Imagine going for a swim on a shallow reef. You might see mantis shrimp striking at fish or snails, and reef fish gulping down smaller fish and plankton. Despite how different these movements are, rapid mantis shrimp strikes and fish suction are guided by the same mechanics: four-bar linkages. These shared mechanical systems evolved independently, much like the wings of birds and butterflies. Certain researchers study how organisms evolve based on biomechanics, the field of science that applies principles from mechanics to study biological systems.

Four-bar linkages, which are widespread in nature, consist of a loop made of four bars (or links) connected by four joints. The system allows a wide range of motions, and it is found anywhere from oil pumpjacks to the inside of the human knee. Researchers are interested in how similar mechanical systems like four-bar linkages influence the diversification of distantly related organisms, such as fish and crustaceans.

Changes in an element of a four-bar linkage can have widely different consequences because of a phenomenon known as mechanical sensitivity. Modifications of highly mechanically sensitive parts will have a dramatic effect on the system, while alterations in other areas have little or no effect.

Whether the most mechanically sensitive parts evolve faster or slower than the less sensitive elements is still up for debate. Changes in the sensitive elements could be severely constrained because these modifications may compromise the survival of the organisms. However, they could also help species adapt quickly to new environments. So far, researchers have found that in the four-bars linkage of the mantis shrimp, the most mechanically sensitive parts evolve the fastest. Yet, it was unclear whether this would also apply to other species.

Here, Muñoz et al. compared four-bar linkages in three families of fish and in mantis shrimp, and discovered that the most mechanically sensitive elements are the smallest links. These can undergo changes in length that have a strong impact on how the linkage works. In addition, evolutionary analyses showed that the most mechanically sensitive parts do indeed evolve the fastest in both mantis shrimp and fish. More work is now required to see if this pattern holds across various organisms, and if it can be considered as a general principle that drives evolution.

The uneven tempo of phenotypic evolution is a universal feature of biological systems, from proteins to whole-organism traits (Simpson, 1944; Gingerich, 2009; Zhang and Yang, 2015). Intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms affecting rates of evolution have been probed extensively (Wake et al., 1983; Gillooly et al., 2005; Eberhard, 2010; Zhang and Yang, 2015). However, biomechanics – the intersection of mechanics and biology – is a key axis influencing phenotypic evolution (Arnold, 1992) that has been less often examined, and infrequently through the use of quantitative and comparative datasets (Holzman et al., 2012; Wainwright et al., 2012; Collar et al., 2014; Muñoz et al., 2017). Because rates of morphological divergence and speciation are often coupled (Rabosky and Adams, 2012), connecting biomechanics to morphological evolution enriches our understanding of the processes shaping diversification.

An enduring paradox in evolutionary biomechanics and functional morphology is whether strong correlations among traits (sometimes termed constraints) enhance or limit evolutionary diversification (Gould, 1989; Antonovics and van Tienderen, 1991; Schwenk, 1994). For example, strong morphological correlations could be predicted to reduce the rate or amount of morphological evolution, because even slight changes could compromise the system’s proper functioning (Raup and Gould, 1974). Conversely, a strong correlation could enhance evolutionary change by providing a morphological pathway for adaptation (Holzman et al., 2012; Muñoz et al., 2017). A weak association could enhance the freedom to vary (Collar et al., 2014; Schaefer and Lauder, 1996), or, conversely, weaken, and thereby reduce, the pathways to morphological change (Alfaro et al., 2005; Collar and Wainwright, 2006). Therefore, depending on the context, strong and weak correlations have been construed to enhance or restrict evolutionary diversification. A comparative approach can empirically resolve this conundrum, for example, by comparing rates and phylogenetic patterns of morphological evolution in similar, independently-evolved systems.

Here, we leverage the multiple independent evolutionary origins of four-bar linkage systems (Figure 1) to test how morphological and mechanical correlations impact two key aspects of morphological evolution: tempo (rate at which morphological disparity accumulates) and mode (evolutionary pattern of trait shifts across phylogeny). Four-bar linkages are closed-chain systems comprised of four rigid links that rotate to transmit motion and force (Anker, 1974; Muller, 1996; Westneat, 1990; Martins, 1994) (Figure 1A). Mechanical output of four-bar linkages is often measured in terms of kinematic transmission (KT), a simple metric that can quantify a tradeoff between displacement and force across different linkage configurations (see Materials and methods section for further information about KT). Four-bar linkages are widespread in nature, and enable a rich diversity of behaviors in vertebrates and invertebrates (Westneat, 1990; Wainwright et al., 2005; Patek et al., 2007; Olsen and Westneat, 2016). For example, four-bar linkages actuate mouth opening for suction feeding in fishes (Westneat, 1990; Martins, 1994; Muller, 1987), flexion and extension of the vertebrate knee (Hobson and Torfason, 1974), rapid strikes of the stomatopod raptorial appendage (Patek et al., 2004; Patek et al., 2007; McHenry et al., 2012; McHenry et al., 2016), and skull kinesis in birds (Hoese and Westneat, 1996).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Four-bar linkages, like any system built of three or more parts, exhibit many-to-one mapping, meaning that similar mechanical outputs (e.g. KT) can be produced through different combinations of morphology (e.g. link lengths; Wainwright et al., 2005; Wainwright, 2007). Four-bar linkages also exhibit mechanical sensitivity, which occurs when KT is disproportionately sensitive to variation in some links and relatively insensitive to variation in others (Anderson and Patek, 2015; Muñoz et al., 2017). Therefore, four-bar linkages exhibit (1) both weak and strong correlations among parts and outputs and (2) multiple evolutionary origins across the Metazoa. As such, four-bar linkages are a fertile testing ground for comparative analyses of evolutionary biomechanics and morphology.

