Ecological and Evolutionary Morphology

ECOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY MORPHOLOGY

2006 Schedule and Syllabus

Schedule

Mo / Day / Topic
09 / 11
09 / 18 / INTRODUCTION
09 / 25 / descriptive morphology
10 / 02 / descriptive morphology
10 / 09 / descriptive morphology (presentation*)
10 / 16 / morphometrics and other tools
10 / 23 / morphometrics
10 / 30 / allometry and scaling
11 / 06 / allometry and scaling
11 / 13 / comparative functional morphology
11 / 20 / comparative functional morphology
11 / 27 / ecological morphology
12 / 04 / ecological morphology
12 / 11 / evolutionary morphology
12 / 18 / evolutionary morphology
12 / 25 / evolutionary morphology
01 / 01 / no class
01 / 08 / conclusions

The topics for the course include:

Descriptive morphology

morphometrics and other tools

allometry and scaling

Comparative functional morphology

ecologcal morphology

evolutionary morphology

Course assignments

presentations and participation in discussions: 30%

3 short reports (5 pages each): 30%

Final report (40 pages): 40%

1. presentation and discussion

You are expected to contribute to the discussion during classs. This means you need to finish the assigned readings before class.

There will be one presentation scheduled on the 9th October, the topic for everyone is : “How to describe morphology”. Everyone need to prepare a ten-minutes presentation introducing a paper of your choice using no more than five transparencies (DO NOT USE POWERPOINT OR OTHER SLIDE SHOWS). You should:

1. find one research paper describing new species or describing morphology (find your own animal groups) and read them thoroughly.

2. give one copy to the instructor on 2nd Oct. during class.

3. find out the following and include them in the presentation:

a. what morphological techniques are used.

b. how the species or the morphology is described: the logical arrangements.

c. are there any discussion about related forms? If so, what characters are compared? what techniques are used?

d. what types of illustrations are used?

e. What do you think can be improved in this paper?

2. reports

A final report is due on or before 8 Jan. You will decide your own topic, it can be a primary research (based on your own data or someone else’ data), or a review of one topic in functional or evolutionary morphology. The format of the paper should follow scientific styles. All the contents should be double-spaced, with page numbers indicated, and allow one inch margin on all sides of pages. You must have at least ten citations (references) in the report.

Assigned Readings:

BOOKS

Harvey, P. & M. D. Pagel 1991 The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press.

Olson, E. C. & R. L. Miller 1958 Morphological Integration. The University of Chicago Press. (especially the afterword, by Chernoff and Magwene at the end of the book, written in 1999)

Wainwright, P. C. & S. M. Reilly (eds.) Ecological Morphology. Integrative Organismal Biology. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

other books and readings of interests

Fairbairn, D. J. 1997 Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in male and females. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 28, 659-687.

Koehl, M. A. R. 2000 Consequences of size change during ontogeny and evolution. in J. H. Brown and G. B. West (eds.) “Scaling in Biology”. pp. 67-86. Oxford University Press.

Lauder, G. V. and S. M. Reilly 1996 The mechanistic bases of behavioral evolution: a multivariate analysis of musculoskeletal Function. chapter 4, in E. P. Martins (ed.) “Phylogenetic and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior.” pp. 104-137. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Nishikawa, K. C. 2000 Feeding in Frogs. chapter 5, in K. Schwenk (ed.) “Feeding: Form, Function, and Evolution in Terrestrial Vertebrates.” pp. 117-147. Academic Press, San Diego.

Zelditch, M. L., D. L. Swiderski, and W. L. Fink 2000 Discovery of phylogenetic characters in morphometric data. chapter 3, pp. 37-83, in J. J. Wiens (ed.) “Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data.” Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

general concepts

Chernoff, B. and P. M. Magwene 1999 Morphological integration: forty years later. pp. 319-353. in Olson, E. C. & R. L. Miller 1958 Morphological Integration. The University of Chicago Press.

Foote, M. 1997 The evolution of morphological diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 28: 129-152.

Gans, C. 1974 Biomechanics. An Approach to Vertebrate Biology. The University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. (chapter 1)

Gould, S. J. and R. C. Lewontin 1984 The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationists programme. in E. Sober (ed.) “Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. An Anthology”. pp. 252-270. The MIT Press.

Harvey, P. H. 2000 Why and how phylogenetic relationships should be incorporated into studies of scaling. in J. H. Brown and G. B. West (eds.) “Scaling in Biology”. pp. 253-265. Oxford University Press.

Koehl, M. A. R. 1996 When does morphology matter? Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 27: 501-542.

Radinsky, L. B. 1985 Approaches in evolutionary morphology: a search for patterns. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 16, 1-14.

