Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-x64cq Total loading time: 0.447 Render date: 2022-05-16T23:15:58.652Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }
Carnivoran Evolution Carnivoran Evolution
New Views on Phylogeny, Form and Function
Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

8 - The biogeography of carnivore ecomorphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Lars Werdelin
Affiliation:
Swedish Museum of Natural History
Gina D. Wesley-Hunt
Affiliation:
Montgomery College
Anjali Goswami
Affiliation:
University College London
Anthony Friscia
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Traditional studies of biodiversity are mainly concerned with patterns of taxonomic richness. In neontology, particularly conservation biology, the focus is generally at the species level (Reid, 1998; Mittermeier et al., 2005), while in paleontology, the genus and family levels are often used as proxies (Sepkoski, 1988; Bambach et al., 2004). However, there are of course other aspects to diversity, including genetic diversity (e.g. Petit et al., 2003) and phylogenetic diversity (Faith, 1992). A further type of diversity that has generated some interest over the past decade or so is morphological diversity, often referred to as disparity (Gould, 1991; Foote, 1997). This kind of diversity, which, importantly, does not necessarily covary with richness measures, takes as its study the variation in morphology or morphological types in a study group at a particular time or place. The focal level is generally a higher taxonomic category, such as a Family or Order, but can also be a non-monophyletic adaptive category such as carnivore or herbivore, as the object is not in the first instance to trace the evolution of a specific clade, but to investigate the range of adaptations realised by a group of organisms in a particular setting, or, in other words, the totality of their context-specific ecomorphology.

Such studies of ecomorphology can be used to investigate differences in ecological structure in time and space and help differentiate between processes such as selective or random extinctions. It leads to a much fuller depiction of biological diversity than richness alone. Ecomorphology and analysis of disparity has been used at various scales to study the diversification of vertebrates (Van Valkenburgh, 1989, 1994; Jernvall et al., 1996; Werdelin, 1996; Wesley-Hunt, 2005), invertebrates (Foote, 1994, 1997; Wills et al., 1994; Wills, 1998; Roy et al., 2001), and plants (Lupia, 1999) over their evolutionary history.

