Sexual differences in size and shape of the Mosor rock lizard [Dinarolacerta mosorensis (Kolombatovic, 1886)] (squamata: lacertidae): A case study of the Lovcen mountain population (Montenegro)

Abstract

Sexual differences in size and shape of the Mosor rock lizard, Dinarolacerta mosorensis (Kolombatović, 1886), from Lovćen Mountain (Montenegro) were examined on the basis of the intersex variation pattern of nine morphometric, eight pholidotic, and four qualitative traits. Sexual dimorphism was apparent for all morphometric characters except snout-vent length, while scalation and dorsal pattern exhibited small differences between sexes. The value of the sexual size difference (SSD) index based on snout-vent length was 1.028. The sex-specific allometric slopes for head dimensions and interlimb distance significantly diverged. Head dimensions, especially head height, showed strong positive allometry in males, while interlimb distance was the only character which showed positive allometry in females. Generally, males had significantly greater body size than females. This was true of all body measurements except interlimb distance. The influence of sexual and natural selection on the examined traits is discussed

Scaling of the sexual size and shape skull dimorphism in the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis L.)

“…This pattern of growth is similar in other species (e.g. mOlina-BOrja 2003, kaliOntzOPOulOu et al 2006, LjubisavLjević et al 2008, Žagar et al 2012). However, it changes when the skull dimensions are scaled to the SL.…”

Sexual dimorphism in Trachylepis vittata (Olivier, 1804) (Sauria: Scincidae) in the Zagros Mountains, western Iran

“…Therefore, fecundity selection in T. vittata females can produce a longer and wider trunk. Sexual differences in energy allocation for growth can result from divergence in reproductive investment between the sexes (Cox et al, 2003;Pinto et al, 2005;Ljubisavljević et al, 2008;Becker and Paulissen, 2012). The evolution of SSD in lizards is also associated with between-sex differences in reproductive success related to adult body size (Cooper and Vitt, 1989;Hews, 1990;Mouton and Van Wyk, 1993).…”