Incumplimiento del postulado de Rensch en páridos (Paridae: Passeriformes)

Pere M. Parés-Casanova

doi:10.30550/j.azl/2199

Authors

Pere M. Parés-Casanova Institució Catalana d’Història Natural, Barcelona, Cataluña https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1440-6418

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30550/j.azl/2199

Keywords:

Biogeography, Cyanistes, Lophophanes, Parus, Periparus, Poecile, sexual dimorphism

Abstract

Rensch's allometric postulate states that the degree of sexual size dimorphism increases with body size in species where the male is the largest sex and, conversely, decreases in those species where the female is the largest sex. From 30,222 biometric records (wing length and length of the 3rd primary feather) of 5 species of tits (Periparus ater, Cyanistes caeruleus, Lophophanes cristatus, Parus major and Poecile palustris), it was analysed whether that postulate is applicable. For both lineal measures, regressions between sexes appeared isometrical, thus indicating that among these Parid birds, Rensch’s postulate does not apply. It can be argued that this accomplishment is due to the polygyny of these species, plus the fact that both sexes contribute equal to the feeding of the siblings. Moreover, consequently, the consumption of food resources is proportionally the same between sexes, since if the weight ratio between males and females is maintained, it is reasonable to suppose that metabolic rates follow similar proportion.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Berns, C.M. 2013. “The Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism: Understanding Mechanisms of Sexual Shape Differences.” In Sexual Dimorphism, ed. Hiroshi Moriyama. Croatia: IntechOpen, 1–15.

Björklund, M., and M. Lindén. 1993. “Sexual Size Dimorphism in the Great Tit (Parus Major) in Relation to History and Current Selection.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 6(3): 397–415.

Cassini, M.H. 2016. “Selección Sexual En Mamíferos: ¿Una Teoría Sobrestimada?” Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento Agosto: 11–15.

Darwin, C. 2020. El Origen Del Hombre y La Selección En Relación Al Sexo. Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata.

Demongin, L. 2016. Identification Guide to Birds in the Hand. Ain: Beauregard-Vendon.

Florez Vázquez, K.P. 2024. “Una Reevaluación de La Regla de Rensch En Odonata (Hexapoda: Insecta).” Universidad de las Américas Puebla.

Hammer, Ø., D.A.T. Harper, and P.D. Ryan. 2024. “PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis.” Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 1–229.

Hernández, M.L., and L.E. Acosta. 2021. “Caracterización Del Dimorfismo Sexual y Reconocimiento de Machos Dimórficos En El Complejo Discocyrtus Prospicuus (Arachnida: Opiliones: Gonyleptidae): Una Aproximación Desde La Morfometría Geométrica.” Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 92(0): 923545.

King, J.R., and R. Griffiths. 1994. “Sexual Dimorphism of Plumage and Morphology in the Coal Tit Parus Ater.” Bird Study 41(1): 7–16.

Martínez, P.A., T. Ferreia Amado, and C.J. Bidau. 2014. “A Phylogenetic Approach to the Study of Sexual Size Dimorphism in Felidae and an Assessment of Rensch’s Rule.” Ecosistemas 23(1): 27–36.

Polák, J., and D. Frynta. 2010. “Patterns of Sexual Size Dimorphism in Cattle Breeds Support Rensch’s Rule.” Evolutionary Ecology 24(5): 1255–66.

Procter, D. S., A. J. Moore, and C. W. Miller. 2012. “The Form of Sexual Selection Arising from Male-Male Competition Depends on the Presence of Females in the Social Environment.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 25(5): 803–12.

Remeš, V., and T. Székely. 2010. “Domestic Chickens Defy Rensch’s Rule: Sexual Size Dimorphism in Chicken Breeds.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23(12): 2754–59.

Ribiero da Silva, A., G. de Paula Paciencia, P. Conceiçao Bispo, and A. Leao Castilho. 2017. “Allometry and Sexual Dimorphism of the Neotropical Freshwater Anomuran Aegla Marginata Bond-Buckup & Buckup, 1994 (Crustacea, Anomura, Aeglidae).” Nauplius 25(0).

Serrano-Meneses, M.A. et al. 2008. “Sexual Selection, Sexual Size Dimorphism and Rensch’s Rule in Odonata.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21(5): 1259–73.

Webb, Thomas J., and Robert P. Freckleton. 2007. “Only Half Right: Species with Female-Biased Sexual Size Dimorphism Consistently Break Rensch’s Rule.” PLoS ONE 2(9).