Are diminutive turtles miniaturized? The ontogeny of plastron shape in emydine turtles

Miniaturization, or the evolution of a dramatically reduced body size compared to related lineages, is an extraordinarily widespread phenomenon among metazoans. Evolutionary biologists have been fascinated by miniaturization because this transition has occurred numerous times, often among close relatives, providing a model system for studying convergent evolution and its underlying mechanisms. Much of the developmental work describing the ontogeny of miniature species suggests that paedomorphosis is the predominant avenue of miniaturization. Nevertheless, specific alterations to ontogeny appear highly variable, so that even related lineages with similar miniaturized traits produce those similarities via distinct ontogenetic paths. One major vertebrate group that has been overlooked in research on miniaturization is turtles. In the present study, we examined patterns of shape change in the plastron (the ventral part of the shell) over the course of ontogeny in a small clade of turtles (Emydinae) aiming to investigate whether two independently evolved diminutive members of the clade (Glyptemys muhlenbergii and Clemmys guttata) should be considered as miniaturized. We employ geometric morphometric methods to quantify the patterns of shape change these potentially miniaturized species and their relatives undergo during ontogeny, and use molecular phylogenetic trees to reconstruct ancestral conditions and provide information on the polarity of shape changes. We find that differing changes in ontogenetic parameters relative to ancestral conditions accompany the evolution of small size in emydines: G. muhlenbergii changes the duration of ontogeny and rate of shape change, whereas C. guttata changes growth rate. The observed ontogenetic repatterning of these species is reminiscent of changes in ontogeny and life history often found in miniaturized taxa. However, we conclude that C. guttata and G. muhlenbergii are not truly miniaturized because they still produce typical adult shell morphologies, and larger emydines display comparable ontogenetic flexibility. Because no emydines carry juvenile shell features forward into adulthood, we speculate that few, if any turtles, will show paedomorphic shell traits without corresponding changes in defensive strategy because such shells may offer insufficient protection. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London     

The evolution of generalization? Parasitoid flies and the perils of inferring host range evolution from phylogenies

It is widely assumed that high resource specificity predisposes lineages toward greater likelihood of extinction and lower likelihood of diversification than more generalized lineages. This suggests that host range evolution in parasitic organisms should proceed from generalist to specialist, and specialist lineages should be found at the 'tips' of phylogenies. To test these hypotheses, parsimony and maximum likelihood methods were used to reconstruct the evolution of host range on a phylogeny of parasitoid flies in the family Tachinidae. In contrast to predictions, most reconstructions indicated that generalists were repeatedly derived from specialist lineages and tended to occupy terminal branches of the phylogeny. These results are critically examined with respect to hypotheses concerning the evolution of specialization, the inherent difficulties in inferring host ranges, our knowledge of tachinid-host associations, and the methodological problems associated with ancestral character state reconstruction. Both parsimony and likelihood reconstructions are shown to provide misleading results and it is argued that independent evidence, in addition to phylogenetic trees, is needed to inform models of the evolution of host range and the evolutionary consequences of specialization.