SKULL SEXUAL DIMORPHISM APPEARS IN TOY RABBITS

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to use geometric morphometrics to study the skull sexual dimorphism of toy rabbits, which present paedomorphic (babyness) traits comparing data with those from agriotype (ancestor), Oryctolagus cuniculus. For this purpose, we examined 43 post-weaned corpses belonging to wild rabbit (n=22, 7 ♂ and 15 ♀, 1295.6 ± 333.8 kg of body weight and 88.0 ± 1.12 cm of ear length) and toy type (n=21, 4 ♂ and 17 ♀, short and upright ears, 1031.3 ± 644.13 kg of body weight and 6.2 ± 1.08 cm of ear length). Heads were radiographed using a Potro® machine on a latero-lateral projection and 7 landmarks were located on the skull and studied by means of geometric morphometric procedures. Size and shape between genders appeared statistically different only for toys, mainly focused on splanchnocranium (face) for shape. Detected sexual dimorphism could be attributed to selection arising from differential mating success, or sexual selection, due to human management. Moreover, the inconsistency with Rensch’s hypothesis – which establishes that males in larger species will tend to be larger relative to females than in smaller species- allows us to suggest that Rensch’s hypothesis is not necessarily followed in artificial selection experiencing miniaturization in body shape. It must be outlined the opportunities to tackle paedomorphic questions via geometric morphometrics methods in toy rabbits.

Keywords

• Oryctolagus cuniculus,neoteny,paedomorphism,progenesis

References

1. Borgi M and Cirulli F (2013). Children’s Preferences for Infantile Features in Dogs and Cats. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 1 (2): 1–15.
2. Parés-Casanova PM, Sofiane K, Medina A (2018). Diferente desarrollo cefálico según tipo de conejo. Revista Ciencias Veterinarias 36(2): 15–21.
3. Denoël M, Jolly P (2000). Neoteny and progenesis as two heterochronic processes involved in paedomorphosis in Triturus alpestris (Amphibia: Caudata). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 265: 1481–85. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1168.
4. Skulachev VP, Holtze S, Vyssokikh MY, Bakeeva LE, Skulachev MV, Markov AV, Hildebrandt TB and Sadovnichii VA (2017). Neoteny, prolongation of youth: From naked mole rats to “Naked Apes” (Humans). Physiological Reviews 97(2): 699–720.
5. Bonino N and Donadio E (2010). Parámetros corporales y dimorfismo sexual en el conejo silvestre europeo (Oryctolagus cuniculus) introducido en Argentina. Mastozoologia Neotropical 17(1): 123–127.
6. Rohlf FJ (2010). Digitalized Landmarks and Outlines. Stony Brook: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, New York, 2:26.
7. Ozkadif S and Eken E (2016). Craniometric measurements of New Zealand rabbits skull from three-dimensional reconstruction images. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 2(1): 9–14.
8. Toro Ibacache MV, Manriquez Soto G, Suazo Galdames I (2010). Morfometría geométrica y el estudio de las formas biológicas: de la morfología descriptiva a la morfología cuantitativa geométrica. International Journal of Morphology 28 (4): 977–990.

9. Bookstein FL (1991). Morphometric tools for landmark data. Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press.
10. Zelditch M, Swiderski D, Sheets H, Fink W (2004). Simple size and shape variables: Bookstein shape coordinates. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer, Elsevier Academic Press London, 51-72.
11. Klingenberg CP (2011). MorphoJ: An integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 11(2): 353–357.
12. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001). PAST v. 2.17c. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 1–229.
13. Soriguer RC (1980). El conejo, Oryctolagus cuniculus (L.), en Andalucía Occidental: Parámetros corporales y curva de crecimiento. Doñana, Acta Vertebrata 7(1): 83–90.
14. Godfrey LR and Sutherland MR (1996). Paradox of peramorphic paedomorphosis: Heterochrony and human evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99(1): 17–42.
15. Frynta D, Baudyšová J, Hradcová P, Faltusová K and Kratochvíl L (2012). Allometry of sexual size dimorphism in domestic dog. PLoS One 7(9): 5–10.
16. Bidau CJ and Martinez PA (2016). Sexual size dimorphism and Rensch’s rule in Canidae. Biological Journal of Linnean Society 119: 816–830.
17. Remes V and Szekely T (2010). Domestic chickens defy Rensch’s rule: sexual size dimorphism in chicken breeds. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23: 2754–2759.
18. Drake AG and Klingenberg CP (2010). Large‐scale diversification of skull shape in domestic dogs: disparity and modularity. The American Naturalist 175(3): 289–301.
19. Andrews K, Lowe J and Mccormick WD (2015). Skull morphology of the domestic dog in relation to cephalic index, in Royal Veterinary College, London, 69th AVTRW Annual Conference.
20. Denoël M, Ivanovic A, Džuki G and Kalezic ML (2009). Sexual size dimorphism in the evolutionary context of facultative paedomorphosis: insights from European newts. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9(1): 278.