**Author details**

Hugo A. Benítez *Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Instituto de Alta Investigación, Universidad de Tarapacá, Chile* 

### **Acknowledgement**

To Dr. Viviane Jerez and Dr. Luis Parra of Zoology Department, Universidad de Concepción. Chile, for their comments and cooperation to generate the articles that were the core of the chapter and Ms. María Raquel Lazo de la Vega for her careful revision of the language.

#### **6. References**


[7] Zelditch ML, Swiderski D, Sheets D, Fink WL. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. London: Elsevier; 2004.

Sexual Dimorphism Using Geometric Morphometric Approach 47

The Insight Journal. 2006, 1–20. http://hdl.handle.net/1926/215 (accessed 11 July 2006).

[26] McPeek MP, Shen L, Torrey JZ, Farid H. The tempo and mode of 3-dimensional morphological evolution in male reproductive structures. American Naturalist 2008;

[27] Macleod N, Rose KD. Inferring locomotor behaviour in Paleogene mammals via

[28] MacLeod N. Generalizing and extending the eigen-shape method of shape space

[29] Zelditch ML, Fink WL, Swiderski DL. Morphometrics, homology and phylogenetics: quantied characters as synapomorphies. Systematic Biology 1995;44 179–189. [30] Goodall CR. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. Journal of the Royal

[31] Moczek A, Emlen D. Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, *Onthophagus taurus*: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes?. Animal Behaviour.

[32] Eberhard W. Rates of egg production by tropical spiders in the field. Biotropica 1979;11

[33] Brock T, Guinness F, Albon S. Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes. Chicago:

[34] Emlen S. Reproductive sharing in different kinds of kin associations. American

[35] Fincke O, Waage J, Koenig W. Natural and Sexual Selection Components of Odonate

[36] Gidaszewski N, Baylac M, Klingenberg C. Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the *Drosophila melanogaster* subgroup. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2009;9 110. [37] O'Higgins P, Johnson D, Moore W, Flinn R. The variability of patterns of sexual

[38] Valenzuela N, Adams D, Bowden R, Gauger A. Geometric morphometric sex estimation for hatchling turtles: a powerful alternative for detecting subtle sexual shape

[39] Pretorius E. Using geometric morphometrics to investigate wing dimorphism in males and females of Hymenoptera – a case study based on the genus *Tachysphex* Kohl (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae: Larrinae). Australian Journal of Entomology 2005;44 113-

[40] Taylor A. Size and shape dimorphism in great ape mandibles and implications for fossil species recognition. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2006;129 82-98. [41] O'Higgins P, Dryden IL. Sexual dimorphism in hominoids: fur-ther studies of craniofacial shape differences in Pan, Gorilla and Pongo. Journal of Human Evolution

[42] O'Higgins P, Collard M. Sexual dimorphism and facial growth in papionin monkeys.

Mating Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.

dimorphism in the hominoid skull. Experientia 1990;46 670-672.

Eigenshape analysis. American Journal of Science 1993;293(A) 300–355.

visualization and analysis. Paleobiology 1999;25 107–138.

(accessed 2 September 2012).

Statistical Society B 1991;53 285–339.

University of Chicago Press ;1982.

dimorphism. Copeia 2004;4 735-742.

Journal of Zoology 2002;257 255-272.

Naturalist 1996;148 756-763.

171(5) E158–178.

2000;59 459-466.

292-300.

121.

1993;24 183-205.


The Insight Journal. 2006, 1–20. http://hdl.handle.net/1926/215 (accessed 11 July 2006). (accessed 2 September 2012).

[26] McPeek MP, Shen L, Torrey JZ, Farid H. The tempo and mode of 3-dimensional morphological evolution in male reproductive structures. American Naturalist 2008; 171(5) E158–178.

46 Sexual Dimorphism

179.

1996;27 501-542.

1993;8 129-132.

A Primer. London: Elsevier; 2004.

Classification 1999;16 197-223.

of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 1990;39(1) 40-59.

[7] Zelditch ML, Swiderski D, Sheets D, Fink WL. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists:

[8] Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition

[9] Rohlf FJ, Loy A, Corti M. Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora) using partial warp scores. Systematic Biology 1996;45(3) 344-362. [10] Rohlf FJ. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. Journal of

[11] Gannon WL, Rácz GR. Character displacement and ecomorphological analysis of two long-eared *Myotis* (*M. auriculus* and *M. evotis*). Journal of Mammalogy 2006;87(1) 171-

[12] Koehl M. When does morphology matter?. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

[13] Cepeda-Pizarro J, Vega S, Vásquez H, Elgueta M.. Morfometría y dimorfismo sexual de *Elasmoderus wagenknechti* (Liebermann) (Orthoptera: Tristiridae) en dos eventos de

[15] Moller AP, Zamora-Muñoz C. Antennal asymmetry and sexual selection in a

[16] Cepeda-Pizarro JG, Vásquez H, Veas H, Colon GO. Relaciones entre tamaño corporal y biomasa en adultos de Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera) de la estepa costera del margen meridional del desierto chileno. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 1996;69 67-76. [17] Benítez H, Vidal M, Briones R, Jerez V. Sexual dimorphism and population morphological variation of *Ceroglossus chilensis* (Eschscholtz) (Coleoptera, Carabidae).

