|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Full text of article
'Shea BT, 1995: Ontogenetic Scaling and Size Correction in the Comparatyive Study of Primate Adaptations. Anthropologie (Brno) 33, 1-2: 1-16'. |
| |
| Abstract | | The identification and removal of allometric effects is generally deemed desirable in the comparative analysis of form and adaptation. Debates continue regarding the most appropriate and effective allometric "criteria of subtraction" in such analyses. Here I argue that utilization of onto genetic scaling (Gould, 1975; Shea, 1981) within an explicitly phylogenetic context provides a powerful and biologically-justifiable criterion for identifying both (1) the shared, correlated effects of size change on morphological features and proportions; and (2) the derived dissociations of ancestral allometries which indicate novel shape transformation requiring additional explanation. These novel shape divergences may result from biomechanical scaling, or they may be associated with non-allometric, extrinsic factors such as ecological shifts, etc. Thus, a hierarchical procedure beginning with analysis ofontogenetic allometries in groups of related species can be very useful in comparative studies ofadaptation. I review examples of both intersexual and interspecific comparisons in primate evolution where ontogenetic scaling has been used effectively as a criterion ofsubtraction to identify derived proportions resulting from dissociations of shared patterns of allometric growth covariance. This approach emphasizes the necessity of integrating studies of ontogeny with traditional interspecific adult analyses in the investigation of adaptation, phylogeny reconstruction and the role of historical factors or constraints in evolutionary transformations. | | | | Keywords | | Allometry - Ontogenetic scaling - Dissociation - Adaptation - Comparative studies | | |
|
|
|
Full text (PDF)
Export citation
Related articles