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-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:31:21.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Morphometric analysis of cranial morphology in pinnipeds (Mammalia, Carnivora): convergence, ecology, ontogeny, and dimorphism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

By
Katrina E. Jones  and
Anjali Goswami
Edited by
Anjali Goswami  and
Anthony Friscia
Katrina E. Jones
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Anjali Goswami
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Anjali Goswami
Affiliation:
University College London
Anthony Friscia
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Pinnipeds are a clade of secondarily aquatic arctoid carnivorans, including 34 extant species dispersed across most of the world's oceans. Extant species are separated into three families (Figure 12.1): Odobenidae (walruses, 1 species), Phocidae (seals, 19 species), and Otariidae (sea lions and fur seals, 14 species) and display a wide range of ecological diversity (Reeves et al., 2002). Predominantly, pinnipeds are generalist feeders. They are opportunistic, and their diets may vary annually, between colonies and between individuals within a colony (King, 1983; Sinclair and Zeppelin, 2002; Williams et al., 2007). However, several species have evolved more specialist feeding techniques: (1) Odobenus rosmarus is a suction feeder, using powerful facial musculature to produce forces large enough to extract molluscs from their shells (Adam and Berta, 2002); Erignathus barbatus (Phocidae) also uses suction feeding (King, 1983; Marshall et al., 2008); (2) Lobodon carcinophagus (Phocidae) is a filter feeder; it uses multicuspidate teeth to sieve out krill as water is expelled from the mouth; (3) Hyrdrurga leptonyx (Phocidae) feeds on large, warm-blooded prey such as penguins and seal pups (Adam and Berta, 2002).

Reproductive strategies of the pinnipeds are also diverse. Otariids are universally dimorphic with large harems. Their young are weaned over long periods of up to 2 years whilst learning to forage (Kovacs and Lavigne, 1992; Schulz and Bowen, 2004). On the other hand, phocid young are relatively precocial (4–50 days weaning) and learn foraging skills after leaving their mothers. Phocids also show a diversity of mating strategies and degree of dimorphism (Schulz and Bowen, 2004). It has been hypothesised that this shorter time spent on land has allowed phocids to exploit a broader range of habitats, including polar regions (Kovacs and Lavigne, 1992; Schulz and Bowen, 2005). Odobenids show extremely long lactation times of three years. During this period, young walruses often accompany mothers on foraging trips.

Type
Chapter
Information
Carnivoran Evolution
New Views on Phylogeny, Form and Function
 , pp. 342 - 373
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

