SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

LITERATURE CITED

  • Adams DC,Rohlf FJ. 2000. Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: Biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 41064111.
  • Adams DC,Rohlf FJ,Slice DE. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the “revolution.” Ital J Zool 71: 516.
  • Anderson RA,Vitt LJ. 1990. Sexual selection versus alternative causes of sexual dimorphism in teiid lizards. Oecologia 84: 145157.
  • Andersson M. 1994. Sexual size dimorphism. In: KrebsJR,Clutton-BrockT, editors. Sexual Selection. Monographs in Behaviour and Ecology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p 246293.
  • Barreto-Caldas F,Honrado J,Paiva AP. 1999. Vegetação da àrea de paisagem Protegida do Litoral de Esposende (Portugal). Quercetea 1: 3959.
  • Bohonak AJ. 2002. Software for reduced major axis regression, V.1.2. San Diego State University.
  • Bonduriansky R,Day T. 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57: 24502458.
  • Bookstein FL. 1984. A statistical method for biological shape comparisons. J Theor Biol 107: 475520.
  • Braña F. 1996. Sexual dimorphism in lacertid lizards: Male head increase vs female abdomen increase? Oikos 75: 511523.
  • Bruner E,Constantini D,Fanfani A.Dell'Omo G. 2005. Morphological variation and sexual dimorphism of the cephalic scales in Lacerta bilineata. Acta Zool 86: 245254.
  • Butler MA,Losos JB. 2002. Multivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecol Monogr 72: 541559.
  • Carothers JH. 1984. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in some herbivorous lizards. Am Nat 124: 244254.
  • Carretero MA,Sá-Sousa P,Barbosa D,Harris DJ,Pinho C. 2002. Sintopía estricta entre Podarcis bocagei y Podarcis carbonelli. Bol Asoc Herp Esp 13: 2024.
  • Carretero MA,Ribeiro R,Barbosa D,Sá-Sousa P,Harris DJ. 2006. Spermatogenesis in two Iberian Podarcis lizards: Relationships with male traits. Anim Biol 56: 112.
  • Clarke MRB. 1980. The reduced major axis of a bivariate sample. Biometrika 67: 441446.
  • Claude J,Paradis E,Tong H,Auffray JC. 2003. A geometric morphometric assessment of the effects of environment and cladogenesis on the evolution of the turtle shell. Biol J Linn Soc 79: 485501.
  • Cooper WEJr,Vitt LJ. 1989. Sexual dimorphism of head and body size in an iguanid lizard: Paradoxical results. Am Nat 133: 729735.
  • Corti M. 1993. Geometric morphometrics: An extension of the revolution. Trends Ecol Evol 8: 302303.
  • Corti M,Rohlf FJ. 2001. Chromosomal speciation and phenotypic evolution in the house mouse. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 73: 99112.
  • Cox RM,Skelly SL,John-Alder. HB. 2003. A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution 57: 16531669.
  • Dabney A,Storey JD. 2004. The qvalue Package: Q-value estimation for false discovery rate control. Available at http://faculty.washington.edu/˜jstorey/qvalue/.
  • Direcção Geral do Ambiente. 1995. Atlas do Ambiente. Lisboa: Direcção Geral do Ambiente.
  • Ebenman B. 1986. Sexual size dimorphism in the great tit Parus major in relation to the number of coexisting congeners. Oikos 47: 355359.
  • Fairbairn DJ. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28: 659687.
  • Fitch HS. 1981. Sexual size differences in reptiles. Misc Pub Mus Nat Hist 70: 172. (Kansas: University of Kansas.)
  • Green AJ. 1992. Positive allometry is likely with mate choice, competitive display and other functions. Anim Behav 43: 170172.
  • Gvozdik L,Van Damme R. 2003. Evolutionary maintenance of sexual dimorphism in head size in the lizard Zootoca vivipara: A test of two hypotheses. J Zool (Lond) 259: 713.
  • Harris DJ,Sá-Sousa P. 2001. Species distinction and relationships of the Western Iberian Podarcis lizards (Reptilia, Lacertidae) based on morphology and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Herpetol J 11: 129136.
  • Harris DJ,Sá-Sousa P. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Iberian Wall Lizards (Podarcis): Is Podarcis hispanica a species complex? Mol Phylogenet Evol 23: 7581.
  • Herrel A,Van Damme R,De Vree F. 1996. Sexual dimorphism of head size in Podarcis hispanica atrata: Testing the dietary divergence hypothesis by bite force analysis. Neth J Zool 46: 253262.
  • Herrel A,Spithoven L,Van Damme R,De Vree F. 1999. Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galotti: Testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses. Funct Ecol 13: 289297.
