Literature DB >> 29803199

Evolution of morphological integration in the skull of Carnivora (Mammalia): Changes in Canidae lead to increased evolutionary potential of facial traits.

Fabio Andrade Machado1,2, Thiago Macek Gonçalves Zahn3, Gabriel Marroig3.   

Abstract

Morphological integration refers to the fact that different phenotypic traits of organisms are not fully independent from each other, and tend to covary to different degrees. The covariation among traits is thought to reflect properties of the species' genetic architecture and thus can have an impact on evolutionary responses. Furthermore, if morphological integration changes along the history of a group, inferences of past selection regimes might be problematic. Here, we evaluated the stability and evolution of the morphological integration of skull traits in Carnivora by using evolutionary simulations and phylogenetic comparative methods. Our results show that carnivoran species are able to respond to natural selection in a very similar way. Our comparative analyses show that the phylogenetic signal for pattern of integration is lower than that observed for morphology (trait averages), and that integration was stable throughout the evolution of the group. That notwithstanding, Canidae differed from other families by having higher integration, evolvability, flexibility, and allometric coefficients on the facial region. These changes might have allowed canids to rapidly adapt to different food sources, helping to explain not only the phenotypic diversification of the family, but also why humans were able to generate such a great diversity of dog breeds through artificial selection.
© 2018 The Author(s). Evolution © 2018 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Covariance matrix; P-matrix; canidae; carnivora; modularity; morphometrics

Year:  2018        PMID: 29803199     DOI: 10.1111/evo.13495

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


  10 in total

1.  Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size.

Authors:  Fabio A Machado; Alex Hubbe; Diogo Melo; Arthur Porto; Gabriel Marroig
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  Development and function explain the modular evolution of phalanges in gecko lizards.

Authors:  Priscila S Rothier; Monique N Simon; Gabriel Marroig; Anthony Herrel; Tiana Kohlsdorf
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Postcranial heterochrony, modularity, integration and disparity in the prenatal ossification in bats (Chiroptera).

Authors:  Camilo López-Aguirre; Suzanne J Hand; Daisuke Koyabu; Nguyen Truong Son; Laura A B Wilson
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.260

4.  Functional ecological convergence between the thylacine and small prey-focused canids.

Authors:  Douglass S Rovinsky; Alistair R Evans; Justin W Adams
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-04-21

5.  Flexible conservatism in the skull modularity of convergently evolved myrmecophagous placental mammals.

Authors:  Sérgio Ferreira-Cardoso; Julien Claude; Anjali Goswami; Frédéric Delsuc; Lionel Hautier
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-06-30

6.  Inter- and intraspecific variation in the Artibeus species complex demonstrates size and shape partitioning among species.

Authors:  Brandon P Hedrick
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Morphological variation under domestication: how variable are chickens?

Authors:  Madlen Stange; Daniel Núñez-León; Marcelo R Sánchez-Villagra; Per Jensen; Laura A B Wilson
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.963

8.  The Australian dingo: untamed or feral?

Authors:  J William O Ballard; Laura A B Wilson
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 3.172

9.  Testing the occurrence of convergence in the craniomandibular shape evolution of living carnivorans.

Authors:  Davide Tamagnini; Carlo Meloro; Pasquale Raia; Luigi Maiorano
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  Cranial shape variation in mink: Separating two highly similar species.

Authors:  Eloy Gálvez-López; Brandon Kilbourne; Philip G Cox
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2021-09-26       Impact factor: 2.610

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.