Does the skull carry a phylogenetic signal? Evolution and modularity in the guenons
By A. Cardini, S. Elton. 2008
203 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Form and genes often tell different stories about the evolution of animals, with molecular data generally considered to be more objective than morphological data. However, form provides the basis for the description of organisms, and the study of fossils crucially depends on morphology. Complex organisms tend to evolve as ‘mosaics’, in which parts may be modified at varying rates and in response to different selective pressures. Thus, individual anatomical regions may contain different phylogenetic signals. In the present study, we used computerized methods to ‘dissect’ the skulls of a primate clade, the guenons, into functional and developmental modules (FDM). The potential of different modules as proxies for phylogenetic divergence in modern lineages was investigated. We found that the chondrocranium was the only FDM in which shape consistently had a strong and significant phylogenetic signal. This region might be less susceptible to epigenetic factors and thus more informative about phylogeny. The examination of the topology of trees from the chondrocranium suggested that the main differences evolved at the time of the radiation of terrestrial and arboreal guenons. However, phylogenetic reconstructions were found to be strongly affected by sampling error, with more localized anatomical regions (i.e. smaller/less complex FDMs) generally producing less reproducible tree topologies. This finding, if confirmed in other groups, implies that the utility of specific FDMs for phylogenetic inference could, in many cases, be hampered by the low reproducibility of results. The study also suggested that uncertainties due to sampling error may be larger than those from character sampling. This might have implications for phylogenetic analyses, which typically provide estimates of support of tree nodes based on characters but do not generally take into account the effect of sampling error on the tree topology. Nonetheless, studies of the potential of different FDMs as proxies for phylogenetic divergence in modern lineages, such as the present study, provide a framework that may help in modelling the morphological evolution of present and fossil species. © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 93, 813–834. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Cercopithecini – geometric morphometrics – morphological evolution – reliability and reproducibility – skull modules.
Subfields: Anthropology, Geometry and Topology, Paleontology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c7e949d4bff6d7b16882454c19beb3fe396fbd9f
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Anthropology
In Geometry and Topology
In Paleontology
Citations in the corpus
- A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21 st century (2013, methodology): “Finally, several recent approaches use maximum likelihood methods to obtain estimates of phylogenetic relationship from shape data (Caumul and Polly, 2005; Cardini and Elton, 2008).”
- Constraint and adaptation in the evolution of carnivoran skull shape (2011, background): “…(Radinsky 1981a,b; Cheverud 1982; Werdelin 1987a, 1989; Caumul and Polly 2005; Goswami 2006, 2007; Milne and O’Higgins 2002; Wroe and Milne 2007; Cardini and Elton 2008; Meloro et al. 2008), particularly among carnivoran lineages (Goswami 2006; Wroe and Milne 2007; Meloro et al. 2008;…”
- Why the Long Face? Kangaroos and Wallabies Follow the Same ‘Rule’ of Cranial Evolutionary Allometry (CREA) as Placentals (2015, background): “CREA has been found in closely related species of placental mammals, including antelopes, fruit-bats, mongooses and tree squirrels (Cardini and Polly 2013), and perhaps also in deer (Merino et al. 2005) and monkeys (Singleton 2005; Cardini and Elton 2008).”