Type
Chapter
Information
Carnivoran Evolution
New Views on Phylogeny, Form and Function
, pp. 225 - 245
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonovics, J. and van Tienderen, P. H. (1991). Ontoecogenophyloconstrains? The chaos of constraint terminology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 166–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bambach, R. K., Knoll, A. H. and Wang, S. C. (2004). Origination, extinction, and mass depletions of marine diversity. Paleobiology, 30, 522–42.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J. A. (1982). Tertiary Procyoninae (Mammalia: Carnivora) of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benzécri, J.-P. and Benzécri, F. (1980). Pratique de L'Analyse des Données. 1. Analyse des Correspondances. Exposé Élémentaire. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Crusafont Pairó, M. and Truyols Santonja, J. (1956). A biometric study of the evolution of fissiped carnivores. Evolution, 10, 314–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusafont Pairó, M. and Truyols Santonja, J. (1957). Estudios masterométricos en la evolución de los Fissipedos. Boletin del Instituto Geológico i Minero de España, 68, 1–140.Google Scholar
Faith, D. P. (1992). Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation, 61, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. (1992). Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 7325–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. (1994). Morphological disparity in Ordovician–Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of morphological space. Paleobiology, 20, 320–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. (1995). Morphological diversification of Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology, 21, 273–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. (1997). The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28, 129–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittleman, J. L. (1986). Carnivore life history patterns: allometric, phylogenetic, and ecological associations. American Naturalist, 127, 744–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1991). The disparity of the Burgess Shale arthropod fauna and the limits of cladistic analysis: why we must strive to quantify morphospace. Paleobiology, 17, 411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Ø. and Harper, D. A. T. (2001). PAST: Palaeontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1), 9.Google Scholar
Hamming, R. W. (1950). Error detecting and error detecting codes. Bell System Technical Journal, 26, 147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M. O. and Gauch, H. G. J. (1980). Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio, 42, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, J. A. and Steppan, S. J. (2004). Evolution of hypercarnivory: the effect of specialization on morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology, 30, 108–28.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jernvall, J. (1995). Mammalian molar cusp patterns: developmental mechanisms of diversity. Acta Zoologica Fennica, 198, 1–61.Google Scholar
Jernvall, J., Hunter, J. P. and Fortelius, M. (1996). Molar tooth diversity, disparity, and ecology in Cenozoic ungulate radiations. Science, 274, 1489–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. (1998). Numerical Ecology. New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lucas, P. W. (1979). The dental–dietary adaptations of mammals. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie, Paläontologie und Mineralogie, Monatshefte, 1979(8), 486–512.Google Scholar
Lucas, P. W. and Peters, C. R. (2000). Function of postcanine tooth crown shape in mammals. In Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth, ed. Teaford, M. F., Smith, M. M. and Ferguson, M. W. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 282–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, R. (1999). Discordant morphological disparity and taxonomic diversity during the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation: North American pollen record. Paleobiology, 25, 1–28.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., et al. (1985). Developmental constraints and evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 6, 265–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNab, B. K. (1971). On the ecological significance of Bergmann's rule. Ecology, 52, 845–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNab, B. K. (1989). Basal rate of metabolism, body size, and food habits in the order Carnivora. In Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution, ed. Gittleman, J. L.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 335–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittermeier, R. A., Robles Gil, P., Hoffman, M., et al. (2005). Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Arlington, VA: Conservation International.Google Scholar
Petit, R. J., Aguinagalde, I., de Beaulieu, J.-L., et al. (2003). Glacial refugia: hotspots but not melting pots of genetic diversity. Science, 300, 1563–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, W. V. (1998). Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 275–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, K., Balch, D. P. and Hellberg, M. E. (2001). Spatial patterns of morphological diversity across the Indo-Pacific: analyses using strombid gastropods. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 2503–08.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sepkoski, J. J.. (1988). Alpha, beta, or gamma: where does all the diversity go?Paleobiology, 14, 221–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1985). Locomotor diversity within past and present guilds of large predatory mammals. Paleobiology, 11, 406–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1988). Trophic diversity in past and present guilds of large predatory mammals. Paleobiology, 14, 155–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1989). Carnivore dental adaptations and diet: a study of trophic diversity within guilds. In Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution, ed. Gittleman, J. L.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 410–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1990). Skeletal and dental predictors of body mass in carnivores. In: BodySize in Mammalian Paleobiology: Estimation and Biological Implications, ed. Damuth, J. and MacFadden, B. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1991). Iterative evolution of hypercarnivory in canids (Mammalia: Carnivora): evolutionary interactions among sympatric predators. Paleobiology, 17, 340–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1994). Ecomorphological analysis of fossil vertebrates and their communities. In Ecomorphology, ed. Wainwright, P. C. and Reilly, S. M.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 140–66.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1996). Feeding behavior in free-ranging large African carnivores. Journal of Mammalogy, 77, 240–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. (1994). Phylogenetic systematics of the Hesperocyoninae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 221, 1–207.Google Scholar
Wang, X., Tedford, R. H. and Taylor, B. E. (1999). Phylogenetic systematics of the Borophaginae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 243, 1–391.Google Scholar
Werdelin, L. (1989). Constraint and adaptation in the bone-cracking canid Osteoborus (Mammalia: Canidae). Paleobiology, 15, 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werdelin, L. (1996). Carnivoran ecomorphology: a phylogenetic perspective. In Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution. Volume 2, ed. Gittleman, J. L.. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, pp. 582–624.Google Scholar
Werdelin, L. (1999). Pachycrocuta (hyaenids) from the Pliocene of east Africa. Paläontologisches Zeitschrift, 73, 157–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werdelin, L. and Lewis, M. E. (2005). Plio-Pleistocene Carnivora of eastern Africa: species richness and turnover patterns. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 144, 121–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werdelin, L. and Peigné, S. (2010). Carnivora. In Cenozoic Mammals of Africa, ed. Werdelin, L. and Sanders, W. J.. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 609–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werdelin, L. and Solounias, N. (1991). The Hyaenidae: taxonomy, systematics and evolution. Fossils and Strata, 30, 1–104.Google Scholar
Werdelin, L. and Solounias, N. (1996). The evolutionary history of hyaenas in Europe and western Asia during the Miocene. In The Evolution of Western Eurasian Neogene Mammal Faunas, ed. Bernor, R. L., Fahlbusch, V. and Mittmann, H.-W.. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 290–306.Google Scholar
Wesley-Hunt, G. D. (2005). The morphological diversification of carnivores in North America. Paleobiology, 31, 35–55.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, M. A., Briggs, D. E. G. and Fortey, R. A. (1994). Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison of Cambrian and Recent arthropods. Paleobiology, 20, 93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, M. A. (1998). Crustacean disparity through the Phanerozoic: comparing morphological and stratigraphic data. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 65, 455–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×