ArticleAnatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)2025
Allometry and phylogenetic divergence: Correspondence or incongruence?
Article in Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Allometry and phylogenetic divergence: Correspondence or incongruence?Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The potential connection between trends of within species variation, such as those of allometric change in morphology, and phylogenetic divergence has been a central topic in evolutionary biology for more than a century, including in the context of human evolution. In this study, I focus on size-related shape change in craniofacial proportions using a sample of more than 3200 adult Old World monkeys belonging to 78 species, of which 2942 specimens of 51 species are selected for the analysis. Using geometric morphometrics, I assess whether the divergence in the direction of static allometries increases in relation to phyletic differences. Because both small samples and taxonomic sampling may bias the results, I explore the sensitivity of the main analyses to the inclusion of more or less taxa depending on the choice of a threshold for the minimum sample size of a species. To better understand the impact of sampling error, I also use randomized subsampling experiments in the largest species samples. The study shows that static allometries vary broadly in directions without any evident phylogenetic signal. This variation is much larger than previously found in ontogenetic trajectories of Old World monkeys, but the conclusion of no congruence with phylogenetic divergence is the same. Yet, the effect of sampling error clearly contributes to inaccuracies and tends to magnify the differences in allometric change. Thus, morphometric research at the boundary between micro- and macro-evolution in primates, and more generally in mammals, critically needs very large and representative samples. Besides sampling error, I suggest other non-mutually exclusive explanations for the lack of correspondence between allometric and phylogenetic divergence in Old World monkeys, and also discuss why directions might be more variable in static compared to ontogenetic trajectories. Even if allometric variation may be a poor source of information in relation to phylogeny, the evolution of allometry is a fascinating subject and the study of size-related shape changes remains a fundamental piece of the puzzle to understand morphological variation within and between species in primates and other animals.
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.