Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T18:48:48.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Evolution in Carnivora: identifying a morphological bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

By
Jill A. Holliday
Edited by
Anjali Goswami  and
Anthony Friscia
Jill A. Holliday
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Anjali Goswami
Affiliation:
University College London
Anthony Friscia
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access

Summary

Introduction

To understand the role of adaptation in generating macroevolutionary patterns, it is necessary to understand whether and in what ways specific features of the phenotype affect subsequent phenotypic diversification. This area has been much debated by both past and present workers, some of who considered whether certain morphologies might be ‘channelled’ (e.g. Gould, 1984; Emerson, 1988; Wagner, 1996) to appear once a specific starting morphology was attained. Less radically, a number of workers have suggested that possession of certain morphological character states may reduce the ability to attain certain other character states (Lauder, 1981; Maynard-Smith et al., 1985; Emerson, 1988; Futuyma and Moreno, 1988; Wagner, 1996; Werdelin, 1996; Alroy, 2000; Donoghue and Ree, 2000; Wagner and Schwenk, 2000; Wagner, 2001; Wagner and Mueller, 2002; Porter and Crandal, 2003; Van Valkenburgh et al., 2004; Polly, 2008), implying that, in some cases, taxa may be limited in their subsequent evolutionary trajectories. Both morphological channelling and a limitation on specific character states fall into the realm of a character change bias, where certain states are more likely to appear than others (Sanderson, 1993; Wagner, 1996; Donoghue and Ree, 2000; Wagner, 2001; Goldberg and Igic, 2008; Polly, 2008). Despite ongoing theoretical debate, however, there has been relatively little empirical exploration of the possibility of bias or directionality in morphological character change, and this area remains poorly understood (Arthur, 2001, 2004; Schluter et al., 2004).

Type
Chapter
Information
Carnivoran Evolution
New Views on Phylogeny, Form and Function
 , pp. 189 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alroy, J. (2000). Understanding the dynamics of trends within evolving lineages. Paleobiology, 26, 319–29.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. (2001). Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evolution and Development, 3, 271–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arthur, W. (2004). The effect of development on the direction of evolution: toward a twenty-first century consensus. Evolution and Development, 6, 282–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. H. and Wilkinson, G. S. (2003). Phylogenetic analysis of correlation structure in stalk-eyed flies (Diasemopsis, Diopsidae). Evolution, 57, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barycka, E. (2007). Evolution and systematics of the feliform Carnivora. Mammalian Biology, 72, 257–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biknevicius, A. R. and Van Valkenburgh, B. (1996). Design for killing: craniodental adaptations of predators. In Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution, ed. Gittleman, J. L.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 393–428.Google Scholar
Bokma, F. (2002). A statistical test of unbiased evolution of body size in birds. Evolution, 56, 2499–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, D. R. and McLennan, D. A. (1991). Phylogeny, Ecology and Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bull, J. J. and Charnov, E. L. (1985). On irreversible evolution. Evolution, 39, 1149–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chappill, J. A. (1989). Quantitative characters in phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics, 5, 217–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusafont-Pairo, M. and Truyols-Santonja, J. (1956). A biometric study of the evolution of fissiped carnivores. Evolution, 10, 314–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, C. W., Omland, K. E. and Oakley, T. H. (1998). Reconstructing ancestral character states: a critical reappraisal. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 361–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dayan, T. and Simberloff, D. (2005). Ecological and community-wide character displacement: the next generation. Ecology Letters, 8, 875–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, M. J. and Ree, R. H. (2000). Homoplasy and developmental constraint: a model and an example from plants. American Zoologist, 40, 759–69.Google Scholar
Eble, G. J. (2004). The macroevolution of phenotypic integration. In Phenotypic Integration, ed. Pigliucci, M. and Preston, K.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–73.Google Scholar
Emerson, S. B. (1988). Testing for historical patterns of change – a case-study with frog pectoral girdles. Paleobiology, 14, 174–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, J. J., Neff, N. A. and Tedford, R. H. (1988). Phylogeny of the Carnivora. In The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, Vol 2: Mammals, ed. Benton, M. J.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 73–116.Google Scholar