  • Herrel A,De Grauw E.Lemos-Espinal JA. 2001a. Head shape and bite performance in xenosaurid lizards. J Exp Zool 290: 101107.
  • Herrel A,Van Damme R,Vanhooydonck B.De Vree F. 2001b. The implications of bite performance for diet in two species of lacertid lizards. Can J Zool 79: 662670.
  • Heulin B. 1988. Observations sur l'organisation de la reproduction et sur les comportements sexuels et agonistiques chez Lacerta vivipara. Vie Milieu 38: 177187.
  • Hews DK. 1990. Examining hypotheses generated by field measures of sexual selection on male lizards, Uta palmeri. Evolution 44: 19561966.
  • Hews DK. 1996. Size and scaling of sexually-selected traits in the lizard, Uta palmeri. J Zool (Lond) 238: 743757.
  • Hood CS. 2000. Geometric morphometric approaches to the study of sexual size dimorphism in mammals. Hystrix 11: 7790.
  • Kaliontzopoulou A. 2004. Efecto de la simpatria en la morfología de dos especies del género Podarcis en Portugal, DEA Thesis. Barcelona: University of Barcelona. (In Spanish).
  • Kaliontzopoulou A.Carretero MA,Llorente G. 2005. Differences in the pholidotic patterns of Podarcis bocagei and P. carbonelli and their implications for species determination. Rev Esp Herpetol 19: 7186.
  • Kratochvil L.Fokt M.Rehak I,Frynta D. 2003. Misinterpretation of character scaling: A tale of sexual dimorphism in body shape of common lizards. Can J Zool 81: 11121117.
  • Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292305.
  • Loy A,Spinosi O,Carlini R. 2004. Cranial morphology of Martes foina and Martes martes (Mammalia, Carnivora, Mustelidae): The role of size and shape in sexual dimorphism and interspecific differentiation. Ital J Zool 71: 2735.
  • Manier MK. 2004. Geographic variation in the long-nosed snake Rhinocheilus lecontei (Colubridae): Beyond the subspecies debate. Biol J Linn Soc 83: 6585.
  • Marugán-Lobón J,Buscalioni AD. 2003. Disparity and geometry of the skull in Archosauria (Reptilia: Diapsida). Biol J Linn Soc 80: 6788.
  • McArdle BH. 1988. The structural relationship: Regression in biology. Can J Zool 66: 23292339.
  • Molina-Borja M. 2003. Sexual dimorphism of Gallotia atlantica atlantica and Gallotia atlantica mahoratae (Lacertidae) from the Eastern Canary Islands. J Herpetol 37: 769722.
  • Monteiro LR,Cavalcanti MJ,Sommer HJSIII. 1997. Comparative ontogenetic shape changes in the skull of Caiman species (Crocodylia, Alligatoridae). J Morphol 231: 5362.
  • Mouton N,van Wyk JH. 1993. Sexual dimorpism in cordylid lizards: A case study of the Drakensberg crag lizard, Pseudocordylus melanotus. Can J Zool 71: 17151723.
  • 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: 15381542.
  • Pérez-Mellado V. 1981a. La lagartija de Bocage, Podarcis bocagei (SEOANE, 1884): primeros datos sobre su distribución, colorido y ecología. Amphib-Reptil 3–4: 253268.
  • Pérez-Mellado V. 1981b. Nuevos datos sobre la sistemática y distribución de Podarcis bocagei (SEOANE, 1884) (Sauria, Lacertidae) en la Península Ibérica. Amphib-Reptil 2: 259265.
  • Pérez-Mellado V. 1997a. Podarcis bocagei (Seoane, 1884). In: SalvadorA, Coordinator. Fauna Ibérica, Vol. 10. Reptiles. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC. p 243257.
  • Pérez-Mellado V. 1997b. Género Podarcis (Wagler, 1830). In: SalvadorA, Coordinator, Fauna Ibérica, Vol. 10, Reptiles. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC. p 242306.
  • Pérez-Mellado V,Gosá A. 1988. Biometría y folidosis en Lacertidae (Sauria, Reptilia). Algunos aspectos metodológicos. Rev Esp Herpetol 3: 105119.
  • Perry GK,LeVering I,Girard,Garland TJr. 2004. Locomotor performance and social dominance in male Anolis cristatellus. Anim Behav 67: 3747.
  • Petrie M. 1992. Are all secondary sexual display structures positively allometric and, if so, why? Anim Behav 43: 173175.
