Sexual Size Dimorphism in Hyla savignyi Audouin, 1827 (Anura: Hylidae) from Kermanshah Province, Western Iran

Document Type : Research articles

Authors

• Nasrullah Rastegar-Pouyani
• A. Fattahi
• Rasoul Karamiani
• M. Takesh

Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Razi University, 6714967346 Kermanshah, Iran

10.22067/ijab.v11i1.36384

Abstract

We investigated sexual size dimorphism in the tree frog, Hyla savignyi using 33 males and 22 females from the western and northwestern regions of Kermanshah Province, western Iran. Out of sixteen measured morphometric characters, four were significantly larger in females than in males. These characters were nostril-eye length, brachium length, elbow-longest finger length and hind limb length.

Keywords

• Hyla savignyi
• sexual size dimorphism
• Kermanshah Province
• western Iran

---

References

Anderson, S.S., Fedak M.F., 1985. Grey seal males: energetic and behavioral links between size and sexual success. Animal Behaviour 33, 829-838.

 

Andersson, M., 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

 

Andersson, M., Norberg, R.A., 1981. Evolution of reversed sexual size dimorphism and role partitioning among raptors, with a size scaling of flight performance. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 15, 105-130.

 

Audouin, V., [1827] ‘1809’. Explication sommaire des planches de reptiles (supplement), publiees par Jules-Cesar Savigny, membre de l’Institut; offrant un expose des caractères naturels des genres, avec la distinction des espèces. In: Description de l’Égypte. Histoire naturelle, Vol. 1. Paris: Imprimerie Imperiale, 161-184.

 

Blanckenhorn, W.U., 2005. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology 111, 977-1016.

 

Blomqvist, D., Johansson, O.C., Unger, U., Larsson, M., Flodin, L.A., 1997. Male aerial display and reversed sexual size dimorphism in the dunlin. Animal Behaviour 54, 1291-1299.

 

Choe, J.C, Crespi, B.J., 1997. Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Clutton-Brock, T.H., Harvey, P.H., 1977. Primate ecology and social organization. Journal of Zoology 183, 1-39.

 

Clutton-Brock, T.H., Guinness, F.E., Albon, S.D., 1982. Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Cooper, W.E., Vitt, L.J., 1989. Sexual dimorphism of head and body size in an iguanid lizard: paradoxical results. American Naturalist 133, 729-735.

 

Darwin, C., 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London. Volume 1:423 pp.,Volume 2, 476 pp.

 

Dunn, P.O., Whittingham, L.A., Pitcher, T.E., 2001. Mating systems, sperm competition and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in birds. Evolution 55, 161-175.

 

Greenwood, P.J., Wheeler, P., 1985. The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in birds and mammals: a ‘hot blooded’ hypothesis. In: Greenwood, P.J., Harvey, P.H., Slatkin, M. (Eds.), Evolution. Essays in Honour of John Maynard Smith. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 287-299 pp.

 

Mitani, J.C., Gros-Luis, J., Richards, A.F., 1996. Sexual dimorphism, the operational sex ratio, and the intensity of male competition in polygynous primates. American Naturalist 147, 966-980.

 

Hews, D.K., 1990. Examining hypotheses generated by field measures of sexual selection on male lizards, Uta palmer. Evolution 44, 1956-1966.

 

Jehl, J.R., Murray, B.G., 1986. The evolution of normal and reverse sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds and other birds. In: Current Ornithology. Vol. 3 (Ed. by R. F. Johnston), pp. 1-86. New York: Plenum.

 

Lindenfors, P., Tullberg, B.S., 1998. Phylogenetic analyses of primate size evolution: the consequences of sexual selection. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 64, 413-447.

 

Lindenfors, P., Szekely, T., Reynolds, J.D., 2003. Directional changes in sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls and alcids. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16, 930-938.

 

Olsson, M., Shine, R., Wapstra, E., Ujvari, B., Madsen, T., 2002. Sexual dimorphism in lizard body shape: the roles of sexual selection and fecundity selection. Evolution 56, 1538-1542.

 

Owens, I.P.F., Hartley, I.R., 1998. Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 265, 397-407.

 

Payne, R.B., 1984. Sexual Selection, Lek and Arena Behavior, and Sexual Size Dimorphism in Birds. Washington, D.C.: American Ornithologists’ Union.

 

Raihani, G., Szekely, T., Serrano-Meneses, M.A., Pitra, P., Goriup, P., 2006. The influence of sexual selection and male agility on sexual size dimorphism in bustards (Otididae). Animal Behaviour 71, 833-838.

 

Sandercock, B.K., 2001. What is the relative importance of sexual selection and ecological processes in the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in monogamous shorebirds? Wader Study Group Bulletin 96, 64-70.

 

Serrano-Meneses, M.A., Szekely, T., 2006. Sexual size dimorphism in seabirds: sexual selection, fecundity selection and differential niche-utilization. Oikos 113, 385-394.

Shine, R., 1979. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the amphibia. Copeia 2, 297-306.

 

Shine, R., 1989. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual size dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Quarterly Review of Biology 64, 419-461.

 

Szekely, T., Reynolds, J.D., Figuerola, J., 2000. Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls, and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural selection. Evolution 54, 1404-1413.

 

Szekely, T., Freckleton, R.P., Reynolds, J.D., 2004. Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of size dimorphism in shorebirds. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, U.S.A 101, 12224-12227.

 

Temeles, E.J., Kress, W.J., 2003. Adaptation in a plant and humming-bird association. Science 300, 630-633.

 

Thornhill, R., Alcock, J., 1983. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

 

Winquist, T., Lemon, R.E., 1994. Sexual selection and exaggerated male tail length in birds. American Naturalist 143, 95-116.

 

Woolbright, L.L., 1983. Sexual selection and size dimorphism in anuran amphibians. American Naturalist 121, 110-119.