To our knowledge, the connection between mechanical sensitivity and morphological evolution has only been studied in the four-bar linkage system of the mantis shrimp (Stomatopoda) raptorial appendage (Muñoz et al., 2017; Anderson and Patek, 2015) (Figure 1). The mantis shrimp four-bar system is used for feeding, fighting, and substrate manipulation via extremely rapid strikes of their raptorial appendages (Patek et al., 2004;Patek et al., 2007; Patek et al., 2013; Patek and Caldwell, 2005; McHenry et al., 2016; deVries et al., 2012; Green and Patek, 2015; Green and Patek, 2018; Crane et al., 2018). Spearing stomatopods that harpoon mobile, soft-bodied prey have higher KT (greater displacement) than smashing mantis shrimp that bludgeon hard-shelled prey using linkages with lower KT (greater force) (Anderson et al., 2014; McHenry et al., 2016). In mantis shrimp, mechanical sensitivity is associated with accelerated evolution: the link most tightly correlated with KT exhibits the fastest rate of evolution (Muñoz et al., 2017).

Tantalizing patterns often occur in individual clades or mechanical systems, yet few are robust to tests in multiple lineages. Therefore, previous findings in mantis shrimp leave uncertain whether the enhanced evolutionary rate associated with mechanical sensitivity is a system-specific finding or instead occurs across an array of taxa and reflects a more general pattern. Furthermore, the initial studies in mantis shrimp were analyses of evolutionary tempo, but the phylogenetic pattern of these rate changes (mode) was not analyzed. Analysis of mode can resolve whether phylogenetic shifts to a higher or lower KT are exclusively accompanied by shifts in link(s) to which KT is most sensitive, or occur through different morphological pathways that are not necessarily tied to mechanical sensitivity.

Here we examine rates of morphological evolution (tempo) in four particularly well-studied systems (Figure 1): (1) oral four-bar linkages of 101 species of wrasses (Family: Labridae) and (2) oral four-bar linkages of 30 species of cichlids (Family: Cichlidae), (3) opercular four-bar systems in 19 species of sunfish (Family: Centrarchidae) and (4) the previously-published dataset in mantis shrimp that was analyzed using the same methods as in this study. In fish, the oral four-bar system actuates the upper jaw and the opercular four-bar actuates the lower jaw (Figure 1); together they open a large space in the mouth that creates negative pressure to suction prey (Westneat, 1990; Martins, 1994). Similarly to mantis shrimp (Anderson et al., 2014; Anderson and Patek, 2015), the mechanical tradeoffs between displacement and force represented by KT appear to generally track fish trophic ecology (Wainwright et al., 2004; Hulsey and Garcia De Leon, 2005). For example, fish that pursue elusive prey tend to have oral four-bar linkages with higher KT (resulting in greater displacement for snagging rapid prey), whereas those that scrape algae tend to have lower KT (resulting in greater force, such as for dislodging sessile, encrusted food items from hard surfaces) (Hulsey and Garcia De Leon, 2005). Finally, we examine the phylogenetic pattern (mode) of shifts in KT and links across the especially well-sampled oral four-bar system in wrasses, to test how KT and link lengths change across the phylogeny and whether these changes occur concordantly as predicted by mechanical sensitivity.

We estimated the Brownian motion evolutionary rate parameter, σ² (bounded by its 95% confidence interval), which represented the net rate of phenotypic change over time (Felsenstein, 1985; Martins, 1994; O'Meara et al., 2006) for the three mobile links – input, output, and coupler – of each four-bar system (See Materials and ethods). A single consistent result emerged from our analysis of evolutionary rates: stronger correlations between link lengths and kinematic transmission (KT) were associated with faster rates of morphological evolution. In each system, we found that mechanical sensitivity was always associated with a faster rate of link evolution (Figure 2; Supplementary file 1). Evolutionary rate can be artificially inflated by greater trait variance (O'Meara et al., 2006; Adams, 2013); we incorporated intraspecific measurement error into our rate estimates and confirmed that a higher evolutionary rate was not driven by greater variance (Supplementary file 2).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Even though rates of morphological evolution consistently tracked mechanical sensitivity, the particular links associated with mechanical sensitivity differed across the four-bar systems (Supplementary files 3–6 [rotatable 3D phylomorphospace plots]; Table 1). For example, in the cichlid oral four-bar system, mechanical output was positively correlated with input link length (PGLS r²=0.62, p<10⁻⁶), inversely correlated with the coupler link length (r²=0.27, p=0.002), and exhibited no relationship with the output link length (Supplementary file 3; Table 1). By contrast, in three systems - the wrasse oral four-bar, the sunfish opercular four-bar, and the stomatopod raptorial four-bar - the output link length was a strong predictor of mechanical output (PGLS r²>0.66, p<10⁻¹¹), whereas the coupler link only weakly predicted mechanical output (PGLS r²<0.14) (Supplementary files 4–6). The oral four-bars of cichlids and wrasses share a common evolutionary origin (Alfaro et al., 2004); nonetheless, rate differences were predicted by mechanical sensitivity rather than shared ancestry. Hence, analogous four-bar systems do not result in common patterns of mechanical sensitivity, whereas mechanical sensitivity is consistently a strong predictor of evolutionary rate differences.

We next examined the phylogenetic pattern of trait shifts in KT and each mobile link in the wrasse oral four-bar system. We applied a Bayesian framework in the program bayou (Uyeda and Harmon, 2014) to reconstruct phylogenetic shifts in the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) optimal trait parameter (θ) for morphological components and mechanical output. The OU model of evolution is characterized by the presence of an adaptive peak, with the peak representing the optimal value for a given trait. Thus, θ reflects the evolutionary optimal trait value as inferred from an OU-process on the phylogeny. To be clear for interdisciplinary readers, θ is not a metric for calculating a biomechanically optimal trait for a certain mechanical function.

By estimating θ across the wrasse phylogeny, we pinpointed the nodes associated with strongly supported shifts to higher or lower values in KT and link size. We performed this analysis only on the largest and most species-rich dataset (wrasses: >100 species sampled), because evolutionary inferences are unstable with fewer than 50 taxa (Uyeda and Harmon, 2014). We detected three well-supported evolutionary shifts in KT (posterior probability [pp] range 0.65–0.99; Supplementary file 7) (Figure 3). For each of these shifts in mechanical output, we also detected strongly supported shifts in the output and input links, but never the coupler link (Figure 3; Figure 3—figure supplement 1). Therefore, the three shifts in KT occur through three different morphological pathways, but only via the changes in the links to which KT is most mechanically sensitive. The evolutionary shifts to higher mechanical output (increased KT) occur twice – once in razorfishes (pp = 0.67) and once in the branch leading to the Creole wrasse, Clepticus parrae (pp = 0.99). In razorfishes, the transition to higher KT is accompanied by a shift to a smaller output link (pp = 0.88), and in Creole wrasse, by both an increase in input link length (pp = 0.97) and a reduction in output link length (pp = 0.77). A transition to lower KT in the Anampses clade is accompanied by a reduction in input link length (pp = 0.95), with no concomitant shifts in output link length.

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Amidst the morphological, behavioral and ecological diversity of four-bar linkages, in every system we tested, greater mechanical sensitivity is associated with faster morphological evolution. The connection between mechanical sensitivity and evolutionary rate is therefore robust to independent origins and distinct behavioral functions, suggesting a generalizable phenomenon in four-bar linkage systems. These findings address a longstanding conundrum of constraints in evolution (discussed in Gould, 1989; Antonovics and van Tienderen, 1991; Schwenk, 1994) – specifically, whether strong correlations among traits should enhance or reduce evolutionary change – by demonstrating that strong correlations between components and mechanical output accelerate evolutionary change (Figure 4). Our results further reveal how many-to-one mapping and mechanical sensitivity enable multiple configurations while simultaneously biasing those configurations to a subset of traits.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Both absolute and relative link sizes influence evolutionary rates, and the structural geometry of four-bar linkages is central to understanding these findings (Muller, 1996). In terms of absolute size, the same length change applied to small and large links is proportionally larger for the small link, such that KT is most influenced by the change to the small link. Therefore, changes to the smallest links induce disproportionately large changes in the system’s geometry and, therefore, the transmission of force and motion (Anderson and Patek, 2015; Hu et al., 2017). In terms of relative size, greater disparity among link sizes in a four-bar system results in greater evolutionary rate disparity. These effects of size are especially apparent in the stomatopod raptorial four-bar linkage and sunfish opercular four-bar linkage. In both of these systems, the output link is approximately an order of magnitude smaller than the input and coupler links, and it also exhibits an order of magnitude faster evolution (Supplementary file 1). In contrast, relative link lengths vary less dramatically in the oral four-bar system of cichlids and wrasses, and the corresponding evolutionary rate shifts are statistically weaker, although still exhibiting two- to four-fold rate differences (Figure 2; Supplementary file 1).

Biological sizes, whether of genomes, cells, or the organisms themselves, help sculpt macroevolutionary dynamics by influencing patterns of trait evolution or shaping deeper-scale patterns of lineage diversification (Hanken and Wake, 1993; Uyeda et al., 2017). Here, link size plays a central role in determining the physical basis for mechanical sensitivity and evolutionary rate disparity, indicating that size-scaling relationships in biomechanics can mediate evolutionary dynamics. Although we connect mechanical sensitivity to a relatively faster rate of evolution, an interesting next step is to disentangle whether such traits evolve more quickly because of strong directional selection on small links or whether the other, relatively larger traits of the system evolve more slowly due to stabilizing selection (Arnold, 1983; Arnold, 1992). Statistically comparing these two possibilities requires especially broad sampling: in the growing age of big data in digital morphology and phylogenetics, this task is rapidly becoming feasible (Davies et al., 2017).

Our analysis of the phylogenetic pattern (mode) of trait evolution exemplifies the integration of mechanical sensitivity and many-to-one mapping. An implicit assumption of many-to-one mapping is freedom of evolution: theoretically, any alternative configurations yielding a similar mechanical output should be equally likely to evolve (Wainwright et al., 2005; Wainwright, 2007). Our findings in wrasses, however, demonstrate that mechanical sensitivity biases evolutionary transitions to traits with the greatest influence on mechanical output (input and output links). For each of the three major KT shifts in wrasses, we detected three distinct morphological pathways involving either the input link, output link, or both (but never the coupler link). Correspondingly, both the output link and input link are strong predictors of KT in the wrasse oral four-bar, and the coupler is a weak predictor of KT. Among these links, there is some redundancy, as evidenced by the various morphological pathways accompanying transitions in KT. Therefore, mechanical sensitivity restricts the freedom of evolution central to many-to-one mapping by biasing evolutionary transitions to traits with the strongest effect on mechanical output.

When considered in the broader context of ecology and behavioral function, our findings raise as many questions as they answer. For example, if the shortest link is the output link, an animal achieves greater output rotation of the system than they input. Mantis shrimp use their shortest link (output link) to dramatically amplify an approximately nine-degree rotation of the input link; this enables the notoriously fast angular velocity of their predatory appendages (Patek et al., 2004,Patek et al., 2007; Cox et al., 2014; McHenry et al., 2016). In the centrarchids, the input rotation is controlled by a muscle too small to generate a large gape: instead they use linkage geometry to amplify gape (Durie and Turingan, 2004; Camp and Brainerd, 2015; Camp et al., 2015). In both cases, the location of the smallest link as the output link is directly related to the behavioral and ecological function of the linkage mechanism. Do small links participate in fewer or more mechanical functions than the larger links? Does selection favor the evolution of small linkages as pathways for strong mechanical sensitivity? Are macroevolutionary shifts in linkage geometry concordant with changes in diversification rate? In the case of the oral four-bar of teleosts, the maxilla (output link) is correlated with jaw protrusion, a key ecological aspect of fish diversification (Hulsey and Garcia De Leon, 2005). As such, the most mechanically influential links may play a crucial role in shaping diversification during speciation and adaptive radiation.

Perhaps the most imperative message of these findings is the necessity for multiple levels of analysis (Jablonski, 2017a;Jablonski, 2017b). Simply demonstrating many-to-one mapping in biomechanical systems is likely to miss a rich suite of evolutionary and mechanical dynamics that shape diversification (Figure 4). By considering the tempo and mode of evolution, generalizable interactions between mechanics and diversification are likely to emerge (Scales and Butler, 2016; Blanke et al., 2017). Evolutionary studies of many-to-one mapping have flourished in recent years, with particular focus on how natural selection and developmental constraints impact the evolution of complex mechanical systems in the wild (e.g. Martinez and Sparks, 2017; Moody et al., 2017; Thompson et al., 2017). Explicit consideration of mechanical sensitivity can enhance these studies by providing a general blueprint of the mechanical and evolutionary expectations for phenotypic diversification.

Deciphering the abiotic and biotic factors impacting the tempo and mode of phenotypic diversification is a topic of perennial interest and debate (Simpson, 1944; Mayr, 1963; Gould, 1977; Gould, 2002; Schluter, 2000; West-Eberhard, 2003; Arnold, 2014 and references therein). Our findings reveal that mechanical sensitivity impacts macroevolutionary dynamics and point toward general rules connecting biomechanics and morphological diversification (Figure 4). Mechanical sensitivity is consistently associated with increased rates of evolutionary change, and the biomechanical impacts of link length provide a proximate explanation for the association between four-bar mechanics and the tempo of evolutionary change. Whereas many-to-one mapping in four-bar linkages theoretically supplies multiple morphological pathways for mechanical variation (Alfaro et al., 2004; Alfaro et al., 2005; Wainwright, 2007), mechanical sensitivity influences the tempo and mode of how these pathways evolve. This conclusion is relevant beyond mechanical systems. Many-to-one mapping is widespread in biomechanics (Wainwright et al., 2005) and can be applied even more broadly to assess various hierarchical phenomena in biology, such as molecular and cellular processes, including epistatic genotype-phenotype interactions (Phillips, 2008), physiological adaptations (Scott, 2011; Cheviron et al., 2014), and organism-level phenomena, including neurophysiological processes governing behavior (Katahira et al., 2013; York and Fernald, 2017). Extending this framework within and beyond biomechanics may yield a predictive understanding of the tempo and mode of evolutionary diversification.

All datasets and phylogenies are included in full in the supplementary materials. Citations to the original papers containing these datasets and phylogenies are included with the supplementary files.

1. 1. Ackerly D

   (2009) Conservatism and diversification of plant functional traits: evolutionary rates versus phylogenetic signal

   PNAS 106:19699–19706.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901635106

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Adams DC

   (2013) Comparing evolutionary rates for different phenotypic traits on a phylogeny using likelihood

   Systematic Biology 62:181–192.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys083

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Alfaro ME
   2. Bolnick DI
   3. Wainwright PC

   (2004) Evolutionary dynamics of complex biomechanical systems: an example using the four-bar mechanism

   Evolution 58:495–503.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01673.x

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Alfaro ME
   2. Bolnick DI
   3. Wainwright PC

   (2005) Evolutionary consequences of many-to-one mapping of jaw morphology to mechanics in labrid fishes

   The American Naturalist 165:E140–E154.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/429564

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Anderson PSL
   2. Claverie T
   3. Patek SN

   (2014) Levers and linkages: mechanical trade-offs in a power-amplified system

   Evolution 68:1919–1933.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12407

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Anderson PSL
   2. Patek SN

   (2015) Mechanical sensitivity reveals evolutionary dynamics of mechanical systems

   Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282:20143088.

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.3088

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Anker GCH

   (1974) Morphology and kinetics of the head of the stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus

   The Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 32:311–416.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1974.tb00030.x

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Antonovics J
   2. van Tienderen PH

   (1991) Ontoecogenophyloconstraints? The chaos of constraint terminology

   Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6:166–168.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(91)90059-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Arnold SJ

   (1983) Morphology, performance and fitness

   American Zoologist 23:347–361.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/23.2.347

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Arnold SJ

    (1992) Constraints on phenotypic evolution

    The American Naturalist 140:S85–S107.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/285398

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Arnold SJ

    (2014) Phenotypic evolution: the ongoing synthesis

    The American Naturalist 183:729–746.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/675304

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Baliga VB
    2. Law CJ

    (2016) Cleaners among wrasses: phylogenetics and evolutionary patterns of cleaning behavior within Labridae

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 94:424–435.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.09.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Blanke A
    2. Schmitz H
    3. Patera A
    4. Dutel H
    5. Fagan MJ

    (2017) Form–function relationships in dragonfly mandibles under an evolutionary perspective

    Journal of The Royal Society Interface 14:20161038.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.1038

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Burrows M

    (1969) The mechanics and neural control of the prey capture strike in the mantid shrimps Squilla and Hemisquilla

    Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Physiologie 62:361–381.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299261

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Burrows M
    2. Hoyle G

    (1972) Neuromuscular physiology of the strike mechanism of the mantis shrimp, Hemisquilla

    Journal of Experimental Zoology 179:379–393.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1401790309

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Butler MA
    2. King AA

    (2004) Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution

    The American Naturalist 164:683–695.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/426002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Camp AL
    2. Roberts TJ
    3. Brainerd EL

    (2015) Swimming muscles power suction feeding in largemouth bass

    PNAS 112:8690–8695.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508055112

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Camp AL
    2. Brainerd EL

    (2015) Reevaluating musculoskeletal linkages in Suction-Feeding fishes with X-Ray reconstruction of moving morphology (XROMM)

    Integrative and Comparative Biology 55:36–47.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icv034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Cheviron ZA
    2. Connaty AD
    3. McClelland GB
    4. Storz JF

    (2014) Functional genomics of adaptation to hypoxic cold-stress in high-altitude deer mice: transcriptomic plasticity and thermogenic performance

    Evolution 68:48–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12257

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Collar DC
    2. Wainwright PC
    3. Alfaro ME
    4. Revell LJ
    5. Mehta RS

    (2014) Biting disrupts integration to spur skull evolution in eels

    Nature Communications 5:5505.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6505

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Collar DC
    2. Wainwright PC

    (2006) Discordance between morphological and mechanical diversity in the feeding mechanism of centrarchid fishes

    Evolution 60:2575–2584.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01891.x

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Cox SM
    2. Schmidt D
    3. Modarres-Sadeghi Y
    4. Patek SN

    (2014) A physical model of the extreme mantis shrimp strike: kinematics and cavitation of Ninjabot

    Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 9:016014–016016.

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3182/9/1/016014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Crane RL
    2. Cox SM
    3. Kisare SA
    4. Patek SN

    (2018) Smashing mantis shrimp strategically impact shells

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 221:jeb176099.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.176099

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Davies TG
    2. Rahman IA
    3. Lautenschlager S
    4. Cunningham JA
    5. Asher RJ
    6. Barrett PM
    7. Bates KT
    8. Bengtson S
    9. Benson RBJ
    10. Boyer DM
    11. Braga J
    12. Bright JA
    13. Claessens LPAM
    14. Cox PG
    15. Dong X-P
    16. Evans AR
    17. Falkingham PL
    18. Friedman M
    19. Garwood RJ
    20. Goswami A
    21. Hutchinson JR
    22. Jeffery NS
    23. Johanson Z
    24. Lebrun R
    25. Martínez-Pérez C
    26. Marugán-Lobón J
    27. O'Higgins PM
    28. Metscher B
    29. Orliac M
    30. Rowe TB
    31. Rücklin M
    32. Sánchez-Villagra MR
    33. Shubin NH
    34. Smith SY
    35. Starck JM
    36. Stringer C
    37. Summers AP
    38. Sutton MD
    39. Walsh SA
    40. Weisbecker V
    41. Witmer LM
    42. Wroe S
    43. Yin Z
    44. Rayfield EJ
    45. Donoghue PCJ

    (2017) Open data and digital morphology

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20170194.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0194

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. deVries MS
    2. Murphy EA
    3. Patek SN

    (2012) Strike mechanics of an ambush predator: the spearing mantis shrimp

    Journal of Experimental Biology 215:4374–4384.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.075317

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Durie CJ
    2. Turingan RG

    (2004) The effects of opercular linkage disruption on prey-capture kinematics in the teleost fish Sarotherodon melanotheron

    Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A 301:642–653.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.a.57

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Eberhard WG

    (2010) Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions

    Genetica 138:5–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-009-9358-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Felsenstein J

    (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method

    The American Naturalist 125:1–15.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/284325

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Gelman A
    2. Rubin DB

    (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences

    Statistical Science 7:457–472.

    https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Gillooly JF
    2. Allen AP
    3. West GB
    4. Brown JH

    (2005) The rate of DNA evolution: effects of body size and temperature on the molecular clock

    PNAS 102:140–145.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0407735101

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Gingerich PD

    (2009) Rates of evolution

    Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40:657–675.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173457

    • Google Scholar
32. Book

    1. Gould SJ

    (1977)

    Ontogeny and Phylogeny

    Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Gould SJ

    (1989) A developmental constraint in Cerion, with comments on the definition and interpretation of constraint in evolution

    Evolution 43:516–539.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb04249.x

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Gould SJ

    (2002)

    The Structure of Evolutionary Theory

    Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Green PA
    2. Patek SN

    (2015) Contests with deadly weapons: telson sparring in mantis shrimp (Stomatopoda)

    Biology Letters 11:20150558.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0558

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Green PA
    2. Patek SN

    (2018) Mutual assessment during ritualized fighting in mantis shrimp (Stomatopoda)

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285:20172542.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2542

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Hanken J
    2. Wake DB

    (1993) Miniaturization of body size: organismal consequences and evolutionary significance

    Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24:501–519.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.002441

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Hansen TF

    (1997) Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation

    Evolution 51:1341–1351.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb01457.x

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Hobson DA
    2. Torfason LE

    (1974) Optimization of four-bar knee mechanisms--a computerized approach

    Journal of Biomechanics 7:371–376.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(74)90032-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Hoese WJ
    2. Westneat MW

    (1996) Biomechanics of cranial kinesis in birds: testing linkage models in the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)

    Journal of Morphology 227:305–320.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4687(199603)227:3<305::AID-JMOR3>3.0.CO;2-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Holzman R
    2. Collar DC
    3. Price SA
    4. Hulsey CD
    5. Thomson RC
    6. Wainwright PC

    (2012) Biomechanical trade-offs bias rates of evolution in the feeding apparatus of fishes

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:1287–1292.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1838

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Hu Y
    2. Nelson-Maney N
    3. Anderson PSL

    (2017) Common evolutionary trends underlie the four-bar linkage systems of sunfish and mantis shrimp

    Evolution 71:1397–1405.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13208

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Hulsey CD
    2. Hollingsworth PR
    3. Fordyce JA

    (2010) Temporal diversification of Central American cichlids

    BMC Evolutionary Biology 10:279.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-279

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Hulsey CD
    2. Garcia De Leon FJ

    (2005) Cichlid jaw mechanics: linking morphology to feeding specialization

    Functional Ecology 19:487–494.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00987.x

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Hulsey CD
    2. Wainwright PC

    (2002) Projecting mechanics into morphospace: disparity in the feeding system of labrid fishes

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:317–326.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1874

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Ives AR
    2. Midford PE
    3. Garland T

    (2007) Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods

    Systematic Biology 56:252–270.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701313830

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Jablonski D

    (2017a) Approaches to macroevolution: 1. general concepts and origin of variation

    Evolutionary Biology 44:427–450.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-017-9420-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Jablonski D

    (2017b) Approaches to macroevolution: 2. sorting of variation, some overarching issues, and general conclusions

    Evolutionary Biology 44:451–475.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-017-9434-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Kagaya K
    2. Patek SN

    (2016) Feed-forward motor control of ultrafast, ballistic movements

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 219:319–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.130518

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Katahira K
    2. Suzuki K
    3. Kagawa H
    4. Okanoya K

    (2013) A simple explanation for the evolution of complex song syntax in Bengalese finches

    Biology Letters 9:20130842.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0842

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Martinez CM
    2. Sparks JS

    (2017) Malagasy cichlids differentially limit impacts of body shape evolution on oral jaw functional morphology

    Evolution 71:2219–2229.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13298

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Martins EP

    (1994) Estimating the rate of phenotypic evolution from comparative data

    The American Naturalist 144:193–209.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/285670

    • Google Scholar
53. Book

    1. Mayr E

    (1963) Animal Species and Evolution

    Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674865327

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. McHenry MJ
    2. Claverie T
    3. Rosario MV
    4. Patek SN

    (2012) Gearing for speed slows the predatory strike of a mantis shrimp

    Journal of Experimental Biology 215:1231–1245.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.061465

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. McHenry MJ
    2. Anderson PS
    3. Van Wassenbergh S
    4. Matthews DG
    5. Summers AP
    6. Patek SN

    (2016) The comparative hydrodynamics of rapid rotation by predatory appendages

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 219:3399–3411.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.140590

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Moody KN
    2. Kawano SM
    3. Bridges WC
    4. Blob RW
    5. Schoenfuss HL
    6. Ptacek MB

    (2017) Contrasting post-settlement selection results in many-to-one mapping of high performance phenotypes in the Hawaiian waterfall-climbing goby Sicyopterus stimpsoni

    Evolutionary Ecology 31:489–516.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-017-9889-0

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Muller M

    (1987) Optimization principles applied to the mechanism of neurocranium levation and mouth bottom depression in bony fishes (Halecostomi)

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 126:343–368.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(87)80241-2

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Muller M

    (1996) A novel classification of planar four-bar linkages and its application to the mechanical analysis of animal systems

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 351:689–720.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0065

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Muñoz MM
    2. Anderson PSL
    3. Patek SN

    (2017) Mechanical sensitivity and the dynamics of evolutionary rate shifts in biomechanical systems

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20162325.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2325

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Near TJ
    2. Bolnick DI
    3. Wainwright PC

    (2005) Fossil calibrations and molecular divergence time estimates in centrarchid fishes (Teleostei: Centrarchidae)

    Evolution 59:1768–1782.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01825.x

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. O'Meara BC
    2. Ané C
    3. Sanderson MJ
    4. Wainwright PC

    (2006) Fossil calibrations and molecular divergence time estimates in centrarchid fishes (Teleostei: Centrarchidae)

    Evolution 60:922–933.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01171.x

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Olsen AM
    2. Camp AL
    3. Brainerd EL

    (2017) The opercular mouth-opening mechanism of largemouth bass functions as a 3D four-bar linkage with three degrees of freedom

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 220:4612–4623.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.159079

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Olsen AM
    2. Westneat MW

    (2016) Linkage mechanisms in the vertebrate skull: structure and function of three-dimensional, parallel transmission systems

    Journal of Morphology 277:1570–1583.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.20596

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. Software

    1. Orme D
    2. Freckleton R
    3. Thomas G
    4. Petzoldt T
    5. Fritz S
    6. Isaac N
    7. Pearse W

    (2012)

    Caper: Comparative Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R, version R package version 0.5

    Caper: Comparative Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R.
65. 1. Patek SN
    2. Korff WL
    3. Caldwell RL

    (2004) Deadly strike mechanism of a mantis shrimp

    Nature 428:819–820.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/428819a

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Patek SN
    2. Nowroozi BN
    3. Baio JE
    4. Caldwell RL
    5. Summers AP

    (2007) Linkage mechanics and power amplification of the mantis shrimp's strike

    Journal of Experimental Biology 210:3677–3688.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.006486

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Patek SN
    2. Rosario MV
    3. Taylor JR

    (2013) Comparative spring mechanics in mantis shrimp

    Journal of Experimental Biology 216:1317–1329.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.078998

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Patek SN
    2. Caldwell RL

    (2005) Extreme impact and cavitation forces of a biological hammer: strike forces of the peacock mantis shrimp Odontodactylus scyllarus

    Journal of Experimental Biology 208:3655–3664.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01831

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Phillips PC

    (2008) Epistasis--the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems

    Nature Reviews Genetics 9:855–867.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2452

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Porter ML
    2. Zhang Y
    3. Desai S
    4. Caldwell RL
    5. Cronin TW

    (2010) Evolution of anatomical and physiological specialization in the compound eyes of stomatopod crustaceans

    Journal of Experimental Biology 213:3473–3486.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.046508

    • Google Scholar
71. Software

    1. R Core Development Team

    (2014)

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    R Core Development Team, Vienna, Austria.
72. 1. Rabosky DL
    2. Adams DC

    (2012) Rates of morphological evolution are correlated with species richness in salamanders

    Evolution 66:1807–1818.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01557.x

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Raup DM
    2. Gould SJ

    (1974) Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology-towards a nomothetic paleontology

    Systematic Zoology 23:305–322.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2412538

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Revell LJ

    (2010) Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1:319–329.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00044.x

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Revell LJ

    (2012) Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things)

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:217–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Scales JA
    2. Butler MA

    (2016) Adaptive evolution in locomotor performance: how selective pressures and functional relationships produce diversity

    Evolution 70:48–61.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12825

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Schaefer SA
    2. Lauder GV

    (1996) Testing historical hypotheses of morphological change: biomechanical decoupling in loricarioid catfishes

    Evolution 50:1661–1675.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03938.x

    • Google Scholar
78. Book

    1. Schluter D

    (2000)

    The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation

    New York: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Schwenk K

    (1994)

    A utilitarian approach to evolutionary constraint

    Zoology 98:251–262.

    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Schwenk K
    2. Wagner G

    (2015)

    Function and the evolution of phenotypic stability: connecting pattern to process

    Integrative and Comparative Biology 41:552–563.

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Scott GR

    (2011) Elevated performance: the unique physiology of birds that fly at high altitudes

    Journal of Experimental Biology 214:2455–2462.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.052548

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. Book

    1. Simpson GG

    (1944)

    Tempo and Mode in Evolution

    Columbia University Press.

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Thompson CJ
    2. Ahmed NI
    3. Veen T
    4. Peichel CL
    5. Hendry AP
    6. Bolnick DI
    7. Stuart YE

    (2017) Many-to-one form-to-function mapping weakens parallel morphological evolution

    Evolution 71:2738–2749.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13357

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Uyeda JC
    2. Pennell MW
    3. Miller ET
    4. Maia R
    5. McClain CR

    (2017) The evolution of energetic scaling across the vertebrate tree of life

    The American Naturalist 190:185–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/692326

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Uyeda JC
    2. Harmon LJ

    (2014) A novel Bayesian method for inferring and interpreting the dynamics of adaptive landscapes from phylogenetic comparative data

    Systematic Biology 63:902–918.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu057

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Wainwright PC
    2. Bellwood DR
    3. Westneat MW
    4. Grubich  JR
    5. Hoey AS

    (2004) A functional morphospace for the skull of labrid fishes: patterns of diversity in a complex biomechanical system

    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 82:1–25.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00313.x

    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Wainwright PC
    2. Alfaro ME
    3. Bolnick DI
    4. Hulsey CD

    (2005) Many-to-one mapping of form to function: a general principle in organismal design?

    Integrative and Comparative Biology 45:256–262.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/45.2.256

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Wainwright PC

    (2007) Functional versus morphological diversity in macroevolution

    Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 38:381–401.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095706

    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Wainwright PC
    2. Smith WL
    3. Price SA
    4. Tang KL
    5. Sparks JS
    6. Ferry LA
    7. Kuhn KL
    8. Eytan RI
    9. Near TJ

    (2012) The evolution of pharyngognathy: a phylogenetic and functional appraisal of the pharyngeal jaw key innovation in labroid fishes and beyond

    Systematic Biology 61:1001–1027.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys060

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Wake DB
    2. Roth G
    3. Wake MH

    (1983) On the problem of stasis in organismal evolution

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 101:211–224.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(83)90335-1

    • Google Scholar
91. Book

    1. West-Eberhard MJ

    (2003)

    Developmental Plasticity and Evolution

    New York: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Westneat MW

    (1990) Feeding mechanics of teleost fishes (Labridae; Perciformes): A test of four-bar linkage models

    Journal of Morphology 205:269–295.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1052050304

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Westneat MW

    (1994) Transmission of force and velocity in the feeding mechanisms of labrid fishes (Teleostei, perciformes)

    Zoomorphology 114:103–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00396643

    • Google Scholar
94. 1. York RA
    2. Fernald RD

    (2017) The repeated evolution of behavior

    Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4:.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00143

    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Zhang J
    2. Yang JR

    (2015) Determinants of the rate of protein sequence evolution

    Nature Reviews Genetics 16:409–420.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3950

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Martha M Muñoz

   1. Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, United States
   2. Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   mmunoz5@vt.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Y Hu

   Department of Biological Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Philip S L Anderson

   Department of Animal Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. SN Patek

   Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   snp2@duke.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9738-882X

• 2,436

  views

• 336

  downloads

• 41

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.