Foote, M. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 129–152 (1997).
Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. Approaches to macroevolution: 1. General concepts and origin of variation. Evol. Biol. 44, 427–450 (2017).
Google Scholar
Goswami, A., Smaers, J. B., Soligo, C. & Polly, P. D. The macroevolutionary consequences of phenotypic integration: from development to deep time. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 369, 2013054 (2014).
Wainwright, P. C. Ecomorphology: experimental functional anatomy for ecological problems1. Am. Zool. 31, 680–693 (1991).
Google Scholar
Mahler, D. L., Revell, L. J., Glor, R. E. & Losos, J. B. Ecological opportunity and the rate of morphological evolution in the diversification of greater Antillean anoles. Evolution 64, 2731–2745 (2010).
Google Scholar
Foote, M. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19, 185–204 (1993).
Google Scholar
Schluter, D. Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution 50, 1766–1774 (1996).
Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. Developmental bias, macroevolution, and the fossil record. Evol. Dev. 22, 103–125 (2020).
Google Scholar
Collar, D. C. & Wainwright, P. C. Discordance between morphological and mechanical diversity in the feeding mechanism of centrarchid fishes. Evolution 60, 2575–2584 (2006).
Google Scholar
Walker, J. A. A general model of functional constraints on phenotypic evolution. Am. Nat. 170, 681–689 (2007).
Google Scholar
Higham, T. E. et al. Linking ecomechanical models and functional traits to understand phenotypic diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 860–873 (2021).
Google Scholar
Higham, T. E. et al. Speciation through the lens of biomechanics: locomotion, prey capture and reproductive isolation. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20161294 (2016).
Google Scholar
Garland, T., Downs, C. J. & Ives, A. R. Trade-offs (and constraints) in organismal biology. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 95, 82–112 (2022).
Google Scholar
Muñoz, M. M. The evolutionary dynamics of mechanically complex systems. Integr. Comp. Biol. 59, 705–715 (2019).
Google Scholar
David Polly, P. Functional tradeoffs carry phenotypes across the valley of the shadow of death. Integr. Comp. Biol. 60, 1268–1282 (2021).
Google Scholar
Polly, P. D. et al. Combining geometric morphometrics and finite element analysis with evolutionary modeling: towards a synthesis. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 36, e1111225 (2016).
Google Scholar
Alexander, R. M. The maximum forces exerted by animals. J. Exp. Biol. 115, 231–238 (1985).
Google Scholar
Mauro, A. A. & Ghalambor, C. K. Trade-offs, pleiotropy, and shared molecular pathways: a unified view of constraints on adaptation. Integr. Comp. Biol. 60, 332–347 (2020).
Google Scholar
Burress, E. D. & Muñoz, M. M. Functional trade-offs asymmetrically promote phenotypic evolution. Syst. Biol. (2022).
Holzman, R. et al. Biomechanical trade-offs bias rates of evolution in the feeding apparatus of fishes. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 1287–1292 (2011).
Google Scholar
Holzman, R. et al. A new theoretical performance landscape for suction feeding reveals adaptive kinematics in a natural population of reef damselfish. J. Exp. Biol. 225, jeb43273 (2022).
Deakin, W. J. et al. Increasing morphological disparity and decreasing optimality for jaw speed and strength during the radiation of jawed vertebrates. Sci. Adv 8 (2022).
Corn, K. A., Martinez, C. M., Burress, E. D. & Wainwright, P. C. A multifunction trade-off has contrasting effects on the evolution of form and function. Syst. Biol. 70, 681–693 (2021).
Google Scholar
Stayton, C. T., O’Connor, L. F. & Nisivoccia, N. M. The influence of multiple functional demands on morphological diversification: a test on turtle shells. Evolution 72, 1933–1949 (2018).
Google Scholar
Dickson, B. V. & Pierce, S. E. Functional performance of turtle humerus shape across an ecological adaptive landscape. Evolution 73, 1265–1277 (2019).
Google Scholar
Dickson, B. V., Clack, J. A., Smithson, T. R. & Pierce, S. E. Functional adaptive landscapes predict terrestrial capacity at the origin of limbs. Nature 589, 242–245 (2021).
Google Scholar
Stayton, C. T. Biomechanics on the half shell: functional performance influences patterns of morphological variation in the emydid turtle carapace. Zoology 114, 213–223 (2011).
Google Scholar
Hebdon, N., Polly, P. D., Peterman, D. J. & Ritterbush, K. A. Detecting mismatch in functional narratives of animal morphology: a test case with fossils. Integr. Comp. Biol. 62, 817–828 (2022).
Google Scholar
Arnold, S. J. Performance surfaces and adaptive landscapes. Integr. Comp. Biol. 43, 367–375 (2003).
Google Scholar
Arnold, S. J. Morphology, performance and fitness. Am. Zool. 23, 347–361 (1983).
Google Scholar
Arnold, S. J., Pfrender, M. E. & Jones, A. G. The adaptive landscape as a conceptual bridge between micro-and macroevolution. In Microevolution Rate, Pattern, Process, 9–32 (Springer Dordrecht, 2001).
Jones, K. E., Dickson, B. V., Angielczyk, K. D. & Pierce, S. E. Adaptive landscapes challenge the “lateral-to-sagittal” paradigm for mammalian vertebral evolution. Curr. Biol. 31, 1883–1892.e7 (2021).
Google Scholar
Taylor, G. & Thomas, A. Evolutionary Biomechanics: Selection, Phylogeny, and Constraint (OUP Oxford, 2014).
Morales-García, N. M., Gill, P. G., Janis, C. M. & Rayfield, E. J. Jaw shape and mechanical advantage are indicative of diet in Mesozoic mammals. Commun. Biol. 4, 242 (2021).
Google Scholar
Herrel, A., O’Reilly, J. C. & Richmond, A. M. Evolution of bite performance in turtles. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 1083–1094 (2002).
Google Scholar
Swiderski, D. L. & Zelditch, M. L. Complex adaptive landscape for a “Simple” structure: The role of trade‐offs in the evolutionary dynamics of mandibular shape in ground squirrels. Evolution 76, 946–965 (2022).
Google Scholar
Dumont, E. R. et al. Selection for mechanical advantage underlies multiple cranial optima in new world leaf-nosed bats. Evolution 68, 1436–1449 (2014).
Google Scholar
Goswami, A., Milne, N. & Wroe, S. Biting through constraints: cranial morphology, disparity and convergence across living and fossil carnivorous mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 1831–1839 (2010).
Google Scholar
Wroe, S. & Milne, N. Convergence and remarkably consistent constraint in the evolution of carnivore skull shape. Evolution 61, 1251–1260 (2007).
Google Scholar
Weisbecker, V., Goswami, A., Wroe, S. & Sánchez-Villagra, M. R. Ossification heterochrony in the therian postcranial skeleton and the marsupial–placental dichotomy. Evolution 62, 2027–2041 (2008).
Google Scholar
Goswami, A. et al. Do developmental constraints and high integration limit the evolution of the marsupial oral apparatus? Integr. Comp. Biol. 56, 404–415 (2016).
Google Scholar
Fabre, A. C. et al. Functional constraints during development limit jaw shape evolution in marsupials. Proc. R. Soc B Biol. Sci. 288, 20210319 (2021).
Wroe, S., McHenry, C. & Thomason, J. Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 619–625 (2005).
Google Scholar
Michaud, M., Veron, G., Peignè, S., Blin, A. & Fabre, A.-C. Are phenotypic disparity and rate of morphological evolution correlated with ecological diversity in Carnivora? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 124, 294–307 (2018).
Google Scholar
Meloro, C. & Tamagnini, D. Macroevolutionary ecomorphology of the Carnivora skull: adaptations and constraints in the extant species. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 196, 1054–1068 (2022).
Google Scholar
Christiansen, P. & Wroe, S. Bite forces and evolutionary adaptations to feeding ecology in carnivores. Ecology 88, 347–358 (2007).
Google Scholar
Westneat, M. W. Feeding, function, and phylogeny: analysis of historical biomechanics in labrid fishes using comparative methods. Syst. Biol. 44, 361–383 (1995).
Google Scholar
Slater, G. J. & Van Valkenburgh, B. Allometry and performance: the evolution of skull form and function in felids. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 2278–2287 (2009).
Google Scholar
Figueirido, B. et al. Constraint and adaptation in the evolution of carnivoran skull shape. Paleobiology 37, 490–518 (2011).
Google Scholar
Tseng, Z. J. Testing adaptive hypotheses of convergence with functional landscapes: a case study of bone-cracking hypercarnivores. PLoS ONE 8, e65305 (2013).
Smith, S. M., Stayton, C. T. & Angielczyk, K. D. How many trees to see the forest? Assessing the effects of morphospace coverage and sample size in performance surface analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 1411–1424 (2021).
Google Scholar
Law, C. J. et al. Decoupled evolution of the cranium and mandible in carnivoran mammals. Evolution 76, 2959–2974 (2022).
Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. The Geometry of Evolution: Adaptive Landscapes and Theoretical Morphospaces (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007).
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, Vol. 2 (Springer, New York, NY, 2004).
Moen, D. S. What determines the distinct morphology of species with a particular ecology? The roles of many-to-one mapping and trade-offs in the evolution of frog ecomorphology and performance. Am. Nat. 194, E81–E95 (2019).
Google Scholar
Alfaro, M. E., Bolnick, D. I. & Wainwright, P. C. Evolutionary consequences of many‐to‐one mapping of jaw morphology to mechanics in labrid fishes. Am. Nat. 165, E140–E154 (2005).
Google Scholar
Losos, J. B. Convergence, adaptation, and constraint. Evolution 65, 1827–1840 (2011).
Google Scholar
Wainwright, P. C., Alfaro, M. E., Bolnick, D. I. & Hulsey, C. D. Many-to-one mapping of form to function: a general principle in organismal design? Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 256–262 (2005).
Google Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R. When does morphology matter? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27, 501–542 (1996).
Google Scholar
Jack Tseng, Z. & Flynn, J. J. Structure-function covariation with nonfeeding ecological variables influences evolution of feeding specialization in Carnivora (2018).
Borstein, S. R., Fordyce, J. A., O’Meara, B. C., Wainwright, P. C. & McGee, M. D. Reef fish functional traits evolve fastest at trophic extremes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 191–199 (2019).
Google Scholar
Cardini, A. & Polly, P. D. Larger mammals have longer faces because of size-related constraints on skull form. Nat. Commun. 4, 2458 (2013).
Google Scholar
Cardini, A., Polly, D., Dawson, R. & Milne, N. Why the long face? Kangaroos and wallabies follow the same ‘rule’of cranial evolutionary allometry (CREA) as placentals. Evol. Biol. 42, 169–176 (2015).
Google Scholar
Sakamoto, M., Ruta, M. & Venditti, C. Extreme and rapid bursts of functional adaptations shape bite force in amniotes. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20181932 (2019).
Google Scholar
Slater, G. J., Dumont, E. R. & Van Valkenburgh, B. Implications of predatory specialization for cranial form and function in canids. J. Zool. 278, 181–188 (2009).
Google Scholar
Oldfield, C. C. et al. Finite element analysis of ursid cranial mechanics and the prediction of feeding behaviour in the extinct giant Agriotherium africanum. J. Zool. 286, 171 (2012).
Google Scholar
Figueirido, B., Serrano-Alarcón, F. J., Slater, G. J. & Palmqvist, P. Shape at the cross-roads: homoplasy and history in the evolution of the carnivoran skull towards herbivory. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2579–2594 (2010).
Google Scholar
Meachen, J. A., O’Keefe, F. R. & Sadleir, R. W. Evolution in the sabre-tooth cat, Smilodon fatalis, in response to Pleistocene climate change. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 714–723 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jeffery, N. S., Sarver, D. C. & Mendias, C. L. Ontogenetic and in silico models of spatial‐packing in the hypermuscular mouse skull. J. Anat. 238, 1284–1295 (2021).
Google Scholar
Segura, V., Cassini, G. H. & Prevosti, F. J. Evolution of cranial ontogeny in South American canids (Carnivora: Canidae). Evol. Biol. 48, 170–189 (2021).
Google Scholar
Currey, J. D. Bones: Structure and Mechanics (Princeton Univ. Press, 2006).
Schlager, S. Morpho and Rvcg–shape analysis in R: R-packages for geometric morphometrics, shape analysis and surface manipulations. In Statistical Shape and Deformation Analysis 217–256 (Elsevier, 2017).
FL, B. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991).
Fruciano, C. Measurement error in geometric morphometrics. Dev. Genes Evol. 226, 139–158 (2016).
Google Scholar
Upham, N. S., Esselstyn, J. A. & Jetz, W. Inferring the mammal tree: species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000494 (2019).
Google Scholar
Schliep, K. P. Phangorn: phylogenetic analysis in R. Bioinformatics 27, 592–593 (2011).
Google Scholar
Dumont, E. R., Piccirillo, J. & Grosse, I. R. Finite‐element analysis of biting behavior and bone stress in the facial skeletons of bats. Anat. Rec. Part A Discov. Mol. Cell. Evolut. Biol. Off. Publ. Am. Assoc. Anat. 283, 319–330 (2005).
Cox, P. G., Rinderknecht, A. & Blanco, R. E. Predicting bite force and cranial biomechanics in the largest fossil rodent using finite element analysis. J. Anat. 226, 215–223 (2015).