Ricklefs, R. E. & D. B. Miles 1994 Ecological and evolutionary inferences from morphology: an ecological perspective. in P. C. Wainwright & S. M. Reilly (eds.) “ Ecological Morphology. Integrative Organismal Biology”. pp. 13-41. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Travis, J. 1994 Evaluating the adaptive role of morphological plasticity. in P. C. Wainwright & S. M. Reilly (eds.) “ Ecological Morphology. Integrative Organismal Biology”. pp. 99-122. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Wainwright, P. C. 1994 Functional Morphology as a tool in Ecological Research. in P. C. Wainwright & S. M. Reilly (eds.) “ Ecological Morphology. Integrative Organismal Biology”. pp. 42-59. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

descriptive morphology and ontogeny

Arnquist, G. and F. Johansson 1998 Ontogenetic reaction norms of predator-induced defensive morphology in dragonfly larvae. Ecology 79(6), 1847-1858.

Davis, M. C., N. H. Shubin, and A. Force 2004 Pectoral fin and girdle development in the basal actinopterygians Polyodon spathula and Acipenser transmontanus. Journal of Morphology 262, 608-628.

Dünker, N. M. H. Wake, and W. M. Olson 2000 Embryonic and larval development in the caecilian Ichthyophis kohtaoensis (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): a staging table. Journal of Morphology 243, 3-34.

Frazzetta, T. H. 1999 Adaptations and significance of the cranial feeding apparatus of the sunbeam snake (Xenopeltis unicolor): Part 1. Anatomy of the skull. Journal of Morphology, 239, 27-43.

Galis, F., M. Kundrát, and B. Sinervo 2003 An old controversy solved: bird embryos have five fingers. Trends in Ecol. Evo., 18(1), 7-9.

(reply 1 to Galis et al) Feduccia, A. 2003 Bird origins: problem solved, but the debate continues... Trends in Ecol. Evo., 18(1), 9-10.

(reply 2 to Galis et al) Larsson, H. C. E. and G. P. Wagner 2003 Old morphologies misinterpreted. Trends in Ecol. Evo., 18(1), 10.

Larson, P. M. 2002 Chondrocranial development in larval Rana sylvatica (Anura: Ranidae): Morphometric analysis of cranial allometry and ontogenetic shape change. Journal of Morphology, 252, 131-144.

Mabee, P. M. 2000 The usefulness of ontogeny in interpreting morphological characters. in J. J. Wiens (ed.) “Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data”. pp. 84-114. Smithsnomian Institution Press.

Reilly, S. M. 1994 The ecological morphology of metamorphosis: heterochrony and the evolution of feeding mechanisms in salamanders. in P. C. Wainwright & S. M. Reilly (eds.) “ Ecological Morphology. Integrative Organismal Biology”. pp. 319-338. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Ryan, T. J. and R. D. Semlitsch 1998 Intraspecific heterochrony and life history evolution: decoupling somatic and sexual development in a facultatively paedomorphic salamander. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95, 5643-5648.

Shubin, N. H. 2002 Origin of evolutionary novelty: examples from limbs. Journal of Morphology, 252, 15-28.

Uhlenhuth, E. 1919 Relation between metamorphosis and other developmental phenomena in amphibians. Journal of General Physiology, ??, 525-544.

character divergence

Haas, A. 2003 Phylogeny of frogs as inferred from primarily larval characters (Amphibia: Anura). Cladistics 19, 23-89.

Pfennig, D. W., and P. J. Murphy 2003 A test of alternative hypotheses for character divergence between coexisting species. Ecology, 84, 1288-1297.

comparative functional morphology

Busbey, A. B. 1995 The structural consequences of skull flattening in crocodilians. in J. J. Thomason (ed.) “Functional Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology”. pp. 173-192. Cambridge University Pres.

Carrano, M. T. and J. R. Hutchinson 2002 Pelvic and hindlimb musculature of Tyrannosaurus rex (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Morphology 253, 207-228.

Gatesy, S. M. 1995 Functional evolution of the hindlimb and tail from basal theropods to birds. in J. J. Thomason (ed.) “Functional Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology”. pp. 219-234. Cambridge University Pres.

Herrel, A., P. Aerts, J. Fret, and F. de Vree. Morphology of the feeding system in agamid lizards: ecological correlates. The Anatomical Record, 254, 496-507.

Hlwatika, C. N. M., and R. B. Bhat 2002 An ecological interpretation of the difference in leaf anatomy and its plasticity in contrasting tree species in Orange Kloof, Table Mountains, South Africa. Annals of Botany 89: 109-114.

Johnson, R. E. and J. H. Ostrom 1995 The forelimb of Torosaurus and an analysis of the posture and gait of ceratopsian dinosaurs. in J. J. Thomason (ed.) “Functional Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology”. pp. 205-218. Cambridge University Pres.

Kohlsdorf, T., T. Garland, Jr., and C. A. Navas 2001 Limb and tail lengths in relation to substrate usage in Tropidurus lizards. Journal of Morphology 248, 151-164.

Liem, K. F. 1990 Key evolutionary innovations, differential diversity, and symecomorphosis. in M. H. Nitecki (ed.) “Evolutionary Innovations”. pp. 147-170. University of Chicago Press.

Liem, K. F. 1993 Ecomorphology of the teleostean skull. in J. Hanken and B. K. Hall (eds.) “The Skull. vol. 3. Functional and Evolutioinary Mechanisms”. pp. 422-452. University of Chicago Press.

