CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Morphological variations and asymmetryHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

On the lack of a universal pattern associated with mammalian domestication: differences in skull growth trajectories across phylogeny

Open access
Sánchez-Villagra, Marcelo R., Segura, Valentina, Geiger, Madeleine, Heck, Laura, Veitschegger, Kristof, Flores, David·2017·Royal Society Open Science
DOI 10.1098/rsos.170876PMC PMC5666271
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As shown in a taxonomically broad study, domestication modifies postnatal growth. Skull shape across 1128 individuals was characterized by 14 linear measurements, comparing 13 pairs of wild versus domesticated forms. Among wild forms, the boar, the rabbit and the wolf have the highest proportion of allometric growth, explaining in part the great morphological diversity of the domesticated forms of these species. Wild forms exhibit more isometric growth than their domesticated counterparts. Multivariate comparisons show that dogs and llamas exhibit the greatest amount of differences in trajectories with their wild counterparts. The least amount is recorded in the pig–boar, and camel and horse pairs. Bivariate analyses reveal that most domesticated forms have growth trajectories different from their respective wild counterparts with regard to the slopes. In pigs and camels slopes are shared and intercepts are different. There is a trajectory extension in most domesticated herbivores and the contrary pattern in carnivorous forms. However, there is no single, universal and global pattern of paedomorphosis or any other kind of heterochrony behind the morphological diversification that accompanies domestication.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsos.170876

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Sánchez-Villagra et al. (2017) and Wilson (2018) found no single universal pattern of skull morphology changes in domestic animals.

    “Sánchez-Villagra et al. (2017) looked in detail on skull morphology in pairs of wild and domestic animals and Wilson (2018) at developmental trajectories of skull morphology within domestic species. Neither found a single universal pattern.”