Google Scholar
Bourke, J., Wroe, S., Moreno, K., McHenry, C. & Clausen, P. Effects of gape and tooth position on bite force and skull stress in the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) using a 3-dimensional finite element approach. PLoS ONE 3, e2200 (2008).
Google Scholar
Stayton, C. T. Application of thin-plate spline transformations to finite element models, or, how to turn a bog turtle into a spotted turtle to analyze both. Evolution 63, 1348–1355 (2009).
Google Scholar
Marcé-Nogué, J., De Esteban-Trivigno, S., Escrig, C. & Gil, L. Accounting for differences in element size and homogeneity when comparing Finite Element Models: Armadillos as a case study MARCÉ-NOGUÉ ET AL.: STATISTICAL APPROACH OF FEA 2. (2016).
Attard, M. R. G. et al. Moa diet fits the bill: virtual reconstruction incorporating mummified remains and prediction of biomechanical performance in avian giants. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20152043 (2016).
Google Scholar
Tsang, L. R. et al. Raptor talon shape and biomechanical performance are controlled by relative prey size but not by allometry. Sci Rep 9, (2019).
Van Heteren, A. H. et al. New Zealand’s extinct giant raptor (Hieraaetus moorei) killed like an eagle, ate like a condor. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288, 20211913 (2021).
Attard, M. R. G. et al. Virtual reconstruction and prey size preference in the mid cenozoic thylacinid, Nimbacinus dicksoni (Thylacinidae, Marsupialia). PLoS ONE 9, e93088 (2014).
Google Scholar
Dumont, E. R., Grosse, I. R. & Slater, G. J. Requirements for comparing the performance of finite element models of biological structures. J. Theor. Biol. 256, 96–103 (2009).
Google Scholar
McHenry, C. R., Wroe, S., Clausen, P. D., Moreno, K. & Cunningham, E. Supermodeled sabercat, predatory behavior in Smilodon fatalis revealed by high-resolution 3D computer simulation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 16010–16015 (2007).
Google Scholar
Chamoli, U. & Wroe, S. Allometry in the distribution of material properties and geometry of the felid skull: why larger species may need to change and how they may achieve it. J. Theor. Biol. 283, 217–226 (2011).
Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. & Corti, M. Use of two-block partial least-squares to study covariation in shape. Syst. Biol. 49, 740–753 (2000).
Google Scholar
Fruciano, C., Colangelo, P., Castiglia, R. & Franchini, P. Does divergence from normal patterns of integration increase as chromosomal fusions increase in number? A test on a house mouse hybrid zone. Curr. Zool. 66, 527–538 (2020).
Google Scholar
Nychka, D., Furrer, R., Paige, J., Sain, S. & Nychka, M. D. Package ‘fields’. URL (2015).
Hiemstra, P. & Hiemstra, M. P. Package ‘automap’. Compare 105, 10 (2013).
Clavel, J., Escarguel, G. & Merceron, G. mvmorph: an r package for fitting multivariate evolutionary models to morphometric data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1311–1319 (2015).
Google Scholar
Clavel, J., Aristide, L. & Morlon, H. A penalized likelihood framework for high-dimensional phylogenetic comparative methods and an application to new-world monkeys brain evolution. Syst. Biol. 68, 93–116 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ishiguro, M., Sakamoto, Y. & Kitagawa, G. Bootstrapping log likelihood and EIC, an extension of AIC. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 49, 411–434 (1997).
Kitagawa, G. & Konishi, S. Bias and variance reduction techniques for bootstrap information criterion. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 62, 209–234 (2010).
Pennell, M. W. et al. geiger v2.0: an expanded suite of methods for fitting macroevolutionary models to phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 30, 2216–2218 (2014).
Google Scholar
Venditti, C., Meade, A. & Pagel, M. Multiple routes to mammalian diversity. Nature 479, 393–396 (2011).
Google Scholar
Castiglione, S. et al. A new method for testing evolutionary rate variation and shifts in phenotypic evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 974–983 (2018).
Google Scholar
Revell, L. J. Size-correction and principal components for interspecific comparative studies. Evolution 63, 3258–3268 (2009).
Google Scholar
Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K. & Karen, V. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R. N. 6, 7–11 (2006).
Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B. & Raftery, A. E. mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models. R. J. 8, 289–317 (2016).
Google Scholar
Chatterjee, S. A new coefficient of correlation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 116, 2009–2022 (2021).
Google Scholar
link