CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 249Primate Behavior and EcologyEvolution and Paleontology StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetry

Systematics and body size: implications for feeding adaptations in New World monkeys.

Ford, Susan M., Davis, Lesa C.·1992·American Journal of Physical Anthropology
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.1330880403
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The relationship between body size and feeding ecology is well established for primates. It is argued that the evolutionary history of modern New World monkeys and, in particular, the path to attainment of current body size is significant in understanding the similarities and differences between dietary strategies and other ecological parameters of similar-sized monkeys. Current interpretations of New World monkey evolutionary relationships are reviewed. Based on a synthesis of available body weights and the assumption that the earliest New World monkeys weighed close to 1 kg, similar to modern Aotus and Callicebus, predicted patterns of body size change in each lineage are given. Restrictions on directions of body size change in primates are discussed, and it is shown that "Stanley's Rule" offers a good explanation for differing body size ranges in New and Old World anthropoids. Predicted ecological correlates to body size drawn from the mammalian literature are offered and tested using data on New World monkeys, which show some concurrence and several interesting departures from predicted patterns. Sexual dimorphism in body weight of New World monkey species is reviewed, based on the new summary of body weight data given.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajpa.1330880403

Cites

190 of 190 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • "Phyletic dwarfism" is supported in Cebidae.

    “Another case of adaptation termed “phyletic dwarfism,” defined as a gradient in morphological size partially correlated with evolutionary time [32], is supported in Cebidae.”

    From A molecular phylogeny of living primates (2011) · cites this paper as [32]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 193 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ford, S. M., & Davis, L. C.
Affiliations
Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
Venue
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1992-08
Volume
88
Issue
4
Pages
415-468
ISSN
  • 0002-9483 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-8644
DOI
10.1002/ajpa.1330880403
OpenAlex
W2130627208
Cited by
249
References
193
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 4657 d)
Locations
  • American Journal of Physical Anthropology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
Keywords
New World monkeys, primates, body size, feeding ecology, nutritional strategies, primate evolution, phylogenetic relationships, sexual dimorphism, body weight, Aotus, Callicebus
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Animals, Body Constitution, Cebidae, Eating, Ecology, Biological Evolution, Phylogeny, Sex Characteristics

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