Flynn, J. J., Finarelli, J. A., Zehr, S., Hsu, J. and Nedbal, M. A. (2005). Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships. Systematic Biology, 54, 317–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finarelli, J. S. and Flynn, J. J. (2006). Ancestral state reconstruction of body size in the Caniformia (Carnivora, Mammalia): the effects of incorporating data from the fossil record. Systematic Biology, 55, 301–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. (1993). Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology, 19, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fusco, G. (2001). How many processes are responsible for phenotypic evolution?Evolution and Development, 3, 279–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Futuyma, D. J. and Moreno, G. (1988). The evolution of ecological specialization. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 19, 207–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaubert, P. and Cordeiro-Estrela, P. (2006). Phylogenetic systematics and tempo of evolution of the viverrinae (Mammalia, Carnivora, Viverridae) within feliformians: implications for faunal exchanges between Asia and Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 41, 266–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geeta, R. (2003). The origin and maintenance of nuclear endosperms: viewing development through a phylogenetic lens. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, E. E. and Igic, B. (2008). On phylogenetic tests of irreversible evolution. Evolution, 62, 2727–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goswami, A. (2006). Morphological integration in the carnivoran skull. Evolution, 60, 169–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. (1984). Morphological channeling by structural constraint; convergence in styles of dwarfing and gigantism in Cerion, with a description of two new fossil species and a report on the discovery of the largest Cerion. Paleobiology, 10, 172–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, T. F. and Martins, E. P. (1996). Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution, 50, 1404–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, P. H. and Pagel, M. (1991). The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holliday, J. A. and Steppan, S. J. (2004). Evolution of hypercarnivory: the effect of specialization on morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology, 30(1), 108–28.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, J. A. (2007). Phylogeny and character change in the feloid Carnivora. PhD dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
Holt, R. D. and Gaines, M. S. (1992). Analysis of adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes – implications for the evolution of fundamental niches. Evolution and Ecology, 6, 433–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. M.. (1998). Evolution of the aeluroid Carnivora: diversity of the earliest aeluroids from Eurasia (Quercy, Hsanda-Gol) and the origin of felids. American Museum Novitates, 3252, 1–65.Google Scholar
Igic, B., Bohs, L. and Kohn, J. R. (2006). Ancient polymorphism reveals unidirectional breeding system shifts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 1359–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, C. H. (1992). Measuring evolutionary constraints: a Markov model for phylogenetic transitions among seed dispersal syndromes. Evolution, 46, 136–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. E., Eizirik, E., Pecon-Slattery, J., et al. (2006). The Late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: a genetic assessment. Science, 311, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoll, A. H. and Bambach, R. K. (2000). Directionality in the history of life: diffusion from the left wall or repeated scaling of the right? In Deep Time: Paleobiology's Perspective, ed. D. H. Erwin and S. L. Wing. Paleobiology, 26(Suppl. to no. 4), 1–14.
Koepfli, K., Jenks, S. M., Edizirik, E., Zihirpour, T., Van Valkenburgh, B. and Wayne, R. K. (2006). Molecular systematics of the Hyaenidae, relationships of a relictual lineage resolved by a molecular supermatrix. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 38, 603–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauder, G. V. (1981). Form and function – structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology, 7, 430–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losos, J. B. and Irschick, D. J. (1994). Adaptation and constraint in the evolution of specialization of Bahamian Anolis lizards. Evolution, 48, 1786–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcot, J. D. and McShea, D. W. (2007). Increasing hierarchical complexity throughout the history of life: phylogenetic tests of trend mechanisms. Paleobiology, 33, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marroig, G. and Cheverud, J. M. (2001). A comparison of phenotypic variation and covariation patterns and the role of phylogeny, ecology, and ontogeny during cranial evolution of new world monkeys. Evolution, 55, 2576–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins, E. P. (2000). Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 296–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maynard-Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., et al. (1985). Developmental constraints and evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology, 60, 265–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. (1994). Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution, 48, 1747–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McShea, D. W. (2001). The minor transitions in hierarchical evolution and the question of a directional bias. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14, 502–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. and Venit, E. P. (2002). Testing for bias in the evolution of coloniality: a demonstration in cyclostome bryozoans. Paleobiology, 28, 308–27.