  • Pinho C,Ferrand N,Harris DJ. 2004. Genetic variation within the Podarcis hispanica species complex—new evidence from protein electrophoretic data. In: Pérez-MelladoV,RieraV,PereraA, editors. The biology of lacertid lizards. Evolutionary and ecological perspectives. Menorca: Institut Menorquí d' Estudis. Recerca. p 269277.
  • Pinho C.Ferrand N,Harris DJ. 2006. Reexamination of the Iberian and North African Podarcis (Squamata: Lacertidae) phylogeny based on increased mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Mol Phylogenet Evol 38: 266273.
  • Rohlf FJ. 1990. Morphometrics. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21: 299316.
  • Rohlf FJ. 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J Class 16: 197223.
  • Rohlf FJ. 2003a. tpsSmall, version 1.20. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
  • Rohlf FJ. 2003b. tpsRegr, version 1.28. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
  • Rohlf FJ. 2004. tpsUtil, file utility program, version 1.26. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
  • Rohlf FJ, 2005a. tpsDig, digitize landmarks and outlines, version 2.04. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
  • Rohlf FJ. 2005b. tpsRelw, relative warps analysis, version 1.42. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
  • Rohlf FJ,Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39: 4059.
  • Rosas A,Bastir M. 2002. Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. Am J Phys Anthropol 117: 236245.
  • Rufino M,Abelló P,Yule AB. 2004. Male and female carapace shape differences in Liocarcinus depurator (Decapoda, Brachyura): An application of geometric morphometric analysis to crustaceans. Ital J Zool 71: 7983.
  • Sá-Sousa P. 2001a. A controversa sistemática das lagartixas do género Podarcis Wagler, 1830 (Sauria, Lacertidae) em Portugal. Ph.D. Thesis. Lisbon: University of Lisbon.
  • Sá-Sousa P. 2001b. Comparative chorology between Podarcis bocagei and P. carbonellae (Sauria: Lacertidae) in Portugal. Rev Esp Herpetol 15: 8597.
  • Sá-Sousa P,Harris DJ. 2002. Podarcis carbonelli (Perez-Mellado, 1981) is a distinct species. Amphib-Reptil 23: 459468.
  • Sá-Sousa P.Almeida AP,Rosa H,Vicente L,Crespo EG. 2000. Genetic and morphological relationships of the Berlenga wall lizard (Podarcis bocagei berlengensis: Lacertidae). J Zoolog Syst Evol Res 38: 95102.
  • Schoener TW. 1967. The ecological significance of sexual dimorphism in size in the lizard Anolis conspersus. Science 155: 474477.
  • Schoener TW. 1977. Competition and the niche. In: GansC,TinkleDW, editors. Biology of the Reptilia, Vol. 7: Ecology and behaviour A. New York: Academic Press. p 35136.
  • Schwarzkopf L. 2005. Sexual dimorphism in body shape without sexual dimorphism in body size in water skinks (Eulamprus quoyii). Herpetologica 61: 116123.
  • Slatkin M. 1980. Ecological character displacement. Ecology 61: 163177.
  • Slatkin M. 1984. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 622630.
  • Sokal RR,Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman. 887 p.
  • Stamps J. 1983. Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism and territoriality. In: HueyRB,PiankaER,SchoenerTW. editors. Lizard Ecology: Studies of a Model Organism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p 169204.
  • Stamps J. 1993. Sexual size dimorphism in species with asymptotic growth after maturity. Biol J Linn Soc 50: 123145.
  • Stayton CT. 2005. Morphological evolution of the lizard skull: A geometric morphometrics survey. J Morphol 263: 4759.
  • Storey JD. 2002. A direct approach to false discovery rates. J Roy Stat Soc B 64: 479498.
  • Storey JD,Tibshirani R. 2003. Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 94409445.
  • Uller T,Olsson M. 2003. Prenatal sex ratios influence sexual dimorphism in a reptile. J Exp Zool 295A: 183187.
  • Valenzuela N,Adams DC,Bowden RM,Gauger AC. 2004. Geometric morphometric sex estimation for hatchling turtles: A powerful alternative for detecting subtle sexual shape dimorphism. Copeia 2004: 735742.
  • Verbeek B. 1972. Ethologische Untersuchungen an einigen europaischen Eidechsen. Bonn Zool Beitr 23: 122151.
  • Vidal MA,Ortiz JC,Ramírez CC,Lamborot M. 2005. Intraspecific variation in morphology and sexual dimorphism in Liolaemus tenuis (Tropiduridae). Amphibia-Reptilia 26: 343351.
  • Watkins GG. 1996. Proximate causes of sexual size dimorphism in the iguanid lizard Microlophus occipitalis. Ecology 77: 14731482.