Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2021 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2

Interspecific and intraspecific size and shape variation in skull of two closely related species Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) and Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814) from Turkey

Pages
91–101
Publication Date
2021-03-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, in order to better reveal the skull variations between these two closely related species, more detailed studies with more samples on their morphology and ecology are required.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Anurans are the most suitable vertebrate group to see the development and also evolution in the skull, compared to other terrestrial vertebrates as they show highly derived morphology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Dorsal skull shape differs between the species in male individuals, while in females both dorsal and ventral skulls show a significant variation among populations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, in order to better reveal the skull variations between these two closely related species, more detailed studies with more samples on their morphology and ecology are required.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Skull · cranial size · cranial shape

Abstract

Anurans are the most suitable vertebrate group to see the development and also evolution in the skull, compared to other terrestrial vertebrates as they show highly derived morphology. For this reason, the cranium of anurans has been widely used for analyzing e.g., development and integration, evolutionary history, phylogenetic relationships, sexual dimorphism; and for taxon determination. We applied geometric morphometric techniques and then multivariate statistical analyses to see the skull size and shape variations in closely related Bufo species (B. bufo and B. verrucosissimus) inhabiting Turkey. Females have larger skull than males for both species. Ventral skull size of males differed between species and within species (among populations) whereas dorsal skulls differed only among populations. In females, only size of ventral skull side differs only among populations. Dorsal skull shape differs between the species in male individuals, while in females both dorsal and ventral skulls show a significant variation among populations. Bufo bufo had larger squamousal than B. verrucosissimus, whereas B. verrucosissimus had longer maxilla but shorter occipital region than B. bufo for both males and females. Under the control of size, the shape of skull does not differ between species for both males and females. Due to structural and functional constraints because of having similar biological and physical properties of skeletal and muscle tissues, living in similar environments or shared evolutionary history, the size and shape of skulls are found to be similar between B. bufo and B. verrucosissimus in present study. However, in order to better reveal the skull variations between these two closely related species, more detailed studies with more samples on their morphology and ecology are required.

🔖

Cite This Article

UZUM, N., OZDEMİR, N., DURSUN, C., KUTRUP, B., GUL, S. (2021). Interspecific and intraspecific size and shape variation in skull of two closely related species Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) and Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814) from Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2, 91–101. https://ajindex.com/articles/197279

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Adams DC, 2004, ITAL J ZOOL, V71, P5, DOI 10.1080/11250000409356545 Arntzen JW, 2020, CONTRIB ZOOL, V89, P270, DOI 10.1163/18759866-bja10001 Arntzen JW, 2018, AMPHIBIA-REPTILIA, V39, P41, DOI 10.1163/15685381-00003145 Arntzen JW, 2017, MOL ECOL, V26, P5663, DOI 10.1111/mec.14273 Arntzen JW, 2016, FRONT ZOOL, V13, DOI 10.1186/s12983-016-0184-7 Arntzen JW, 2013, MOL PHYLOGENET EVOL, V69, P1203, DOI 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.07.012 Baran i, 2012, TURKIYE AMFIBI SURUN. Bardua C, 2019,
  2. PALAEONTOLOGY, V62, P417, DOI 10.1111/pala.12405 Bastir M, 2005, AM J PHYS ANTHROPOL, V128, P26, DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20191 Blomberg SP, 2003,
  3. EVOLUTION, V57, P717, DOI 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00285.x Bookstein F., 1992,
  4. MORPHOMETRIC TOOLS L, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511573064, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511573064] BOOKSTEIN FL, 1989, IEEE T PATTERN ANAL, V11, P567, DOI 10.1109/34.24792 Cadenovic N, 2013, ARCH BIOL SCI, V65, P685, DOI 10.2298/ABS1302685C Caumul R, 2005,
  5. EVOLUTION, V59, P2460. Vera MC, 2014, ACTA ZOOL-STOCKHOLM, V95, P44, DOI 10.1111/azo.12007 Cvetkovic D, 2007, ARCH BIOL SCI, V59, P327, DOI 10.2298/ABS0704327C Cvijanovic M, 2017, HERPETOL J, V27, P41 DINGERKUS G, 1977, STAIN TECHNOL, V52, P229, DOI 10.3109/10520297709116780 Dryden IL., 1998, STAT SHAPE ANAL. Fabrezi M, 2006, J ZOOL SYST EVOL RES, V44, P153, DOI 10.1111/j.1439-0469.2005.00349.x Fairbairn DJ, 1997, ANNU REV ECOL SYST, V28, P659, DOI 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.659 Garcia-Porta J, 2012, MOL PHYLOGENET EVOL, V63, P113, DOI 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.12.019 Gould SJ., 2002,
  6. STRUCTURE EVOLUTIONA, DOI [10.2307/j.ctvjsf433, DOI 10.2307/J.CTVJSF433] Gvozdik V, 2008, BIOL J LINN SOC, V95, P539 Hall B. K., 2008, FINS LIMBS EVOLUTION. HALLIDAY TR, 1986, HERPETOL J, V1, P86. HANKEN J, 1988, J EXP ZOOL, V246, P156, DOI 10.1002/jez.1402460208 Hanken James, 1993, P1. Harrington SM, 2013, EVOL DEV, V15, P344, DOI 10.1111/ede.12043 Hendry CR, 2014, J EVOLUTION BIOL, V27, P760, DOI 10.1111/jeb.12349 Ivanovic A, 2008, BIOL J LINN SOC, V95, P348, DOI 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01045.x Ivanovic A, 2013, ZOOL ANZ, V252, P269, DOI 10.1016/j.jcz.2012.08.005 Ivanovic A, 2012, J ZOOL SYST EVOL RES, V50, P116, DOI 10.1111/j.1439-0469.2011.00650.x Jandzik D, 2013, AMPHIBIA-REPTILIA, V34, P579, DOI 10.1163/15685381-00002911 Jared C, 2005, J ZOOL, V265, P1, DOI 10.1017/S0952836904005953 Klingenberg CP, 2011, MOL ECOL RESOUR, V11, P353, DOI 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x Larson PM, 2002, J MORPHOL, V252, P131, DOI 10.1002/jmor.1095 Losos JB, 201