ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2021
Why aren't rabbits and hares larger?
Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors impacting the complexity of the leporid intracranial joint.Journal of anatomy · 2026Article
- Molecular time estimates for the Lagomorpha diversification.PloS one · 2024Article
- Why aren't rabbits and hares larger?Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2021Article
- Biotic interactions and their consequences for macroevolution: learning from the fossil record and beyond.Paleobiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Macroevolutionary consequences of competition among large clades have long been sought in patterns of lineage diversification. However, mechanistically clear examples of such effects remain elusive. Here, we postulated that the limited phenotypic diversity and insular gigantism in lagomorphs could be explained at least in part by an evolutionary constraint placed on them by potentially competing ungulate-type herbivores (UTHs). Our analyses yielded three independent lines of evidence supporting this hypothesis: (1) the minimum UTH body mass is the most influential predictor of the maximum lagomorph body mass in modern ecoregions; (2) the scaling patterns of local-population energy use suggest universal competitive disadvantage of lagomorphs weighing over approximately 6.3 kg against artiodactyls, closely matching their observed upper size limit in continental settings; and (3) the trajectory of maximum lagomorph body mass in North America from the late Eocene to the Pleistocene (37.5-1.5 million years ago) was best modeled by the body mass ceiling placed by the smallest contemporary perissodactyl or artiodactyl. Body size evolution in lagomorphs has likely been regulated by the forces of competition within the clade, increased predation in open habitats, and importantly, competition from other ungulate-type herbivores. Our findings suggest conditionally-coupled dynamics of phenotypic boundaries among multiple clades within an adaptive zone, and highlight the synergy of biotic and abiotic drivers of diversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.