Author:
Voet Inessa,Denys Christiane,Colyn Marc,Lalis Aude,Konečný Adam,Delapré Arnaud,Nicolas Violaine,Cornette Raphaël
Abstract
AbstractUntangling the factors of morphological evolution has long held a central role in the study of evolutionary biology. Extant speciose clades that have only recently diverged are ideal study subjects, as they allow the examination of rapid morphological variation in a phylogenetic context, providing insights into a clade’s evolution. Here, we focus on skull morphological variability in a widely distributed shrew species complex, the Crocidura poensis species complex. The relative effects of taxonomy, size, geography, climate and habitat on skull form were tested, as well as the presence of a phylogenetic signal. Taxonomy was the best predictor of skull size and shape, but surprisingly both size and shape exhibited no significant phylogenetic signal. This paper describes one of the few cases within a mammal clade where morphological evolution does not match the phylogeny. The second strongest predictor for shape variation was size, emphasizing that allometry can represent an easily accessed source of morphological variability within complexes of cryptic species. Taking into account species relatedness, habitat preferences, geographical distribution and differences in skull form, our results lean in favor of a parapatric speciation model within this complex of species, where divergence occurred along an ecological gradient, rather than a geographic barrier.
Funder
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference64 articles.
1. Foote, M. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 129–152 (1997).
2. Félix, M. A. Phenotypic evolution with and beyond genome evolution. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 119, 291–347 (2016).
3. Carroll, S. B. Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: A genetic theory of morphological evolution. Cell 134, 25–36 (2008).
4. Harvey, P. & Pagel, M. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. (Oxford University Press, 1991).
5. Huxley, J. S. & Teissier, G. Terminology of relative growth. Nature 137, 780–781 (1936).