CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 425Morphological variations and asymmetryEvolution and Paleontology StudiesPrimate Behavior and Ecology

A comparison of phenotypic variation and covariation patterns and the role of phylogeny, ecology, and ontogeny during cranial evolution of new world monkeys

Marroig, Gabriel, Cheverud, James M.·2001·Evolution
DOI 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00770.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Similarity of genetic and phenotypic variation patterns among populations is important for making quantitative inferences about past evolutionary forces acting to differentiate populations and for evaluating the evolution of relationships among traits in response to new functional and developmental relationships. Here, phenotypic co variance and correlation structure is compared among Platyrrhine Neotropical primates. Comparisons range from among species within a genus to the superfamily level. Matrix correlation followed by Mantel's test and vector correlation among responses to random natural selection vectors (random skewers) were used to compare correlation and variance/covariance matrices of 39 skull traits. Sampling errors involved in matrix estimates were taken into account in comparisons using matrix repeatability to set upper limits for each pairwise comparison. Results indicate that covariance structure is not strictly constant but that the amount of variance pattern divergence observed among taxa is generally low and not associated with taxonomic distance. Specific instances of divergence are identified. There is no correlation between the amount of divergence in covariance patterns among the 16 genera and their phylogenetic distance derived from a conjoint analysis of four already published nuclear gene datasets. In contrast, there is a significant correlation between phylogenetic distance and morphological distance (Mahalanobis distance among genus centroids). This result indicates that while the phenotypic means were evolving during the last 30 millions years of New World monkey evolution, phenotypic covariance structures of Neotropical primate skulls have remained relatively consistent. Neotropical primates can be divided into four major groups based on their feeding habits (fruit-leaves, seed-fruits, insect-fruits, and gum-insect-fruits). Differences in phenotypic covariance structure are correlated with differences in feeding habits, indicating that to some extent changes in interrelationships among skull traits are associated with changes in feeding habits. Finally, common patterns and levels of morphological integration are found among Platyrrhine primates, suggesting that functional/developmental integration could be one major factor keeping covariance structure relatively stable during evolutionary diversification of South American monkeys.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00770.x

Cites

140 of 140 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?

  • Patterns of covariation and correlation between different parts of the cranium are partially independent, suggesting they behave as partially independent units.

    “In fact, different studies have shown that the patterns of covariation and correlation between different parts of the cranium are partially independent, thus suggesting that they behave as partially independent units [15,39–42].”

    From Morphological consequences of artificial cranial deformation: Modularity and integration (2020) · cites this paper as [39]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Marroig, G., & Cheverud, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
  • Marroig, Gabriel
  • Cheverud, James M.
ORCID
Venue
Evolution
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2001-12
Volume
55
Issue
12
Pages
2576-2600
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
DOI
10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00770.x
OpenAlex
W2174009270
Cited by
425
References
140
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 15
FWCI
17.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 5022 d)
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
cranial evolution, phenotypic covariance, phenotypic variability, New World monkeys, morphological integration, phylogenetic distance, feeding habits, ontogeny, morphological distance, matrix correlation
MeSH terms
Animals, Cebidae, Biological Evolution, Models, Genetic, Phenotype, Phylogeny, Skull, Genetic Variation, Reproducibility of Results

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