[18] Benítez H, Briones R, Jerez V. Intra and Inter-population morphological variation of shape and size of Ceroglossus chilensis (Eschscholtz, 1829) in Chilean Patagonia.

[19] Benítez H, Parra LE, Sepulveda E, Sanzana MJ. Geometric perspectives of sexual dimorphism in the wing shape of Lepidoptera: the case of *Synneuria* sp. (Lepidoptera:

[21] Klingenberg CP. Novelty and ''homology-free'' morphometrics: What's in a name?.

[22] Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without land-marks: localizing group

[23] Younker JL, Ehrlich R. Fourier biometrics: harmonic amplitudes as multivariate shape

[24] Ferson S, Rohlf FJ, Koehn RK. Measuring shape variation of two-dimensional outlines.

[25] Styner M, Oguz I, Xu S, Brechbuehler C, Pantazis D, Levitt JJ, Shenton ME, Gerig G. Framework for the statistical shape analysis of brain structures using SPHARM-PDM.

differences in outline shape. Medical Image Analysis 1997;1 225-243.

Geometridae). Journal of the Entomological Research Society 2011a;13(1) 53-60. [20] Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution

irrupción poblacional. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 2003;76 417-435. [14] Andersson M. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994.

cerambycid beetle. Animal Behaviors 1997;54 1509-1515.

Journal of Insect Science 2011b;11 98 1-9.

Evolutionary Biology 2008;35 186–190.

Systematic Zoology 1985;34 59–68.

descriptors. Systematic Zoology 1977;26 336-342.

Journal of the Entomological Research Society 2010a;12(2) 87-95.


[43] Leigh SR. Cranial ontogeny of Papio baboons (Papio hamadr-yas). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2006;130 71-84.

Sexual Dimorphism Using Geometric Morphometric Approach 49

[60] Berger D, Walters R, Gotthard K. What limits insect fecundity? Body size- and temperature-dependent egg maturation and oviposition in a butterfly. Functional

[61] Fischer K, Fiedler K. Sex-related differences in reaction norms in the butterflyLycaena

[62] Wiklund C, Karlsson B, Leimar O. Sexual conflict and cooperation in butterfly reproduction: a comparative study of polyandry and female fitness. Proceedings of the

[63] Reeve JP, Fairbairn DJ. Change in sexual size dimorphism as a correlated response to

[64] Mutanen M, Kaitala A. Genital variation in a dimorphic moth *Selenia tetralunaria* (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2006;87(2) 297-

[65] Meyer-Rochow VB, Lau T. Sexual dimorphism in the compound eye of the moth *Operophtera brumata* (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). Invertebrate Biology 2008;127(2) 201–

[66] Sihvonen P. Mating behaviour and copulation mechanisms in the genus *Scopula*

[67] Forrest TG. Insect size tactics and developmental strategies. Oecologia 1987;73 178-184.

[70] Lawing AM, Polly PD. Geometric morphometrics: recent applications to the study of

[71] Klingenberg CP. Evolution and development of shape: integrating quantitative

[72] Tatsuta H, Mizota K, Akimoto SI. Allometric patterns of heads and genitalia in the stag beetle *Lucanus maculifemoratus* (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). Annals of the Entomological

[73] Dudley R. The Biomechanics of Insect Flight: Shape, Function, Evolution. Princeton:

[74] Breuker C, Brakefield PM, Gibbs M. The associations between wing morphology and dispersal is sex-limited in the Glanville fritillary butterfly *Melitaea conxia* (Lepidoptera:

[75] Dockx C. Directional and stabilizing selection on wing size and shape in migrant and resident monarch butterflies, *Danaus plexippus* (L.), in Cuba. Biological Journal of the

[76] Johansson F, Soderquist M, Bokma F. Insect wing shape evolution:independent effects of migratory and mate guarding flight on dragonfly wings. Biological Journal of

[77] DeVries PJ, Penz CM, Hill RI. Vertical distribution, flight behaviour and evolution of wing morphology in *Morpho* butterflies. Journal of Animal Ecology 2010;79 1077–1085.

(Geometridae: Sterrhinae). Nota Lepidopterologica 2008;30(2) 299–313.

[68] Rohlf FJ. TPSUtil, v. 1.40. NY: State University at Stony Brook; 2008b. [69] http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/ (accessed 2 September 2012)

evolution and development. Journal of Zoology 2010;280 1–7.

Nymphalidae). European Journal of Entomology 2007;104 445–452.

approaches. Nature Reviews Genetics 2010;11 623–635.

Society of America 2001;94 462–466.

Princeton University Press; 2000.

Linnean Society 2007;92 605–616.

Linnaean Society 2009;97 362–372.

tityrus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Oikos 2000;90 372–80.

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2001;268 1661–67.

selection on fecundity. Heredity 1999;83 697–706.

Ecology 2008;22 523–29.

307.

216.


559.

