4.3 Review

Allometry, sexual dimorphism, and phylogeny: A cladistic analysis of extant African papionins using craniodental data

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 298-320

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.05.013

关键词

Molecules; Morphology; Congruence; Sexual selection; Papio; Lophocebus; Theropithecus; Cercocebus; Mandrillus

资金

  1. L.S.B. Leakey Foundation
  2. Graduate Council Fellowship from Stony Brook University
  3. Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducts a phylogenetic analysis of extant African papionin craniodental morphology, including both quantitative and qualitative characters. We use two different methods to control for allometry: the previously described narrow allometric coding method, and the general allometric coding method, introduced herein. The results of this study strongly suggest that African papionin phylogeny based on molecular systematics, and that based on morphology, are congruent and support a Cercocebus/Mandrillus clade as well as a Papio/Lophocebus/Theropithecus clade. In contrast to previous claims regarding papionin and, more broadly, primate craniodental data, this study finds that such data are a source of valuable phylogenetic information and removes the basis for considering hard tissue anatomy unreliable in phylogeny reconstruction. Among highly sexually dimorphic primates such as papionins, male morphologies appear to be particularly good sources of phylogenetic information. In addition, we argue that the male and female morphotypes should be analyzed separately and then added together in a concatenated matrix in future studies of sexually dimorphic taxa. Character transformation analyses identify a series of synapomorphies uniting the various papionin clades that, given a sufficient sample size, should potentially be useful in future morphological analyses, especially those involving fossil taxa. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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