Meyer, J. J., J. C. O'Reilly, J. A. Monroy, and K. C. Nishikawa 2004 Mechanism of tongue protraction in microhylid frogs. Journal of Experimental Biology, 207, 21-31.

Ritter, D. 1996 Axial muscle function during lizard locomotion. Journal of Experimental Biology, 199, 2499-2510.

Schlosser, I. J., M. R. Doeringsfeld, J. F. Elder, and L. F. Arzayus 1998 Niche relationships of clonal and sexual fish in a heterogeneous landscape. Ecology 79, 953-968.

Vera Candioti, M. F., E. O. Lavilla, and D. D. Echeverria 2004 Feeding mechanisms in two treefrogs, Hyla nana and Scinax nasicus (Anura: Hylidae). Journal of Morphology 261, 206-224.

Vitt, L. J., J. P. Caldwell, P. A. Zani, and T. A. Titus 1997 The role of habitat shift in the evolution of lizard morphology: evidence from tropical Tropidurus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94, 3828-2832.

evolution

Downes, S. and R. Shine 2001 Why does tail loss increase a lizard's later vulnerability to snake predators? Ecology, 82, 1293-1303.

Evans, B. J., R. M. Brown, J. A. McGuire, J. Supriatna, N. Andayani, A. Diesmos, D. Iskandar, D. J. Melnick, and D. C. Cannatella. 2003 Phylogenetics of fanged frogs: testing biogeographical hypotheses at the interface of the Asian and Australian Faunal Zones. Systematic Biology 52, 794-819.

Fry, B. G., N. Vidal, J. A. Norman, F. J. Vonk, H. Scheib, S. F. R. Ramjan, S. Kuruppu, K. Fung, S. B. Hedges, M. K. Richardson, W. C. Hodgson, V. Ignjatovic, R. Summerhayes, and E. Kochva. 2006 Early evolution of the venom system in lizards and snakes. Nature, 439, 584-588.

Jenner, R. A. Accepting partnership by submission? Morphological phylogenetics in a molecular millennium. systematic Biology, 53, 333-342.

Keogh, J. S. 1999 Evolutionary implications of hemipenial morphology in the terrestrial Australian elapid snakes. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 125, 239-278.

Maginnis, T. L. 2006 The cost of autotomy and regeneration in animals: a review and framework for future research. Behavioral Ecology. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ar1010.

Mendelson, J. R., III., H. R. Da Silva, and A. M. Maglia. 2000 Phylogenetic relationships among marsupial frog genera (Anura: Hylidae: Hemiphractinae) based on evidene from morphology and natural history. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 128, 125-148.

Radtkey, R. R., S. M. Fallon, and T. J. Case 1997 Character displacement in some Cnemidophorus lizards revisited: a phylogenetic analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 94, 9740-9745.

Shubin, N. H. 2002 Origin of evolutionary novelty: examples from limbs. Journal of morphology, 252, 15-28.

Vitt, L. J., J. P. caldwell, P. A. Zani, and T. A. Titus. 1997 The role of habitat shift in the evolution of lizard morphology: evidence from tropical Tropidurus. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, USA, 94, 3828-3832.

Wiens, J. J. 2004 The role of morphological data in phylogeny reconstruction. Systematic Biology, 53, 653-661.

functional morphology

Deufel, A. and D. Cundall 2003 Feeding in Atractaspis (Serpentes: Atractaspididae): a study in conflicting functional constraints. Zoology 106, 43-61.

Druzisky, K. A. and E. L. Brainerd. 2001 buccal oscillation and lung ventilation in a semi-aquatic turtle, Platysternon megacephalum. Zoology 104, ????

Ferry-Graham, L. A., D. I. Bolnick, and P. C. Wainwright 2002 Using functional morphology to examine the ecology and evolution of specialization. Integrative and Comparative Biology 42, 265-277.

Girling, J. E. 2002 The reptilian oviduct: a review of structure and function and directions for future research. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 293, 141-170.

Herrel, A., J. J. Meyers, P. Aerts, and K. C. Nishikawa 2001 Functional implications of supercontracting muscle in the chameleon tongue retractors. Journal of Experimental Biology 204, 3621-3627.

Nishikawa, K. C., W. M. Kier, and K. K. Smith 1999 Morphology and mechanics of tongue movement in the African pig-nosed frog Hemisus marmoratum: a muscular hydrostatic model. Journal of Experimental Biology, 202, 771-780.

Plasticity and variation

Buskirk. J. van, and B. R. Schmidt 2000 Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in larval newts: trade-offs, selection, and variation in nature. Ecology, 81, 3009-3028.

Buskirk, J. van. 2002 A comparative test of the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: relationship between habitat and phenotye in anuran larvae. American Naturalist 160, 87-102.

Eklöv, P., and R. Svanbäck. 2006 Predation risk influences adaptive morphological variation in fish populations. American Naturalist, 167, 440-452.

Relyea, R. A. 2001 The lasting effects of adatpive plasticity: predator-induced tadpoles become long-legged frogs. Ecology, 82, 1947-1955.

Relyea, R. A. 2002 The many faces of predation: how induction, selection, and thinning combine to alter prey phenotypes. Ecology, 83, 1953-1964.