Physical Anthropology 2006;130 71-84.

lizards. Nature 2007;447 202-205.

Journal of Morphology 2006;267 602-611.

Chironomidae). American Naturalist 1971;105(945) 455-466.

[52] Rohlf F. TPSdig, v. 2.12. NY: State University at Stony Brook; 2008a.

morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 2011;11 353-357.

Lepidoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 2011;56 445–464.

Chile. Revista Chilena de Entomología 2010b;35 61-70.

2004;186(5-6) 471-478.

1999;249 127-136.

2001;30 299-311.

Entomology 2006;103 575–586.

Ecology 2010;24 161–175.

[43] Leigh SR. Cranial ontogeny of Papio baboons (Papio hamadr-yas). American Journal of

[44] Schaefer K, Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bernhard M, Bookstein FL. Craniofacial sexual dimorphism patterns and allometry among extant hominids. Annals of Anatomy

[45] Butler MA, Losos JB. Multivariate sexualdimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptationin Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecological Monographs 2002;72(4) 541-

[46] Butler MA, Sawyer SA, Losos JB. Sexual dimorphism and adap-tive radiation in Anolis

[47] Malmgren JC, Thollesson M. Sexual size and shape dimorphism in two species of newts, Triturus cristatus and T. vulgaris (Caudata: Salamandridae). Journal of Zoology

[48] Bonduriansky R. Convergent evolution of sexual shape dimor-phism in Diptera.

[49] Atchley WR. Components of sexual dimorphism in Chi-ronomus larvae (Diptera:

[50] Benítez H, Jerez V, Briones R. Proporción sexual y morfometría para dos poblaciones de *Ceroglossus chilensis* (Eschscholtz, 1829) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) en la Región del Biobío,

[51] Alibert P, Moureau B, Dommergues J, David B. Differentiation at a microgeographical scale within two species of ground beetle, *Carabus auronitens* and *C. nemoralis* (Coleoptera, Carabidae): a geometrical morphometric approach. Zoologica Scripta

[53] Klingenberg C. MORPHOJ: an integrated software package for geometric

[57] Stillwell RC, Blanckenhorn WU, Teder T, DavidowitzG, Fox CW. Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity affect variation in sexual size dimorphism in insects: from

[58] Esperk T, Tammaru T. Determination of female-biased sexual size dimorphism in moths with a variable instar number: the role of additional instars. European Journal of

[59] Tammaru T, Esperk T, Ivanov V, Teder T. Proximate sources of sexual size dimorphismin insects: locating constraints on larval growth schedules. Evolutionary

[54] Jiroux E. Le genre Ceroglossus, vol.14. Magellanes: Collection Systematique; 2006. [55] Klingenberg C, Barluenga M, Meyer A. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 2002;56 1909–1920. [56] Allen CE, Zwaan BJ, Brakefield PM. Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism in the

physiology to evolution. Annual Review of Entomology 2010;55 227–245.


[78] Klingenberg CP, McIntyre GS. Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution 1998;52 1363–1375.

**Chapter 4** 

© 2013 Ozawa, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

© 2013 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**The History of Sexual Dimorphism in Ostracoda** 

Studies of the origin and history of sex in organisms are important for elucidating lifehistory strategies and reproductive modes, and are an essential component of the study of evolutionary biology [1]. Sexual dimorphism (*i*.*e*., morphological differences between males and females) and its relationship to reproductive modes in both living and extinct/fossil

Ostracods (Arthropoda) are the only organisms useful for investigations of the long-term history of sexual dimorphism during the last ca. 500 million years since the early Palaeozoic, *i.e.*, Ordovician (ca. 490 Ma = 490 million years ago) [4]. Ostracods are a class of small crustaceans (Figures 1 and 2) of which the adult form is around 1.0 mm in length, that inhabit most aquatic areas; *e*.*g*., marine, brackish, and freshwater conditions (Figure 3) [5] [6]. Most ostracods have the ability to reproduce sexually, except for a part of species capable of reproducing asexually (parthenogenesis). The most distinctive feature of ostracods is the calcareous carapace (Figures 1 and 2). Species with strongly calcified carapaces are relatively easily fossilised, and ostracods are abundant in sediments globally starting from the early Ordovician [7]. In contrast, the proteinaceous (= 'chitinous') soft body with appendages (Figure 2) is rarely fossilised due to a lack of mineralised parts, and as a result an ostracod fossil typically consists only of the hard carapace. However, this is sufficient for both recent and fossil specimens to be identified to the species level, based on

Similar to other crustaceans such as decapods, ostracods grow by moulting (ecdysis; Figure 4). For example, in one ostracod order, the Podocopida, there are usually eight moult stages between egg and adult, with the last moulting being the first sexually mature stage. Carapace and appendage sexual dimorphism can be recognised during the last adult stage

**(Arthropoda, Crustacea) Since the Palaeozoic** 

Hirokazu Ozawa

**1. Introduction** 

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55329

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

organisms is a key aspect of such studies [2] [3].

various carapace morphological characteristics (Figures 1 and 2).

(Figures 5 and 6), and to a lesser degree in late juvenile stages [8–10].
