2006
DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20326
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interspecific analysis of covariance structure in the masticatory apparatus of galagos

Abstract: The primate masticatory apparatus (MA) is a functionally integrated set of features, each of which performs important functions in biting, ingestive, and chewing behaviors. A comparison of morphological covariance structure among species for these MA features will help us to further understand the evolutionary history of this region. In this exploratory analysis, the covariance structure of the MA is compared across seven galago species to investigate 1) whether there are differences in covariance structure in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
8
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings correspond closely to similar ontogenetic comparisons within pottos, slow lorises, indriids and lemurids, where much of the variation in adult cranial form is due to the differential extension or truncation of shared growth trajectories [Ravosa, 1992[Ravosa, , 1998[Ravosa, , 2007Ravosa and Daniel, 2010]. Such findings are likewise consistent with recent interspecific analyses of craniofacial covariance patterns across adult galagos, which emphasized the influence of changing body size on the evolution of the masticatory system [Vinyard, 2007]. Although the selective factors underlying body size differentiation in galagos remain to be more fully explored, the presence of pervasive ontogenetic scaling of facial dimensions suggests that galago cranial variation may have resulted in part from selection for size differentiation among sister taxa.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These findings correspond closely to similar ontogenetic comparisons within pottos, slow lorises, indriids and lemurids, where much of the variation in adult cranial form is due to the differential extension or truncation of shared growth trajectories [Ravosa, 1992[Ravosa, , 1998[Ravosa, , 2007Ravosa and Daniel, 2010]. Such findings are likewise consistent with recent interspecific analyses of craniofacial covariance patterns across adult galagos, which emphasized the influence of changing body size on the evolution of the masticatory system [Vinyard, 2007]. Although the selective factors underlying body size differentiation in galagos remain to be more fully explored, the presence of pervasive ontogenetic scaling of facial dimensions suggests that galago cranial variation may have resulted in part from selection for size differentiation among sister taxa.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…In sum, our comparisons represent the first comprehensive study of the ontogenetic underpinnings of craniomandibular variation across galagids and thus contribute to an understanding of the diversity and evolution of this strepsirhine clade. Indeed, these analyses have the potential to complement a recent study of covariance structure in the galago skull, where it was noted that changing body size may have been a significant factor in the evolution of the masticatory apparatus [Vinyard, 2007].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vinyard [58] found no association between dietary type expressed as percentages of foods consumed and covariation structure of the mandible of galagos. Despite the varied diet of galagos, it was argued that the ability to obtain and digest gum might be the fundamental adaptation of this group [58]–[64].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Despite the varied diet of galagos, it was argued that the ability to obtain and digest gum might be the fundamental adaptation of this group [58]–[64]. If this is the case, the lack of association between diet and covariation structure might not be as surprising.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9;Mork et al, Chap. 10;Dumont 1997;Williams et al 2002;Vinyard et al 2003;Viguier 2004;Smith 2005, 2007;Vinyard 2007).…”
unclassified