Just another island dwarf? Phenotypic distinctiveness in the poorly known Soemmerring's Gazelle,Nanger soemmerringii(Cetartiodactyla: Bovidae), of Dahlak Kebir Island

Allometry and phylogenetic divergence: Correspondence or incongruence?

The potential connection between trends of within species variation, such as those of allometric change in morphology, and phylogenetic divergence has been a central topic in evolutionary biology for more than a century, including in the context of human evolution. In this study, I focus on size-related shape change in craniofacial proportions using a sample of more than 3200 adult Old World monkeys belonging to 78 species, of which 2942 specimens of 51 species are selected for the analysis. Using geometric morphometrics, I assess whether the divergence in the direction of static allometries increases in relation to phyletic differences. Because both small samples and taxonomic sampling may bias the results, I explore the sensitivity of the main analyses to the inclusion of more or less taxa depending on the choice of a threshold for the minimum sample size of a species. To better understand the impact of sampling error, I also use randomized subsampling experiments in the largest species samples. The study shows that static allometries vary broadly in directions without any evident phylogenetic signal. This variation is much larger than previously found in ontogenetic trajectories of Old World monkeys, but the conclusion of no congruence with phylogenetic divergence is the same. Yet, the effect of sampling error clearly contributes to inaccuracies and tends to magnify the differences in allometric change. Thus, morphometric research at the boundary between micro- and macro-evolution in primates, and more generally in mammals, critically needs very large and representative samples. Besides sampling error, I suggest other non-mutually exclusive explanations for the lack of correspondence between allometric and phylogenetic divergence in Old World monkeys, and also discuss why directions might be more variable in static compared to ontogenetic trajectories. Even if allometric variation may be a poor source of information in relation to phylogeny, the evolution of allometry is a fascinating subject and the study of size-related shape changes remains a fundamental piece of the puzzle to understand morphological variation within and between species in primates and other animals.

Can morphotaxa be assessed with photographs? Estimating the accuracy of two-dimensional cranial geometric morphometrics for the study of threatened populations of African monkeys

The classification of most mammalian orders and families is under debate and the number of species is likely greater than currently recognized. Improving taxonomic knowledge is crucial, as biodiversity is in rapid decline. Morphology is a source of taxonomic knowledge, and geometric morphometrics applied to two dimensional (2D) photographs of anatomical structures is commonly employed for quantifying differences within and among lineages. Photographs are informative, easy to obtain, and low cost. 2D analyses, however, introduce a large source of measurement error when applied to crania and other highly three dimensional (3D) structures. To explore the potential of 2D analyses for assessing taxonomic diversity, we use patas monkeys (Erythrocebus), a genus of large, semi-terrestrial, African guenons, as a case study. By applying a range of tests to compare ventral views of adult crania measured both in 2D and 3D, we show that, despite inaccuracies accounting for up to one-fourth of individual shape differences, results in 2D almost perfectly mirror those in 3D. This apparent paradox might be explained by the small strength of covariation in the component of shape variance related to measurement error. A rigorous standardization of photographic settings and the choice of almost coplanar landmarks are likely to further improve the correspondence of 2D to 3D shapes. 2D geometric morphometrics is, thus, appropriate for taxonomic comparisons of patas ventral crania. Although it is too early to generalize, our results corroborate similar findings from previous research in mammals, and suggest that 2D shape analyses are an effective heuristic tool for morphological investigation of small differences.

Do island populations differ in size and shape compared to mainland counterparts?

Adaptation and evolution of terrestrial vertebrates inhabiting islands have been the topic of many studies, particularly those seeking to identify trends or patterns in body size in mammals, albeit not necessarily in shape, in relation to mainland populations. The spiny pocket mouse, Chaetodipus spinatus, is distributed in the Baja California peninsula and its surrounding islands. Insular populations became isolated ~12,000 due to changes in sea level; these populations’ matrilinear (mitochondrial) DNA shows minor interpopulation variation. We tested the hypothesis that adaptation and evolution in these island populations involve variation in both skull size and skull shape (using geometric morphometrics) relative to mainland populations, rather than only in size as previously assumed. A total of 363 specimens from 15 insular and peninsular populations were used in analysis of the skull length and geometric morphometric analyses. Our findings revealed significant differences related to skull size among population. The skull shape analyses showed two significantly different morphotypes: one for all island specimens and one for all mainland samples. Our analyses support the hypothesis that insular populations may not only vary in size relative to mainland populations, but may also show variations in shape, regardless of differing conditions across islands.