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meiri, S., Dayan, T. and Simberloff, D. (2005). Variability and correlations in carnivore crania and dentition. Functional Ecology, 19, 337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooers, A. O. and Schluter, D. (1999). Reconstructing ancestor states with maximum likelihood: support for one- and two-rate models. Systematic Biology, 48, 623–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, N. A. (1988). The evolution of host-plant alternation in aphids – evidence for specialization as a dead end. American Naturalist, 132, 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosil, P. (2002). Transition rates between specialization and generalization in phytophagous insects. Evolution, 56, 1701–06.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oakley, T. H. and Cunningham, C. W. (2000). Independent contrasts succeed where ancestor reconstruction fails in a known bacteriophage phylogeny. Evolution, 54, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, E. C. and Miller, R. L. (1958). Morphological Integration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Omland, K. E. (1997). Examining two standard assumptions of ancestral reconstructions: repeated loss of dichromatism in dabbling ducks (Anatini). Evolution, 51, 1636–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omland, K. E. (1999). The assumptions and challenges of ancestral state reconstructions. Systematic Biology, 48, 604–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omland, K. E. and Lanyon, S. M. (2000). Reconstructing plumage evolution in orioles (Icterus): repeated convergence and reversal in patterns. Evolution, 54, 2119–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagel, M. (1994). Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 255, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M. (1999). The maximum likelihood approach to reconstructing ancestral character states of discrete characters on phylogenies. Systematic Biology, 48, 612–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M. D. and Harvey, P. H. (1988). Recent developments in the analysis of comparative data. Quarterly Review of Biology, 63, 413–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez, M., Li, B., Tillier, A., Craud, A. and Veron, G. (2006). Systematic relationships of the bushy-tailed and black-footed mongooses (genus Bdeogale, Herpestidae, Carnivora) based on molecular, chromosomal and morphological evidence. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 44, 251–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigliucci, M. and Preston, K. (2004). Phenotypic Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polly, P. D. (2001). Paleontology and the comparative method: ancestral node reconstructions versus observed node values. American Naturalist, 157, 596–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polly, P. D. (2004). On the simulation of the evolution of morphological shape: multivariate shape under selection and drift. Palaeontologia Electronica, 7(7A), 28. .Google Scholar
Polly, P. D. (2005). Development and phenotypic correlations: the evolution of tooth shape in Sorex araneus. Evolution and Development, 7, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polly, P. D. (2008). Developmental dynamics and G-Matrices: can morphometric spaces be used to model phenotypic evolution?Evolutionary Biology, 35, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. L. and Crandall, K. A. (2003). Lost along the way: the significance of evolution in reverse. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 541–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radinsky, L. B. (1981a). Evolution of skull shape in carnivores. 1. Representative modern carnivores. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 15, 69–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radinsky, L. B.(1981b). Evolution of skull shape in carnivores. 2. Additional modern carnivores. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 337–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radinsky, L. B. (1982). Evolution of skull shape in carnivores. 3. The origin and early radiation of the modern carnivore families. Paleobiology, 8(3), 177–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. K. and Chipman, A. D. (2003). Developmental constraints in a comparative framework: a test case using variations in phalanx number during amniote evolution. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 296B, 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, G. W. (2000). Bias? What bias? The evolution of downstream larval-feeding in animals. Zoologica Scripta, 29, 213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar-Ciudad, I. (2006). Developmental constraints vs. variational properties: how pattern formation can help to understand evolution and development. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 306B, 107–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, M. J. (1993). Reversibility in evolution – a maximum-likelihood approach to character gain loss bias in phylogenies. Evolution, 47, 236–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schluter, D. (2000). The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schluter, D., Price, T., Mooers, A. O. and Ludwig, D. (1997). Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution, 51, 1699–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schluter, D., Clifford, E. A., Nemethy, M. and McKinnon, J. S. (2004). Parallel evolution and inheritance of quantitative traits. American Naturalist, 163, 809–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwenk, K. and Wagner, G. P. (2001). Function and the evolution of phenotypic stability: connecting pattern to process. American Zoologist, 41, 552–63.Google Scholar
Schwenk, K. and Wagner, G. P. (2004). The relativism of constraints on phenotypic evolution. In Phenotypic Integration, ed. Pigliucci, M. and Preston, K.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 390–408.Google Scholar
