus allow them to pierce harder prey, the bigger molars case its processing, and the shortened body of the mandible and the more developed coronoid process presumably generate a stronger bite. The shape and size of the mandible proved to be a good characteristic for distinguishing both cryptic taxa. A procedure for estimating missing landmarks for 3D geometric morphometric purposes was created. Our procedure of finding the missing landmarks had no effect on the within-group loss of variation. DFA of data sets with reconstructed versus orginal (but reduced) landmarks yielded similar results (three versus two misclassified specimens in leave-one-out cross-validation).

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

4.1
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