Cited by 24

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Subspecific genetic differences in the saddle‐back tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis) postcranial skeleton

Kohn, Luci Ann P., Langton, Laura Bishoff, Cheverud, James M.·2001·American Journal of Primatology

Abstract

Saddle‐back tamarins (Saguinus fuscicollis) have been differentiated into subspecies based on coat color and facial morphology. Morphology of first‐generation genetic hybrids can provide an understanding of population differences and evolution that may otherwise be difficult to obtain. This study compares postcranial morphology in two hybrids of saddle‐back tamarins (S. f. illigeri × S. f. lagonotus and S. f. illigeri × S. f. leucogenys) to the purebred subspecies. We examine whether postcranial morphology differs between the purebred subspecies and their hybrids, and whether hybrids exhibit heterosis indicative of genetic differences between the parental subspecies. Fifty postcranial dimensions, or traits, were measured on 287 S. fuscicollis skeletons. Measurements were corrected for sex differences and environmental differences (wild‐derived or laboratory‐born). Females were larger than males for most postcranial dimensions, especially in the pelvis. Significant environmental differences were found throughout the postcranial skeleton, with wild‐derived animals generally larger than animals born in the laboratory. Significant heterosis was found for six postcranial traits in the S. f. illigeri × S. f. leucogenys cross, and heterosis was found for 15 postcranial traits in the S. f. illigeri × S. f. lagonotus cross. These results suggest that subspecies differences in skeletal morphology are generally due to genetic rather than environmental differences. The subspecies appear to represent geographic isolates that differ in gene frequencies and directional dominance for skeletal traits. Am. J. Primatol. 54:41–56, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajp.1011

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One possible morphometric indicator of dysgenesis in hybrids is trait values below parental trait averages.

    “One possible morphometric indicator of dysgenesis in hybrids is trait values below parental trait averages (sensu Kohn et al. 2001; Ackermann et al. 2006).”
  • Previous primate studies showing evidence for heterosis in primate hybrids were based on early generation hybrid samples with known pedigrees, which allowed for distinction among different kinds of hybrids.

    “Previous primate studies showing evidence for heterosis in primate hybrids were based on early generation hybrid samples with known pedigrees (e.g., Cheverud et al. 1993; Kohn et al. 2001; Ackermann et al. 2006), which allowed for distinction among different kinds of hybrids (e.g., F1 vs backcross).”
  • Heterosis, or hybrid vigor, is observed in genetically isolated taxa with differences in gene frequencies or dominance deviations and is maximal when different alleles are fixed between taxa.

    “Heterosis, or hybrid vigor, is observed in genetically isolated taxa with differences in gene frequencies or dominance deviations and is maximal when different alleles are fixed between taxa (Kohn et al. 2001).”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1086/284142 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/ajpa.1330490404 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/ajp.1350210102 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/ajp.1350310104 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1007/BF01296967 · DOI
  6. CroppS.1997.Evolutionary diversification among tamarins (genusSaguinus)(dissertation). St. Louis: Washington University. 233 p.
  7. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199901)108:1<65::AID-AJPA4>3.0.CO;2-4 · DOI
  8. Falconer DS, 1981, Introduction to quantitative genetics
  9. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1969.tb56381.x · DOI
  10. 10.1097/00007890-196911000-00009 · DOI
  11. Gengozian N, 1971, Medical primatology, 1970, 926
  12. Gengozian N, 1971, Medical primatology, 1970, 165
  13. 10.1007/BF02381126 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1968.tb03992.x · DOI
  15. Hershkovitz P, 1977, Living New World monkeys
  16. 10.1007/BF00300058 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/sysbio/44.4.515 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/ajp.1350330402 · DOI
  19. 10.1159/000156199 · DOI
  20. Lynch M, 1998, Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits
  21. 10.1002/ajpa.1330890107 · DOI
  22. 10.1097/00007890-196911000-00010 · DOI
  23. Singleton GR, 1983, The effect of social organization on reproductive success and gene flow in colonies of house mice, Mus musculus, Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 12, 49, 10.1007/BF00296932 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Templeton AR, 1987, Mammalian dispersal patterns, 257
  25. Turner HN, 1969, Quantitative genetics in sheep breeding
  26. Wright S, 1932, The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution, Proc Sixth Int Congr Genetics, 1, 356
  27. 10.1086/280996 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kohn, L. A. P., Langton, L. B., & Cheverud, J. M.
Venue
American Journal of Primatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-04-19
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
41-56
ISSN
  • 0275-2565
  • 1098-2345
Cited by
24
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review