Literature DB >> 10937273

Are pinnipeds functionally different from fissiped carnivores? The importance of phylogenetic comparative analyses.

O R Bininda-Emonds1, J L Gittleman.   

Abstract

It is widely assumed that adaptations to an aquatic lifestyle are so profound as to produce only obvious differences between pinnipeds and the remaining, largely terrestrial carnivore species ("fissipeds"). Thus, comparative studies of the order Carnivora routinely examine these groups independently. This approach is invalid for two reasons. First, fissipeds are a paraphyletic assemblage, which raises the general issue of when it is appropriate to ignore monophyly as a criterion for inclusion in comparative studies. Second, the claim that most functional characters (beyond a few undoubted characteristic features) are different in pinnipeds and fissipeds has never been quantitatively examined, nor with phylogenetic comparative methods. We test for possible differences between these two groups in relation to 20 morphological, life-history, physiological, and ecological variables. Comparisons employed the method of independent contrasts based on a complete and dated species-level phylogeny of the extant Carnivora. Pinnipeds differ from fissipeds only through evolutionary grade shifts in a limited number of life-history traits: litter weight (vs. gestation length), birth weight, and age of eyes opening (both vs. size). Otherwise, pinnipeds display the same rate of evolution as phylogenetically equivalent fissiped taxa for all variables. Overall functional differences between pinnipeds and fissipeds appear to have been overstated and may be no greater than those among major fissiped groups. Recognition of this fact should lead to a more complete understanding of carnivore biology as a whole through more unified comparative tests. Comparative studies that do not include monophyletic groups for phylogenetically based comparative tests should be reconsidered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10937273     DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00100.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  7 in total

Review 1.  Hypercarnivory and the brain: protein requirements of cats reconsidered.

Authors:  Regina Eisert
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2010-11-19       Impact factor: 2.200

2.  Scaling of mammalian ethmoid bones can predict olfactory organ size and performance.

Authors:  Henry Pihlström; Mikael Fortelius; Simo Hemilä; Roger Forsman; Tom Reuter
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-05-07       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Predictive equations for the estimation of body size in seals and sea lions (Carnivora: Pinnipedia).

Authors:  Morgan Churchill; Mark T Clementz; Naoki Kohno
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 2.610

4.  True seals achieved global distribution by breaking Bergmann's rule.

Authors:  James P Rule; Felix G Marx; Alistair R Evans; Erich M G Fitzgerald; Justin W Adams
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 4.171

5.  Sex-specific weight loss mediates sexual size dimorphism in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Nicholas D Testa; Shampa M Ghosh; Alexander W Shingleton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Phylogeny and divergence of the pinnipeds (Carnivora: Mammalia) assessed using a multigene dataset.

Authors:  Jeff W Higdon; Olaf R P Bininda-Emonds; Robin M D Beck; Steven H Ferguson
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 3.260

7.  The Ancestral Carnivore Karyotype As Substantiated by Comparative Chromosome Painting of Three Pinnipeds, the Walrus, the Steller Sea Lion and the Baikal Seal (Pinnipedia, Carnivora).

Authors:  Violetta R Beklemisheva; Polina L Perelman; Natalya A Lemskaya; Anastasia I Kulemzina; Anastasia A Proskuryakova; Vladimir N Burkanov; Alexander S Graphodatsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.