4.0 Article

Life underground: Food habits and reproductive biology of two amphisbaenian species from southern Africa

期刊

JOURNAL OF HERPETOLOGY
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 510-516

出版社

SOC STUDY AMPHIBIANS REPTILES
DOI: 10.2307/1565264

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Examination and dissection of 216 museum specimens of two species of amphisbaenians (the shovel-snouted Monopeltis anchietae and round-headed Zygaspis quadrifrons) from southern Africa provided data on morphology, sexual dimorphism, reproduction, and dietary habits. The two species differed considerably in absolute size, in body proportions (eg, head width relative to snout-vent length), and in the degree of sexual dimorphism in these traits. In the relatively heavy-bodied Monopeltis both sexes attained similar body lengths, but females had wider heads than conspecific males. Conversely, in the thin-bodied Zygaspis, females attained larger body sizes than conspecific males, and there was no sexual dimorphism in head size. Clutch sizes were small in both species (means of 2.4 neonates in Monapeltis, 3.3 eggs in Zygaspis) and were not correlated with maternal body size. Termites were the most common prey far both taxa, but a wide variety of other soft-bodied invertebrates (beetle larvae, caterpillars) was also consumed. The two species differed in dietary composition, mean prey size, and in the numbers of prey items per stomach. Stomachs of Monopeltis contained more prey items than stomachs of Zygaspis (means of 72.2 versus 13.0 prey items) and prey ingested by Monopeltis were larger than those of Zygaspis. In Monopeltis, there was a significant positive correlation between predator size and prey number, but larger lizards continued to feed on relatively small prey. The reverse pattern was found in Zygaspis. The substantial differences in trophic biology between these two taxa and other sympatric fossorial reptiles, suggest that adaptations to fossoriality do not constrain ecological diversity within burrowing squamates.

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

4.0
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