Are Pinnipeds Functionally Different From Fissiped Carnivores? The Importance of Phylogenetic Comparative Analyses

Abstract

It is widely assumed that adaptations to an aquatic lifestyle are so profound as to produce only obvious differences between pinnipeds and the remaining, largely terrestrial carnivore species ("fissipeds"). Thus, comparative studies of the order Carnivora routinely examine these groups independently. This approach is invalid for two reasons. First, fissipeds are a paraphyletic assemblage, which raises the general issue of when it is appropriate to ignore monophyly as a criterion for inclusion in comparative studies. Second, the claim that most functional characters (beyond a few undoubted characteristic features) are different in pinnipeds and fissipeds has never been quantitatively examined, nor with phylogenetic comparative methods. We test for possible differences between these two groups in relation to 20 morphological, life-history, physiological, and ecological variables. Comparisons employed the method of independent contrasts based on a complete and dated species-level phylogeny of the extant Carnivora. Pinnipeds differ from fissipeds only through evolutionary grade shifts in a limited number of life-history traits: litter weight (vs. gestation length), birth weight, and age of eyes opening (both vs. size). Otherwise, pinnipeds display the same rate of evolution as phylogenetically equivalent fissiped taxa for all variables. Overall functional differences between pinnipeds and fissipeds appear to have been overstated and may be no greater than those among major fissiped groups. Recognition of this fact should lead to a more complete understanding of carnivore biology as a whole through more unified comparative tests. Comparative studies that do not include monophyletic groups for phylogenetically based comparative tests should be reconsidered.

Phylogenetic Autocorrelation Under Distinct Evolutionary Processes

“…Each simulation was analyzed by means of phylogenetic correlograms (Gittleman and Kot 1990;Gittleman et al 1996) constructed using Moran's I coefficients estimated at five equal distance classes (see Bininda-Emonds and Gittleman 2000). The upper phylogenetic distances in time of these slices correspond to 10.76, 21.52, 32.28, 43.04, and 53.8 million years ago.…”

Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology

“…When a comparative study incorporates literature data for multiple traits, it is often the case that missing data severely limit analyses (e.g. see Bininda-Emonds and Gittleman, 2000). Some recent comparative analyses have employed fairly sophisticated methods for dealing with missing data (e.g.…”

Scaling of mammalian ethmoid bones can predict olfactory organ size and performance

“…The goal was to cover the vast mammalian size range and to include species representing many different systematic groups and ecological specializations, including aquatic mammals. Thus, both sirenians and the aquatic carnivores traditionally known as 'pinnipeds' (Bininda--Emonds & Gittleman 2000) are represented in the sample. However, whales are not; although cetacean embryos develop olfactory bulbs, adult specimens have no or only rudimentary bulbs and lack a perforated ethmoid bone (Oelschläger 1989).…”