2021
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.7422
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Head and mandible shapes are highly integrated yet represent two distinct modules within and among worker subcastes of the ant genus Pheidole

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When the anatomical features of an organism present with few or no landmarks or would need entomological dissection [ 18 ], such as in the worker ants in this study or in non-winged insects, juvenile stages, or eggs, the OM approach can be used [ 13 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When the anatomical features of an organism present with few or no landmarks or would need entomological dissection [ 18 ], such as in the worker ants in this study or in non-winged insects, juvenile stages, or eggs, the OM approach can be used [ 13 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Like the more recent geometric morphometric (GM) technique, OM allows separate analyses for size and shape coupled with visualization. In contrast to the GM method that is based on the relative position of anatomical landmarks (see an application on ants in Katzke et al [ 15 ], Bagherian et al [ 16 ], Seifert et al [ 17 ], and Casadei-Ferreira et al [ 18 ]), the OM method considers only the contours.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ants show a relevant interspecific variation in mandible morphology [78], whereas intraspecific distinctions are also observed, mainly between worker types [79]. How morphological disparity reflects ant biting performance was investigated for some ant lineages by the use of FEA [6][7][8][9][10] as well as through the estimation of relevant mechanical characteristics based on morphological information [80,81], providing compelling evidence about how mandibular morphological variation can influence bite mechanics, but there has been no attempt so far to simulate the effects of variation in the mandible cuticle mechanical properties in its responses to bite loading.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such a multitask use of the mandibles is commonly observed among ant workers (Wilson 1987; Zhang et al 2020; Richter & Economo 2023), responsible for most of the colony’s non-reproductive activities. Ants show a relevant interspecific variation in mandible morphology (Sosiak & Barden 2021), whereas intraspecific distinctions are also observed, mainly between worker types (Casadei-Ferreira et al 2021). How morphological disparity reflects ant biting performance was investigated for some ant lineages by the application of computational simulations (Larabee et al 2018; Zhang et al 2020; Klunk et al 2021; Wang et al 2022), as well as through the estimation of relevant mechanical characteristics based on morphological information (Püffel et al 2021; 2023a), providing compelling evidence about how mandibular morphological variation can influence bite mechanics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%