Sexual size and shape dimorphism and allometric scaling patterns in head traits in the New Zealand common gecko Woodworthia maculatus

Intrasexually selected weapons

We propose a practical concept that distinguishes the particular kind of weaponry that has evolved to be used in combat between individuals of the same species and sex, which we term intrasexually selected weapons (ISWs). We present a treatise of ISWs in nature, aiming to understand their distinction and evolution from other secondary sex traits, including from 'sexually selected weapons', and from sexually dimorphic and monomorphic weaponry. We focus on the subset of secondary sex traits that are the result of same-sex combat, defined here as ISWs, provide not previously reported evolutionary patterns, and offer hypotheses to answer questions such as: why have only some species evolved weapons to fight for the opposite sex or breeding resources? We examined traits that seem to have evolved as ISWs in the entire animal phylogeny, restricting the classification of ISW to traits that are only present or enlarged in adults of one of the sexes, and are used as weapons during intrasexual fights. Because of the absence of behavioural data and, in many cases, lack of sexually discriminated series from juveniles to adults, we exclude the fossil record from this review. We merge morphological, ontogenetic, and behavioural information, and for the first time thoroughly review the tree of life to identify separate evolution of ISWs. We found that ISWs are only found in bilateral animals, appearing independently in nematodes, various groups of arthropods, and vertebrates. Our review sets a reference point to explore other taxa that we identify with potential ISWs for which behavioural or morphological studies are warranted. We establish that most ISWs come in pairs, are located in or near the head, are endo- or exoskeletal modifications, are overdeveloped structures compared with those found in females, are modified feeding structures and/or locomotor appendages, are most common in terrestrial taxa, are frequently used to guard females, territories, or both, and are also used in signalling displays to deter rivals and/or attract females. We also found that most taxa lack ISWs, that females of only a few species possess better-developed weapons than males, that the cases of independent evolution of ISWs are not evenly distributed across the phylogeny, and that animals possessing the most developed ISWs have non-hunting habits (e.g. herbivores) or are faunivores that prey on very small prey relative to their body size (e.g. insectivores). Bringing together perspectives from studies on a variety of taxa, we conceptualize that there are five ways in which a sexually dimorphic trait, apart from the primary sex traits, can be fixed: sexual selection, fecundity selection, parental role division, differential niche occupation between the sexes, and interference competition. We discuss these trends and the factors involved in the evolution of intrasexually selected weaponry in nature.

A potential pitfall in studies of biological shape: Does size matter?

The number of published studies using geometric morphometrics (GM) for analysing biological shape has increased steadily since the beginning of the 1990s, covering multiple research areas such as ecology, evolution, development, taxonomy and palaeontology. Unfortunately, we have observed that many published studies using GM do not evaluate the potential allometric effects of size on shape, which normally require consideration or assessment. This might lead to misinterpretations and flawed conclusions in certain cases, especially when size effects explain a large part of the shape variation. We assessed, for the first time and in a systematic manner, how often published studies that have applied GM consider the potential effects of allometry on shape. We reviewed the 300 most recent published papers that used GM for studying biological shape. We also estimated how much of the shape variation was explained by allometric effects in the reviewed papers. More than one-third (38%) of the reviewed studies did not consider the allometric component of shape variation. In studies where the allometric component was taken into account, it was significant in 88% of the cases, explaining up to 87.3% of total shape variation. We believe that one reason that may cause the observed results is a misunderstanding of the process that superimposes landmark configurations, i.e. the Generalized Procrustes Analysis, which removes isometric effects of size on shape, but not allometric effects. Allometry can be a crucial component of shape variation. We urge authors to address, and report, size effects in studies of biological shape. However, we do not propose to always remove size effects, but rather to evaluate the research question with and without the allometric component of shape variation. This approach can certainly provide a thorough understanding of how much size contributes to the observed shaped variation.