Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T04:56:42.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing for historical patterns of change: a case study with frog pectoral girdles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Sharon B. Emerson
Sharon B. Emerson*
Affiliation:
Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evolutionary morphologists and paleontologists have long questioned whether there are general historical patterns to the distribution of morphological types. Few studies have rigorously addressed that question. This study tests the decoupling hypothesis, which predicts an increase in the number of morphological constraints with a reduction in the number of independent elements. Eight cases of historical transformation of the epicoracoid cartilages of frogs were selected for analysis. Similar morphological shape changes occurred across the independently derived historical transformations as determined by a triangle analysis of shape. These results support the decoupling hypothesis and indicate that there may be generalized historical pathways of structural change. This finding is important for the development of a predictive theory in evolutionary morphology.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , Spring 1988 , pp. 174 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Literature Cited

Alberch, P. 1986. Rules of invariance in evolutionary morphology: the organization of the vertebrate skull. Evolution 40: 881–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batschelet, E. 1981. Circular Statistics in Biology. Academic Press, Inc.; London. 371 pp.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F., Chernoff, B., Elder, K., Humphries, J., Smith, G. and Strauss, R.. 1985. Morphometrics in Evolutionary Biology. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Special Publication 15. 277 pp.Google Scholar
Boulenger, G. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia S. ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum. 2nd ed.British Museum (Natural History); London. 503 pp.Google Scholar
Cannatella, D. 1984. Two new species of the leptodactylid frog genus Phrynopus, with comments on the genus. Occasional Papers of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History 113: 1–16.Google Scholar
Cheverud, J., Dow, M., and Leutenegger, W.. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among Primates. Evolution 39: 1335–1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, B. 1981. Comparative osteology and evolutionary relationships in the African Raninae (Ranidae). Monitore Zoologico Italiano 14: 285–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duellman, W. and Trueb, L.. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. McGraw Hill Book Co.; New York. 670 pp.Google Scholar
Emerson, S. 1976. Burrowing in frogs. Journal of Morphology 149: 437–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerson, S. 1979. The ilio-sacral articulation of frogs: form and function. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 11: 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, S. 1983. Functional analysis of frog pectoral girdles. The epicoracoid cartilages. Journal of Zoology, London 201: 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, S. 1984. Morphological variation in frog pectoral girdles: testing alternatives to a traditional adaptive explanation. Evolution 38: 376–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerson, S. 1988. Convergence and morphological constraint in frogs: variation in postcranial morphology. Fieldiana Zoology new series 43: 1–19.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. 1985. Evolutionary morphology: beyond the analogous, the anecdotal and the ad hoc. Paleobiology 11: 120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Massachusetts. 501 pp.Google Scholar
Grandison, A. 1981. Morphology and phylogenetic position of the West African Didynamipus sjoestedti Andersson 1903 (Anura, Bufonidae). Monitore Zoologico Italiano 11: 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, I. 1963. The phylogeny of the Salientia. Biological Reviews 38: 241–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanken, J. 1985. Morphological novelty in the limb skeleton accompanies miniaturization in salamanders. Science 229: 871–874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, P. and Mace, G.. 1982. Comparisons between taxa and adaptive trends: problems of methodology. Pp. 343–361. In King's College Sociobiology Group (ed.), Current Problems in Sociobiology. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.Google Scholar
Heyer, W. 1975. A preliminary analysis of the intergeneric relationships of the frog family Leptodactylidae. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 199: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inger, R. 1967. The development of a phylogeny of frogs. Evolution 21: 369–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kluge, A. and Farris, J.. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Systematic Zoology 18: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauder, G. 1981. Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology 7: 430–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauder, G. 1982. Historical biology and the problem of design. Journal of Theoretical Biology 97: 57–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. 1978. Adaptation. Scientific American 239: 156–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, J. 1971. Evolution relationships, osteology and zoogeography of leptodactyloid frogs. Miscellaneous Publications of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History 53: 1–238.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. 1975. A review of the Andean leptodactylid frog genus Phrynopus. Occasional Papers of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History 35: 1–51.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. 1978. A re-assessment of the telmatobine leptodactylid frogs of Patagonia. Occasional Paper of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History 72: 1–57.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. 1986. New species of minute leptodactylid frogs from the Andes of Ecuador and Peru. Journal of Herpetology 20: 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDiarmid, R. 1971. Comparative morphology and evolution of frogs of the neotropical genera Atelopus, Dendrophryniscus, Melanophryniscus and Oreophrynella. Bulletin of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History 12: 1–66.Google Scholar
Noble, G. 1922. The phylogeny of the Salentia. I. The osteology and thigh musculature; their bearing on classification and phylogeny. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 46: 1–87.Google Scholar
Noble, G. 1926. The pectoral girdle of brachycephalid frogs. American Museum Novitates 230: 1–14.Google Scholar
Parker, H. 1932. Parallel modifications in the skeleton of the Amphibian Salientia. Archivio Zoologico Italiano 16: 1239–48.Google Scholar
Radinsky, L. 1985. Approaches in evolutionary morphology: a search for patterns. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. 1972. Approaches to morphologic analysis. Pp. 28–44. In Schopf, T. J. M. (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper and Company; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. 1964. The historical factor in science. Pp. 121–148. In This View of Life. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.; New York.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. and Rohlf, F.. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed.W. H. Freeman and Company; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Trueb, L. 1973. Bones, frogs and evolution. Pp. 65–132. In Vial, J. (ed.), Evolutionary Biology of the Anurans. University of Missouri Press; Columbia.Google Scholar
Trueb, L. 1977. Osteology and anuran systematics: intrapopulational variation in Hyla lanciformis. Systematic Zoology 26: 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar