Abstract
Rensch’s rule entails that male-biased sexual size dimorphism scales allometrically with body size and is assumed to generally apply to polygynous taxa. However, so far only few mammalian groups have been shown to conform to it. Toothed whales (Odontoceti) not only span a substantial range of body sizes, but are commonly presumed to be predominantly polygynous, thus representing a promising candidate group to test for Rensch’s rule. Here we compiled a dataset of sex-specific body lengths in 57 species of toothed whales and demonstrate that sexual size dimorphism in this group does indeed follow Rensch’s rule. When focusing on selected subgroups of toothed whales, conformity to the rule was prominent among lineages of the speciose superfamily Delphinoidea, while it was not found in the beaked whales of the family Ziphiidae. These results support the assumption that polygynous and polygynandrous mating systems and marked precopulatory intrasexual competition between males are common among toothed whales. However, female-biased sexual size dimorphism as well as monomorphism occur at notable frequencies as well, suggesting that reproductive strategies are nevertheless variable among these marine mammals.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Rensch’s rule proposes that among closely related species, sexual size dimorphism (SSD) scales allometrically with body size (Abouheif and Fairbairn 1997). It assumes that relative SSD increases with body size when males are the larger sex (male-biased SSD; Rensch 1950) and vice versa when the opposite is the case (female-biased SSD; Rensch 1960, but see Webb and Freckleton 2007). One important evolutionary driver behind this pattern is assumed to be sexual selection, particularly due to intrasexual competition between males (reviewed in Lindenfors et al. 2007; see also Dale et al. 2007). In line with this, Rensch’s rule appears restricted to polygynandrous and polygynous taxa among vertebrates and is not found in monogamous ones or among polyandrous species (Dale et al. 2007, but see Caspar et al. 2021). Indeed, the rule has been found to be sex-reversed in some polyandrous groups (Dale et al. 2007).
In mammals polygyny and polygynandry are the predominant mating systems (Mesnick and Ralls 2008). However, although Rensch’s rule appears to hold for mammals as a group (Lindenfors et al. 2007), few studies so far found SSD scaling in compliance with it on lower taxonomic levels such as orders or families (Lindenfors et al. 2007; Martinez et al. 2014; Wu et al. 2018). Hence, the rule’s general applicability to mammalian taxa, even those that are strongly polygynous, remains uncertain and requires further investigation. Toothed whales (Odontoceti) and particularly their most speciose taxon, the Delphinoidea (oceanic dolphins, porpoises, narwhals, and beluga whales), represent an interesting model group to study the phenomenon because they encompass a substantial range of body sizes while likely exhibiting polygynous or polygynandrous mating systems throughout, which are typically characterized by high intrasexual competition between males (Mesnick and Ralls 2008). This condition is expected to favor the evolution of male-biased SSD and conformity to Rensch’s rule (Dale et al. 2007; Lindenfors et al. 2007). However, so far, such mating systems have only been effectively confirmed in just a few model species (Dines et al. 2015).
In most toothed whales, sexually dimorphic body size is indeed apparent and male-biased, while females are usually the larger sex in baleen whales (see Ralls and Mesnick 2009 for discussion of underlying factors). Female-biased SSD has mostly been reported for the smallest toothed whales, including river dolphins (Kasuya 1972; Anli and Kayia 1992; except Inia—Martin and Da Silva 2006) and the diminutive oceanic dolphins of the genus Cephalorhynchus (Heimlich-Boran 1993), but it also occurs in beaked whales (Omura et al. 1955). Besides often being significantly larger than the opposite sex, males in diverse odontocete species also display various sexual ornaments. These include enlarged and/or conspicuously formed fins and flippers as well as post-anal humps in dolphins and porpoises (Ralls and Mesnick 2009), modified dentition in beaked whales and the narwhal (Silverman and Dunbar 1980; Heyning 1984; Dines et al. 2015), and dimorphic skull size and shape in sperm whales and beaked whales (Nakamura et al. 2013; Gol'din 2014). Males in more dimorphic species tend to exhibit smaller testes relative to their body size, which indicates that their reproductive success is strongly dependent on precopulatory measures, including physical competition (Dines et al. 2015; but see MacLeod 2010). In line with this, male odontocetes typically show higher levels of intrasexual aggression than females, which can result in extensive sex-specific scarring (Silverman and Dunbar 1980; Heyning 1984; MacLeod 1998; Martin and Da Silva 2006; Lee et al. 2019). Apart from killer whales (Orcinus orca) and several globicephaline dolphins, associations between adult male and female odontocetes are weak and largely restricted to the context of mating (May-Collado et al. 2007; Möller 2012).
Earlier studies have shown that larger-bodied species of oceanic dolphins (Delphinidae) tend to show markedly greater sexual dimorphism than smaller ones (Heimlich-Boran 1993; Möller 2012) but previous analyses did not address the phylogenetic interdependence of species data and it has never been tested whether these differences follow an allometric scaling compliant with Rensch’s rule. A study on body mass SSD in ten non-identified cetacean species recovered no compliance to the rule, (Lindenfors et al. 2007) but the small size and undisclosed composition of the sample calls for further investigation.
We assembled a dataset of adult sex-specific body lengths in 57 odontocete species from all extant families to approximate the expression and scaling of SSD in these aquatic mammals. All collected data with notes on sample sizes and geographic provenance of sampled populations are included in Table S1. We chose body length rather than body mass as a size proxy, since both are highly correlated (Heimlich-Boran 1993) but little data is available on the latter for many odontocetes. Mean body lengths for males and females were used to calculate SSD ratios (see Table S1), following the method of Smith (1999), which were rounded to the second decimal [m/f if SSD is male biased, SSD values > 1; 2-(f/m) if it is female biased, SSD values < 1; an SSD value of 1 indicates monomorphism]. For a species to be included, data for at least three adult individuals of each sex were required. If no other datasets were available, the mean body length for each sex was derived from studies presenting sex-specific growth models of the species in question (e.g., Plön 2004). The asymptotic values for body length were then assumed to represent the mean body length of the respective sex (annotated in Table S1). When we encountered markedly different SSD values in distinct populations of a species (e.g., Northern vs. Southern hemisphere populations, killer whale types, etc.), we adopted the most extreme one.
To test whether Rensch’s rule applies to toothed whales as a whole as well as to their three most speciose subgroups (Delphinidae, Monodontidae + Phocoenidae clade, Ziphiidae) we employed phylogenetic reduced major axis (pRMA) regression, which is a well-established method to investigate SSD scaling (Abouheif and Fairbairn 1997; Caspar et al. 2021). The phylogenetic relationships between the taxa analyzed need to be statistically addressed because shared ancestry results in non-independence of species-specific data points. We performed pRMA regressions of log10 (male body length) on log10 (female body length) by aid of the phytools package in R (phyl.RMA function; Revell 2012). In taxa where male-biased SSD is predominant, such as odontocetes, Rensch’s rule is considered to hold when the regression coefficient β is significantly greater than 1, indicating hyperallometric scaling (Abouheif and Fairbairn 1997). SSD scaling conforming to β = 1 (isometry) or β < 1 (hypoallometry) would refute it. Deviation of β from an isometric scaling pattern was assessed with Clarke’s T statistic with adjusted degrees of freedom. Pagel’s λ was employed to measure the phylogenetic signal in the data.
Our nomenclature follows the Society of Marine Mammalogy’s committee on taxonomy (2021) (except for the application of the revised nomenclature for dolphins formerly grouped under Lagenorhynchus by Vollmer et al. 2019). We adopted the phylogeny and branch lengths for the analyses from McGowen et al. (2009). One species, the Australian snub-fin dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) was not included in that study and was instead manually added to our tree using the divergence dating from Vilstrup et al. (2011). Note that molecular studies recovered a number of commonly recognized delphinid genera (and also Phocoena) to be non-monophyletic, explaining their scrambled appearance in the tree (Perrin et al. 2013).
We found that the majority of odontocetes (60%, nspecies = 34) display male-biased SSD (Fig. 1, Table S1). The most extreme male-biased SSD is expressed in the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus; SSD ratio: 1.52), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus; 1.3), Northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis; 1.26), and beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas; 1.25). Female-biased SSD (26%, nspecies = 15) was frequent among beaked whales, small-bodied delphinoids and the two clades of river dolphins. The Ganges river dolphin (Platanista gangetica) was the most dimorphic species with female-biased SSD (0.72), followed by the franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei; 0.83) and the baiji (Lipotes vexillifer; 0.87). Sexually monomorphic species were rare (14%, nspecies = 8) but found across major groups. Examples include the Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), Indus River dolphin (Platanista minor), and Arnoux’ beaked whale (Berardius arnuxii).
The pRMA regression models revealed Rensch’s rule to hold for toothed whales as a whole, as indicated by significant hyperallometric SSD scaling (Fig. 2a; β = 1.175, p < 0.0001). It was also evident among the Delphinidae (Fig. 2b; β = 1.172, p = 0.002) and the clade formed by the families Monodontidae and Phocoenidae (Fig. 2c; β = 1.273, p = 0.005). In beaked whales, Rensch’s rule was not recovered and SSD scaling followed an isometric trajectory (Fig. 2d; β = 1.045, p = 0.551). SSD entailed a strong phylogenetic signal (Pagel’s λ ≥ 0.9) in all groups analyzed (Fig. 2). However, this estimate can only be considered robust for odontocetes as a whole and for delphinids, given that the species samples for the remaining two clades were small (Freckleton et al. 2002).
Our results demonstrate the validity of Rensch’s rule in odontocetes, which is consistent with the assumption of widespread polygyny and polygynandry combined with significant physical male–male competition (Dale et al. 2007) in this group (Mesnick and Ralls 2008). Still, female-biased SSD as well as monomorphism were recovered surprisingly often occurring in 40% of the studied species. Conforming to Rensch’s rule, female-biased SSD and monomorphism was mostly found in small-bodied species (the ziphiids represent an exception to this trend and will be discussed below), while species with body lengths exceeding 2.5 m typically displayed varying degrees of male-biased SSD. The latter pattern could in parts relate to female reproductive demands. While small cetaceans experience natural selection pressures restricting their body size (Galatius 2010), females will benefit from maintaining a certain body mass to successfully deliver and nurse calves (Ralls 1976; Slooten 1991). Indeed, relative to their body size, small odontocetes give birth to the largest neonates among cetaceans (a pattern also observed in other mammalian orders, see Martin and MacLarnon 1985), providing a particular challenge to the mother (Ohsumi 1966). At the same time, males in such small-bodied species tend to show adaptations to sperm competition instead of physical combat (Van Waerebeek and Read 1994; Fontaine and Barette 1997). Different from many monomorphic terrestrial mammals, there is no evidence for monogamous mating strategies in monomorphic or weakly dimorphic cetaceans. The only species, for which there is notable data in support of a monogamous mating system is the franciscana (Wells et al. 2013), in which SSD is strongly female-biased (Fig. 1).
In species with male-biased SSD, which are mostly represented by medium to large-sized delphinoids and the sperm whale, it can be expected that sexual conflicts are more likely to be decided through precopulatory measures than in ones with different SSD patterns. Such measures might include ritualized but potentially violent confrontations in which greater body size would be advantageous. However, reports on aggressive intrasexual competition are rare in wild cetaceans (Parsons et al. 2003). Due to the limitations of surface observations, such events are often simply inferred from bite and rake marks (Heimlich-Boran 1993), the visibility and persistence of which varies considerably between species (MacLeod 1998). However, raking is a comparatively mild agonistic action that not only occurs in aggressive but also in play contexts (Grimes et al. 2022). During more intense fights, several odontocete species engage in ramming and tail slapping. These behaviors can severely damage inner organs but do not leave visible cutaneous lesions (Gowans and Rendell 1999; Parsons et al. 2003; Oremland et al. 2010; Robeck et al. 2019). The frequency and threat imposed by such behaviors might therefore easily be underestimated, complicating assessments of their effects in a given species (Robeck et al. 2019). Hence, the extent to which aggressive behaviors are employed in intrasexual competition in odontocetes remains unclear but their significance could be substantial. In any case, the conformity to Rensch’s rule as well as other available evidence is consistent with the idea that such conflicts play a role in male reproductive behavior across several major odontocete lineages (Ralls and Mesnick 2009). Interestingly, pronounced male-biased SSD is found in several philopatric delphinid species that form modular multi-male/multi-female groups organized around matrilines, such as pilot whales and killer whales (see Heimlich-Boran 1993). At least for the latter, it was suggested that male reproductive success correlates positively with body size (eastern North Pacific residents—Ford et al. 2011). How different social systems interplay with body size to determine SSD in toothed whales remains a multifaceted issue to unravel.
Despite their comparatively large size, beaked whales appear to consistently display female-biased SSD or sexual monomorphism. The only exception to this pattern that we found is the Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), but note that several beaked whales, particularly the genera Indopacetus and Tasmacetus, were not sampled here due to the extreme scarcity of available biometric data. Beaked whales represent the only one of the three speciose subgroups of odontocetes studied herein that does not follow Rensch’s rule. The absence of male-biased SSD among these cetaceans has long been noted (Omura et al. 1955) but is surprising because males in many species display notably small testes and elaborate sex-specific weapons that are evidently used against same-sex conspecifics (Heyning, 1984; Dines et al. 2015; but see MacLeod 2010 on the potential importance for sperm competition in some beaked whales). More research on these understudied marine mammals is required to explain this counterintuitive trait combination. In any case, the contrasting patterns of SSD expression suggest that reproductive competition in beaked whales differs markedly from that in most delphinoid cetaceans. The same might well be true for some of the river dolphins (compare Wells et al. 2013; but note that intense male–male aggression and male-biased SSD is characteristic for Inia—Martin and Da Silva 2006) and the dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) that also lack male-biased SSD patterns and that all appear to live either solitarily or in small, non-cohesive groups (May-Collado et al. 2007). Unfortunately, the reproductive biology of many of these species is only poorly understood.
Finally, an important limitation of this study needs to be pointed out: our dataset provides only an incomplete picture of SSD patterns among the toothed whales because it does not consider intraspecific variation. Indeed, regional differences in SSD and reproductive strategies within single species can be pronounced (Perrin and Mesnick 2003; Ferguson et al. 2021) and understanding their causes could help to make sense of general SSD variation within and between odontocete groups. Future research might focus on whether Rensch’s rule also holds when intraspecific SSD patterns in toothed whales are considered and should address how reproductive strategies differ between taxa that conform to it, such as oceanic dolphins, compared to those that do not, like the beaked whales.
References
Abouheif E, Fairbairn DJ (1997) A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch’s rule. Am Nat 149(3):540–562. https://doi.org/10.1086/286004
Anli G, Kaiya Z (1992) Sexual dimorphism in the baiji Lipotes vexillifer. Can J Zool 70(8):1484–1493. https://doi.org/10.1139/z92-205
Caspar KR, Müller J, Begall S (2021) Effects of sex and breeding status on skull morphology in cooperatively breeding Ansell’s mole–rats and an appraisal of sexual dimorphism in the Bathyergidae. Front Ecol Evol 9:638754. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.638754
Committee on Taxonomy (2021) List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Society for Marine Mammalogy, www.marinemammalscience.org. Accessed 21 Oct 2021
Dale J, Dunn PO, Figuerola J, Lislevand T, Székely T, Whittingham LA (2007) Sexual selection explains Rensch’s rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proc Royal Soc B 274(1628):2971–2979. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1043
Dines JP, Mesnick SL, Ralls K, May-Collado L, Agnarsson I, Dean MD (2015) A trade-off between precopulatory and postcopulatory trait investment in male cetaceans. Evolution 69(6):1560–1572. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12676
Ferguson SH, Yurkowski DJ, Hudson JM, Edkins T, Willing C, Watt CA (2021) Larger body size leads to greater female beluga whale ovarian reproductive activity at the southern periphery of their range. Ecol Evol 11:17314–17322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8367
Fontaine P, Barette C (1997) Megatestes: anatomical evidence for sperm competition in the harbor porpoise. Mammalia 61(1):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1997.61.1.65
Ford MJ, Hanson MB, Hempelmann JA, Ayres KL, Emmons CK, Schorr GS, Baird RW, Balcomb KC, Wasser SK, Parsons KM, Balcomb-Bartok K (2011) Inferred paternity and male reproductive success in a killer whale (Orcinus orca) population. J Hered 102(5):537–553. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esr06710.1093/jhered/esr067
Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 160(6):712–726. https://doi.org/10.1086/343873
Galatius A (2010) Paedomorphosis in two small species of toothed whales (Odontoceti): how and why? Biol J Linn Soc 99(2):278–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01357.x
Gol’din P (2014) ‘Antlers inside’: are the skull structures of beaked whales (Cetacea: Ziphiidae) used for echoic imaging and visual display? Biol J Linn Soc 113(2):510–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12337
Gowans S, Rendell L (1999) Head–butting in northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus): a possible function for big heads. Mar Mamm Sci 15(4):1342–1350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00896.x
Grimes C, Brent LJN, Weiss MN, Franks DW, Balcomb KC, Ellifrit DK, Ellis S, Croft DP (2022) The effect of age, sex, and resource abundance on patterns of rake markings in resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). Mar Mamm Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12908
Heimlich–Boran JR (1993) Social organisation of the short–finned pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus, with special reference to the comparative social ecology of delphinids. Dissertation, University of Cambridge
Heyning JE (1984) Functional morphology involved in intraspecific fighting of the beaked whale, Mesoplodon carlhubbsi. Can J Zool 62(8):1645–1654. https://doi.org/10.1139/z84-239
Kasuya T (1972) Some informations on the growth of the Ganges dolphin with a comment on the Indus dolphin. Sci Rep Whales Res Inst 24:87–108
Lee HH, Wallen MM, Krzyszczyk E, Mann J (2019) Every scar has a story: age and sex–specific conflict rates in wild bottlenose dolphins. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73(5):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2674-z
Lindenfors P, Gittleman JL, Jones KE (2007) Sexual size dimorphism in mammals. In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Székely T (eds) Sex, size, and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 16–26
MacLeod CD (1998) Intraspecific scarring in odontocete cetaceans: an indicator of male ‘quality’ in aggressive social interactions? J Zool 244(1):71–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00008.x
MacLeod CD (2010) The relationship between body mass and relative investment in testes mass in cetaceans: implications for inferring interspecific variations in the extent of sperm competition. Mar Mamm Sci 26(2):370–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00348.x
Martin AR, Da Silva VMF (2006) Sexual dimorphism and body scarring in the boto (Amazon river dolphin) Inia geoffrensis. Mar Mamm Sci 22(1):25–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00003.x
Martin R, MacLarnon A (1985) Gestation period, neonatal size and maternal investment in placental mammals. Nature 313(5999):220–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/313220a0
Martinez PA, Amado TF, Bidau CJ (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. https://doi.org/10.7818/ECOS.2014.23-1.05
May-Collado LJ, Agnarsson I, Wartzok D (2007) Phylogenetic review of tonal sound production in whales in relation to sociality. BMC Evol Biol 7(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-7-136
McGowen MR, Spaulding M, Gatesy J (2009) Divergence date estimation and a comprehensive molecular tree of extant cetaceans. Mol Phylogenet Evol 53(3):891–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.018
Mesnick S, Ralls K (2008) Mating systems. In: Perrin WF, Wursig B, Thewissen JGM (eds) Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 726–733
Möller LM (2012) Sociogenetic structure, kin associations and bonding in delphinids. Mol Ecol 21(3):745–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05405.x
Nakamura G, Zenitani R, Kato H (2013) Relative skull growth of the sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus, with a note of sexual dimorphism. Mammal Study 38(3):177–186. https://doi.org/10.3106/041.038.0306
Ohsumi S (1966) Allomorphosis between body length at sexual maturity and body length at birth in the Cetacea. J Mammal Soc Jpn 3(1):3–7. https://doi.org/10.11238/jmammsocjapan1952.3.3
Omura H, Fujino K, Kimura S (1955) Beaked whale Berardius bairdi of Japan, with notes on Ziphius cavirostris. Sci Rep Whales Res Inst 10:89–132
Oremland MS, Allen BM, Clapham PJ, Moore MJ, Potter C, Mead JG (2010) Mandibular fractures in short-finned pilot whales, Globicephala macrorhynchus. Mar Mamm Sci 26(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00334.x
Parsons KM, Durban JW, Claridge DE (2003) Male–male aggression renders bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) unconscious. Aquat Mamm 29(3):360–362. https://doi.org/10.1578/01675420360736532
Perrin WF, Mesnick SL (2003) Sexual ecology of the spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris: geographic variation in mating system. Mar Mamm Sci 19(3):462–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2003.tb01315.x
Perrin WF, Rosel PE, Cipriano F (2013) How to contend with paraphyly in the taxonomy of the delphinine cetaceans? Mar Mamm Sci 29(4):567–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12051
Plön S (2004) The status and natural history of pygmy (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf (K. sima) sperm whales off Southern Africa. Dissertation, Rhodes University
Ralls K (1976) Mammals in which females are larger than males. Q Rev Biol 51(2):245–276. https://doi.org/10.1086/409310
Ralls K, Mesnick S (2009) Sexual dimorphism. In: Perrin WF, Wursig B, Thewissen JGM (eds) Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 1005–1011
Rensch B (1950) Die Abhängigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Körpergröße. Bonn Zool Beitr 1:58–69
Rensch B (1960) Evolution above the species level. Columbia University Press, New York
Revell LJ (2012) phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol 3(2):217–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x
Robeck TR, St. Leger JA, Robeck HE, NilsonE, Dold C (2019) Evidence of variable agonistic behavior in killer whales (Orcinus orca) based on age, sex, andecotype. Aquat Mamm 45(4):430–446
Silverman HB, Dunbar MJ (1980) Aggressive tusk use by the narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.). Nature 284(5751):57–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/284057a0
Slooten E (1991) Age, growth, and reproduction in Hector’s dolphins. Can J Zool 69(6):1689–1700. https://doi.org/10.1139/z91-234
Smith RJ (1999) Statistics of sexual size dimorphism. J Hum Evol 36(4):423–458. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1998.0281
Van Waerebeek K, Read AJ (1994) Reproduction of dusky dolphins, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, from coastal Peru. J Mammal 75(4):1054–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/1382489
Vilstrup JT, Ho SY, Foote AD, Morin PA, Kreb D, Krützen M, Parra GJ, Robertson KM, de Stephanis R, Verborgh P, Willerslev E, Orlando L, Gilbert MTP (2011) Mitogenomic phylogenetic analyses of the Delphinidae with an emphasis on the Globicephalinae. BMC Evol Biol 11(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-65
Vollmer NL, Ashe E, Brownell RL Jr, Cipriano F, Mead JG, Reeves RR, Soldevilla MS, Williams R (2019) Taxonomic revision of the dolphin genus Lagenorhynchus. Mar Mamm Sci 35(3):957–1057. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12573
Webb TJ, Freckleton RP (2007) Only half right: species with female–biased sexual size dimorphism consistently break Rensch’s rule. PLoS ONE 2:e897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000897
Wells RS, Bordino P, Douglas DC (2013) Patterns of social association in the franciscana, Pontoporia blainvillei. Mar Mamm Sci 29(4):E520–E528. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12010
Wu H, Jiang T, Huang X, Feng J (2018) Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in horseshoe bats: testing Rensch’s rule and potential causes. Sci Rep 8(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21077-7
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ann-Kathrin Baumgart for assisting in data compilation and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the text. KRC was supported by a Ph.D. fellowship of the German Academic Scholarship Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes e.V.).
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Handling editor: Nicole D. S. Grunstra.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Caspar, K.R., Begall, S. Sexual dimorphism in toothed whales (Odontoceti) follows Rensch’s rule. Mamm Biol 102, 523–529 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-022-00239-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-022-00239-1