Adam, P. J. and Berta, A. (2002). Evolution of prey capture strategies and diet in the Pinnipedimorpha (Mammalia, Carnivora). Oryctos, 4, 83–107.Google Scholar
Arnason, U., Gullberg, A., Janke, A., et al. (2006). Pinniped phylogeny and a new hypothesis for their origin and dispersal. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 41, 345–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berta, A. and Adam, P. J. (2001). Evolutionary biology of pinnipeds. In Secondary Adaptation of Tetrapods to Life in Water, ed. Mazin, J. -M. and de Buffrénil, V.. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, pp. 235–60.Google Scholar
Berta, A., Ray, C. E. and Wyss, A. R. (1989). Skeleton of the oldest known pinniped, Enaliarctos mealsi. Science, 244, 60–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bininda-Edmonds, O. R. P. and Gittleman, J. L. (2000). Are pinnipeds functionally different from fissiped carnivores? The importance of phylogenetic comparative analyses. Evolution, 54, 1011–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L. and Kelly, C. K. (2001). Flippers versus feet: comparative trends in aquatic and non-aquatic carnivores. Journal of Animal Ecology, 70, 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, S. (1998). Cranial morphometrics of the southern fur seals Arctocephalus forsteri and A. pusillus (Carnivora: Otariidae). Australian Journal of Zoology, 46, 67–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, S. (2002). Geographic variation in skull morphology of adult steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Marine Mammal Science, 18, 206–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, S. (2003). Fur seals and sea lions (Otariidae): identification of species and taxonomic review. Systematics and Biodiversity, 1, 339–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, S., Shaughnessy, P. D. and Bryden, M. M. (2002). Geographic variation in skull characters of fur seals and sea lions (family Otariidae). Australian Journal of Zoology, 50, 415–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira, L. R., Hingst-Zaher, E. and Stenghel Morgante, J. (2005). Size and shape sexual dimorphism in the skull of the South American fur seal, Arctocephalus australis (Zimmerman, 1783) (Carnivora: Otariidae). Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals, 4, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deméré, T. A., Berta, A. and Adam, P. J. (2003). Pinnipedimorph evolutionary biogeography. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 279, 32–76.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. (1985). Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist, 125, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, S. H. and Higdon, J. W. (2006). How seals divide up the world: environment, life history, and conservation. Oecologia, 150, 318–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Hammer, O., Harper, D. A. T. and Ryan, P. D. (2001). PAST: palaeontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4, 9 pp.Google Scholar
King, J. E. (1983). Seals of the World. London: British Museum (Natural History), 154 pp.Google Scholar
Kovacs, K. M. and Lavigne, D. M. (1992). Maternal investment in otariid seals and walruses. Canadian Journal of Zoology – Revue Canadienne de Zoologie, 70, 1953–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macleod, N. (1999). Generalizing and extending the eigenshape method of shape space visualization and analysis. Paleobiology, 25, 107–38.Google Scholar
Marshall, C., Kovacs, K. M. and Lydersen, C. (2008). Feeding kinematics, suction and hydraulic jetting capabilities in bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). Journal of Experimental Biology, 211, 699–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, E. P. (2004). COMPARE, version 4.6b: computer programmes for the statistical analysis of comparative data. Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Muizon, C. D. E. (1982). Phocid phylogeny and dispersal. Annals of the South African Museum, 89, 175–213.Google Scholar
O'Higgins, P. and Jones, N. (2006). Morphologika: tools for statistical shape analysis. Hull: York Medical School. .
Reeves, R., Stewart, B. S., Clapham, P. J. and Powell, J. A. (2002). Sea Mammals of the World. London: A & C Black Publishers, 528 pp.Google Scholar
Repenning, C. A. (1976). Adaptive evolution of sea lions and walruses. Systematic Zoology, 25, 375–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rybczynski, N., Dawson, M. R. and Tedford, R. H. (2009). A semi-aquatic mammalian carnivore from the Miocene epoch and origin of Pinnipedia. Nature, 458, 1021–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanfelice, D. and de Freitas, T. R. O. (2008). A comparative description of dimorphism in skull ontogeny of Arctocephalus australis, Callorhinus ursinus and Otaria byronia (Carnivora: Otariidae). Journal of Mammalogy, 89, 336–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, J., Wolsan, M., Suzuki, H., et al. (2006). Evidence from nuclear DNA sequences sheds light on the phylogenetic relationships of Pinnipedia: single origin with affinity to Musteloidea. ZoologicalScience, 23, 125–46.Google Scholar
Schulz, T. M. and Bowen, W. D. (2004). Pinniped lactation strategies: evaluation of data on maternal and offspring life history traits. Marine Mammal Science, 20, 86–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, T. M. and Bowen, W. D. (2005). The evolution of lactation strategies in pinnipeds: a phylogenetic analysis. Ecological Monographs, 75, 159–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, E. H. and Zeppelin, T. K. (2002). Seasonal and spatial differences in diet in the western stock of Stellar sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Journal of Mammalogy, 83, 973–90.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhen, M. D. (2007). Evolution of marine mammals: back to the sea after 300 million years. Anatomical Record, 290, 514–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, T. M., Rutishauser, M., Long, B., et al. (2007). Seasonal variability in otariid energetics: implications for the effects of predators on localized prey resources. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 80, 433–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynen, L. P., Goldsworthy, S. D., Insley, S. J., et al. (2001). Phylogenetic relationships within the eared seals (Otariidae: Carnivora): implications for the historical biogeography of the family. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 21, 270–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyss, A. R. (1988). Evidence from flipper structure for a single origin of pinnipeds. Nature, 334, 427–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, M., Swiderski, D., Sheets, H. D. and Fink, W. (2004). Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. Boston, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 416 pp.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
×