    From The neural crest cell hypothesis: no unified explanation for domestication (2021) · cites this paper as Sánchez-Villagra et al. (2017)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. [1]Larson G, Fuller DQ 2014 The evolution of animal domestication. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 45, 115– 136. (doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813) · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Andersson L, Georges M 2004 Domestic-animal genomics: deciphering the genetics of complex traits. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 202– 212. (doi:10.1038/nrg1294) 14970822 · DOI
  3. [9]Drake AG, Klingenberg CP 2010 Large-scale diversification of skull shape in domestic dogs: disparity and modularity. Am. Nat. 175, 289– 301. (doi:10.1086/650372) 20095825 · DOI
  4. [10]Wilson LA 2011 Comparison of prenatal and postnatal ontogeny: cranial allometry in the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio). J. Mammal. 92, 407– 420. (doi:10.1644/10-MAMM-A-209.1) · DOI
  5. [11]Werneburg I, Geiger M 2016 Ontogeny of domestic dogs and the developmental foundations of carnivoran domestication. J. Mamm. Evol. 24, 323– 343. (doi:10.1007/s10914-016-9346-9) · DOI
  6. [12]Moore WJ 1981 The mammalian skull. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  7. [13]Driscoll CA, Macdonald DW, O'Brien SJ 2009 From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9971– 9978. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0901586106) 19528637 PMC2702791 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [14]Gentry A, Clutton-Brock J, Groves CP 2004 The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 645– 651. (doi:10.1016/j.jas.2003.10.006) · DOI · Paper page
  9. [16]Wayne RK 1986 Cranial morphology of domestic and wild canids: the influence of development on morphological change. Evolution 40, 243– 261. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb00467.x) 28556057 · DOI
  10. [17]Tarnawski B, Cassini G, Flores D 2014 Skull allometry and sexual dimorphism in the ontogeny of the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina). Can J Zool. 92, 19– 31. (doi:10.1139/cjz-2013-0106) · DOI
  11. [18]Segura V, Prevosti F, Cassini G 2013 Cranial ontogeny in the puma lineage, Puma concolor, Herpailurus yagouaroundi, and Acinonyx jubatus (Carnivora: Felidae): a three-dimensional geometric morphometric approach. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 169, 235– 250. (doi:10.1111/zoj.12047) · DOI
  12. [19]Segura V, Cassini GH, Prevosti FJ 2016 Three-dimensional cranial ontogeny in pantherines (Panthera leo, P. onca, P. pardus, P. tigris; Carnivora:, Felidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 120, 210– 227. (doi:10.1111/bij.12888) · DOI
  13. [21]Flores DA, Abdala F, Martin GM, Giannini NP, Martinez JM, Mastozoología G 2015 Post-weaning cranial growth in shrew opossums (Caenolestidae): a comparison with bandicoots (Peramelidae) and carnivorous marsupials. J. Mamm. Evol. 22, 285– 303. (doi:10.1007/s10914-014-9279-0) · DOI
  14. [22]Jolicoeur P 1963 The multivariate generalization of the allometry equation. Biometrics 19, 497– 499. (doi:10.2307/2527939) · DOI
  15. [23]Giannini NP, Abdala F, Flores DA 2004 Comparative postnatal ontogeny of the skull in Dromiciops gliroides (Marsupialia: Microbiotheriidae). Am. Mus. Novit. 3460, 1– 17. (doi:10.1206/0003-0082(2004)460<0001:CPOOTS>2.0.CO;2) · DOI
  16. [26]Abdala F, Flores DA, Giannini NP 2001 Postweaning ontogeny of the skull of Didelphis albiventris. J. Mammal. 82, 190– 200. (doi:10.1644/1545-1542(2001)082<0190:POOTSO>2.0.CO;2) · DOI
  17. [27]Cassini GH, Flores DA, Vizcaíno SF 2012 Postnatal ontogenetic scaling of Nesodontine (Notoungulata, Toxodontidae) cranial morphology. Acta Zool. 93, 249– 259. (doi:10.1111/j.1463-6395.2011.00501.x) · DOI
  18. [28]Mosimann JE 1970 Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65, 930– 945. (doi:10.2307/2284599) · DOI
  19. [29]Alexander R 1985 Body support, scaling and allometry. In Functional vertebrate morphology (eds Hildebrand M, Bramble D, Liem K, Wake D), pp. 27– 37. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  20. [30]Warton DI, Weber NC 2002 Common slope tests for bivariate errors-in-variables models. Biometrical J. 44, 161 (doi:10.1002/1521-4036(200203)44:2<161::AID-BIMJ161>3.0.CO;2-N) · DOI
  21. [31]Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC 1995 Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  22. [32]Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M 2006 Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol. Rev. 81, 259– 291. (doi:10.1017/S1464793106007007) 16573844 · DOI
  23. [33]Reilly SM, Wiley E, Meinhardt DJ 1997 An integrative approach to heterochrony: the distinction between interspecific and intraspecific phenomena. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 60, 119– 143. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1997.tb01487.x) · DOI
  24. [35]Hendrikse JL, Parsons TE, Hallgrímsson B 2007 Evolvability as the proper focus of evolutionary developmental biology. Evol. Dev. 9, 393– 401. (doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2007.00176.x) 17651363 · DOI
  25. [36]Goswami A, Foley L, Weisbecker V 2013 Patterns and implications of extensive heterochrony in carnivoran cranial suture closure. J. Evolution. Biol. 26, 1294– 1306. (doi:10.1111/jeb.12127) PMC4166780 23530892 · DOI
  26. [37]Fondon JW, Garner HR 2004 Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 18 058– 18 063. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0408118101) PMC539791 15596718 · DOI
  27. [38]Sears K, Goswami A, Flynn J, Niswander L 2007 The correlated evolution of Runx2 tandem repeats, transcriptional activity, and facial length in carnivora. Evol. Dev. 9, 555– 565. (doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2007.00196.x) 17976052 · DOI
  28. [40]Clutton-Brock J 1999 A natural history of domesticated mammals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  29. [44]Cardini A, Polly PD 2013 Larger mammals have longer faces because of size-related constraints on skull form. Nat. Commun. 4, 2458 (doi:10.1038/ncomms3458) 24045342 · DOI
  30. [45]Porto A, de Oliveira FB, Shirai LT, De Conto V, Marroig G 2009 The evolution of modularity in the mammalian skull I: morphological integration patterns and magnitudes. Evol. Biol. 36, 118– 135. (doi:10.1007/s11692-008-9038-3) · DOI
  31. [47]Hallgrímsson B, Jamniczky H, Young NM, Rolian C, Parsons TE, Boughner JC, Marcucio RS 2009 Deciphering the palimpsest: studying the relationship between morphological integration and phenotypic covariation. Evol. Biol. 36, 355– 376. (doi:10.1007/s11692-009-9076-5) 23293400 PMC3537827 · DOI
  32. [48]Kruska DC, Steffen K 2013 Comparative allometric investigations on the skulls of wild cavies (Cavia aperea) versus domesticated guinea pigs (C. aperea f. porcellus) with comments on the domestication of this species. Mamm. Biol. 78, 178– 186. (doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2012.07.002) · DOI
  33. [49]Evin A, Owen J, Larson G, Debiais-Thibaud M, Cucchi T, Vidarsdottir US, Dobney K 2017 A test for paedomorphism in domestic pig cranial morphology. Biol. Letters 13, 20170321 (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2017.0321) PMC5582111 28794276 · DOI
  34. [50]Zelditch ML, Calamari ZT, Swiderski DL 2016 Disparate postnatal ontogenies do not add to the shape disparity of infants. Evol. Biol. 43, 188– 207. (doi:10.1007/s11692-016-9370-y) · DOI
  35. [51]Geiger M, Evin A, Sánchez-Villagra MR, Gascho D, Mainini C, Zollikofer C In press. Neomorphism and heterochrony of skull shape in dog domestication. Sci. Rep. PMC5647425 29044203
  36. [52]Radinsky LB 1981 Evolution of skull shape in carnivores: 1. Representative modern carnivores. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 15, 369– 388. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb00770.x) · DOI
  37. [53]Hemmer H 1990 Domestication: the decline of environmental appreciation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  38. [54]Emerson SB, Bramble DM 1993 Scaling, allometry, and skull design. In The skull volume 3. Functional and evolutionary mechanisms (ed. Hanken J, Hall BK), pp. 384– 416. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  39. [55]Slater G, Van Valkenburgh B 2009 Allometry and performance: the evolution of skull form and function in felids. J. Evolution Biol. 22, 2278– 2287. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01845.x) 19796083 · DOI
  40. [56]Curth S, Fischer M, Kupczik K In press. Patterns of integration in the canine skull: an inside view into the relationship of the skull modules of domestic dogs and wolves. Zoology. (doi:10.1016/j.zool.2017.06.002) 28823648 · DOI
  41. [57]Goswami A, Polly P, Mock O, Sánchez-Villagra MR 2012 Shape, variance and integration during craniogenesis: contrasting marsupial and placental mammals. J. Evolution. Biol. 25, 862– 872. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02477.x) 22356604 · DOI
  42. [58]Klatt B 1913 Über den Einfluss der Gesamtgrösse auf das Schädelbild nebst Bemerkungen über die Vorgeschichte der Haustiere. Arch. Entwickl. Mech. Org. 36, 387– 471. (doi:10.1007/BF02266725) · DOI
  43. [59]Richardson MK 1999 Vertebrate evolution: the developmental origins of adult variation. Bioessays 21, 604– 613. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-1878(199907)21:7<604::AID-BIES9>3.0.CO;2-U) 10472187 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sánchez-Villagra, M. R., Segura, V., Geiger, M., Heck, L., Veitschegger, K., & Flores, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
Corresponding author
Sánchez-Villagra, Marcelo R.
ORCID
Venue
Royal Society Open Science
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2017-10
Volume
4
Issue
10
Pages
170876
ISSN
2054-5703 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1098/rsos.170876
PMC
PMC5666271
OpenAlex
W2765846632
Cited by
52
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5
FWCI
6.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Royal Society Open Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (31003A_169395)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
allometric growth, isometric growth, paedomorphosis, heterochrony, boars, rabbits, wolf, dogs, llamas, pigs, camels, horses, carnivores, herbivores, morphological diversification

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