Sheldon, P. R. (1996). Plus ça change – a model for stasis and evolution in different environments. Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 127, 209–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddall, M. E., Brooks, D. R. and Desser, S. S. (1993). Phylogeny and the reversibility of parasitism. Evolution, 47, 308–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, C. (1983). A new coding procedure for morphometric data with an example from periodical cicada wing veins. In Numerical Taxonomy, ed. Felsenstein, J.. Berlin: Springer, pp. 378–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. (1998). Biometry. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Steppan, S. J. (1997a). Phylogenetic analysis of phenotypic covariance structure 1. Contrasting results from matrix correlation and common principal component analyses. Evolution, 51, 571–86.Google Scholar
Steppan, S. J. (1997b). Phylogenetic analysis of phenotypic covariance structure 2. Reconstructing matrix evolution. Evolution, 51, 587–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1988). Trophic diversity in past and present guilds of large predatory mammals. Paleobiology, 14, 155–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1989). Carnivore dental adaptations and diet: a study of trophic diversity within guilds. In Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution, ed. Gittleman, J. L.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 410–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1991). Iterative evolution of hypercarnivory in canids (Mammalia, Carnivora) – evolutionary interactions among sympatric predators. Paleobiology, 17, 340–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. (1999). Major patterns in the history of carnivorous mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science, 27, 463–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. and Ruff, C. B. (1987). Canine tooth strength and killing behavior in large carnivores. Journal of Zoology, 212, 379–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B., Wang, X. M. and Damuth, J. (2004). Cope's rule, hypercarnivory, and extinction in North American canids. Science, 306, 101–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veron, G., Colyn, M., Dunham, A. E., Taylor, P. and Gaubert, P. (2004). Molecular systematics and origin of sociality in mongooses (Herpestidae, Carnivora). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 30, 582–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G. P. and Mueller, G. B. (2002). Evolutionary innovations overcome ancestral constraints: a re-examination of character evolution in male sepsid flies (Diptera: Sepsidae). Evolution and Development, 4, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G. P. and Schwenk, K. (2000). Evolutionarily stable configurations: functional integration and the evolution of phenotypic stability. Evolutionary Biology, 31, 155–217.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. (1995). Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with early Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology, 21, 248–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J. (1996). Contrasting the underlying patterns of active trends in morphologic evolution. Evolution, 50, 990–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, P. J. (2001). Rate heterogeneity in shell character evolution among lophospiroid gastropods. Paleobiology, 27, 290–310.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. (1994). Phylogenetic systematics of the Hesperocyoninae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 221, 1–207.Google Scholar
Wang, X., Tedford, R. H. and Taylor, B. E. (1999). Phylogenetic systematics of the Borophaginae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 243, 1–391.Google Scholar
Warheit, K. I., Forman, J. D., Losos, J. B. and Miles, D. B. (1999). Morphological diversification and adaptive radiation: a comparison of two diverse lizard clades. Evolution, 53, 1226–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werdelin, L. (1996). Carnivoran ecomorphology: a phylogenetic perspective. In Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution, Volume II, ed. Gittleman, J. L.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Werdelin, L. and Solounias, N. (1991). The Hyaenidae: taxonomy, systematics and evolution. Fossils and Strata, 30, 1–104.Google Scholar
Wesley-Hunt, G. D. and Flynn, J. J. (2005). Phylogeny of the Carnivora: basal relationships among the carnivoramorphans, and assessment of the position of ‘Miacoidea’ relative to Carnivora. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 3(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J. (1999). Phylogenetic evidence for multiple losses of a sexually selected character in phrynosomatid lizards. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 1529–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J. (2000). Coding morphological variation within species and higher taxa for phylogenetic analysis. In Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data, ed. Wiens, J. J.. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, pp. 115–45.Google Scholar
Wills, M. A., Briggs, D. E. G. and Fortey, R. A. (1994). Disparity as an evolutionary index – a comparison of Cambrian and Recent arthropods. Paleobiology, 20, 93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoder, A. D., Burns, M. M., Zehr, S., et al. (2003). Single origin of Malagasy Carnivora from an African ancestor. Nature, 421, 734–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelditch, M., Swiderski, D. and Fink, W. L. (2000). Discovery of phylogenetic characters in morphological data. In Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data, ed. Wiens, J. J.. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, pp. 115–45.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×