Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 1998 Jan 22;265(1391):113–119. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0271

Body size and species-richness in carnivores and primates.

J L Gittleman 1, A Purvis 1
PMCID: PMC1688864  PMID: 9474795

Abstract

We use complete species-level phylogenies of extant Carnivora and Primates to perform the first thorough phylogenetic tests, in mammals, of the hypothesis that small body size is associated with species-richness. Our overall results, based on comparisons between sister clades, indicate a weak tendency for lineages with smaller bodies to contain more species. The tendency is much stronger within caniform carnivores (canids, procyonids, pinnipeds, ursids and mustelids), perhaps relating to the dietary flexibility and hence lower extinction rates in small, meat-eating species. We find significant heterogeneity in the size-diversity relationship within and among carnivore families. There is no significant association between body mass and species-richness in primates or feliform carnivores. Although body size is implicated as a correlate of species-richness in mammals, much of the variation in diversity cannot be attributed to size differences.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (285.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Damuth J. Cope's rule, the island rule and the scaling of mammalian population density. Nature. 1993 Oct 21;365(6448):748–750. doi: 10.1038/365748a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ford S. M., Davis L. C. Systematics and body size: implications for feeding adaptations in New World monkeys. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Aug;88(4):415–468. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330880403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Harvey P. H., Purvis A. Comparative methods for explaining adaptations. Nature. 1991 Jun 20;351(6328):619–624. doi: 10.1038/351619a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kappeler P. M. Patterns of sexual dimorphism in body weight among prosimian primates. Folia Primatol (Basel) 1991;57(3):132–146. doi: 10.1159/000156575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Nee S., Mooers A. O., Harvey P. H. Tempo and mode of evolution revealed from molecular phylogenies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Sep 1;89(17):8322–8326. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.17.8322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  7. Purvis A. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995 Jun 29;348(1326):405–421. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1995.0078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Purvis A., Nee S., Harvey P. H. Macroevolutionary inferences from primate phylogeny. Proc Biol Sci. 1995 Jun 22;260(1359):329–333. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Purvis A., Rambaut A. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Comput Appl Biosci. 1995 Jun;11(3):247–251. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/11.3.247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES