z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Sexual size dimorphism in domestic goats, sheep, and their wild relatives
Author(s) -
POLÁK JAKUB,
FRYNTA DANIEL
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
biological journal of the linnean society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.906
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1095-8312
pISSN - 0024-4066
DOI - 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01294.x
Subject(s) - biology , sexual dimorphism , subspecies , zoology , bovidae , domestication , subfamily , allometry , coat , ecology , genetics , gene
Sexual size dimorphism (SSD) is a widespread phenomenon in different animal taxa, including the subfamily of goats and sheep (Caprinae), which belongs to the most dimorphic mammalian groups. Rensch's rule describes the pattern of SSD, claiming that larger species generally exhibits higher male to female body size ratio. Agreement with Rensch's rule is manifested by slope of the allometric relationship between male and female body size exceeding one. To test this rule, we analysed the data available in the literature on adult body mass of males and females in domestic goat and sheep breeds (169 and 303, respectively) and 37 wild species/subspecies of the subfamily Caprinae. According to the current phylogenetical hypotheses, there are six distinct monophyletic groups with different levels of SSD (expressed as M/F): (1) wild goats (1.83); (2) wild sheep (1.67); (3) non‐European chamoises, including Ovibos moschatus (1.18); (4) European chamoises (1.27); (5) Budorcas taxicolor (1.01); and (6) Pantholops hodgsonii (1.65). Domestication has led to a remarkable decline in SSD of both domestic goats (1.36) and sheep (1.41). The highest regression slope of the relationship between male and female body size is that estimated for wild goats (1.32), followed by wild sheep (1.24), non‐European chamoises (1.14), domestic sheep (1.13), and domestic goats (1.10). Nevertheless, only the last two values are statistically different from one and thus corroborate Rensch's rule. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2009, 98 , 872–883.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here