Dimorphism has been reported in every major dinosaur clade and has often been attributed to sex-specific variation (Dodson, 1975; Chapman et al., 1997; Bunce et al., 2003; Padian and Horner, 2011; Knell and Sampson, 2011; Knell et al., 2013; Mallon, 2017; Saitta et al., 2020). However, recent studies have demonstrated that most of the documented cases of sexual dimorphism in extinct dinosaurs were most likely biased by ontogenetic changes, taphonomic deformations, and small sample sizes, which substantially affect the representativeness of the inter- and intraspecific diversity and undermine statistical analyses (Griffin and Nesbitt, 2016; Hone et al., 2017; Saitta et al., 2020). For example, a discrete and binary variation between gracile and robust morphologies of femoral bone scars, mostly at the level of the lesser trochanter, has frequently been inferred, with more or less confidence, as sexual dimorphism in various ceratosaurian theropods and non-dinosaurian dinosauriforms (Colbert, 1990; Raath, 1990; Benton et al., 2000; Britt and Chure, 2000; Piechowski et al., 2014). More recently, Griffin and Nesbitt, 2016 demonstrated that this feature no longer appeared dimorphic when accounting for ontogenetic series in the silesaurid Asilisaurus. In addition, it has been demonstrated on modern populations that sexual dimorphism could be represented only by very subtle morphological variations, making it even harder to detect in fossils with smaller sample sizes (Hone et al., 2020; Saitta et al., 2020). At a larger scale, Mallon, 2017 performed a statistical investigation on a large set of studies that hypothesized sexual dimorphism based on a wide diversity of anatomical proxies across the major clades of non-avian dinosaurs. However, among the 48 described occurrences, only 9 datasets were suitable for statistical test, among which only 1 was considered to rigorously demonstrate dimorphism. Indeed, the combination of a principal component analysis (PCA) and a mixture modeling analysis highlighted that the shift in posterior inclination between the eighth and ninth dermal plates of Stegosaurus mjosi was best explained by a bimodal distribution. Yet, there is not robust evidence to postulate that the dimorphism shown in dermal plates would be sex specific (Saitta, 2015). As a consequence, it appears that no dataset has yet rigorously demonstrated the presence of sexual dimorphism in non-avian dinosaurs (Hone et al., 2020). According to Mallon, 2017, one should review three issues when demonstrating sexual dimorphism on extinct organisms: (1) sample size in order to ensure population representativeness; (2) methodology in order to use only suitable analyses to study sexual dimorphism, such as mixture modeling; (3) any other intraspecific morphological variation such as ontogeny and pathology, as well as taphonomy.

Here, we studied the intraspecific femoral variation among a remarkably dense and well preserved population of ornithomimosaurs (Allain et al., 2014, Allain et al., 2022) from the Angeac-Charente Lagerstätte (Lower Cretaceous of France). Rozada et al., 2014 and Rozada et al., 2021 demonstrated that at least 61 ornithomimosaur individuals belonged to the same herd and were deposited in a mass mortality event relying on several evidences (e.g. very limited transport; quality of bone preservation; abundance of individuals with a high skeletal representation preserved in a restricted spatial distribution; catastrophic age profile of the group; deposition of sediment and bones under coeval, poorly oxygenated burial and diagenesis conditions given by their rare earth elements and Yttrium profiles). Thus, the ornithomimosaur herd of Angeac-Charente represents a unique occasion to study subtle parameters such as intraspecific variation in extinct dinosaurs. Moreover, the exceptionally high minimal number of individuals among the herd, represented by tibiae and femora (Table 1), offers a singular opportunity to test for the presence of dimorphism and characterize its variation. Indeed, and in addition of being the most abundant bones discovered from the Angeac-Charente ornithomimosaur, many hypotheses of sexual dimorphism were formulated based on the hindlimb morphology of non-avian dinosaurs (Colbert, 1990; Raath, 1990; Larson, 1994; Benton et al., 2000; Britt and Chure, 2000; Carrano et al., 2002; Bunce et al., 2003; Piechowski et al., 2014) but also observed in extant archosaurs (Schnell et al., 1985; Farlow et al., 2005; Charuta et al., 2007; Bonnan et al., 2008; Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022).

We used a 3D geometric morphometric (3D GM) approach that combines anatomical landmarks and sliding semilandmarks along curves and surfaces on both complete and fragmented femora and tibiae (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A–B; Gunz et al., 2005; Gunz and Mitteroecker, 2013). This method is well suited to study biological objects, including limb bones, and to detect subtle intraspecific shape variations (Zelditch et al., 2012; Botton-Divet et al., 2016) such as dimorphism (Fabre et al., 2014). We then investigated the resulting dataset using PCAs and Gaussian mixture modeling (GMM) as clustering analyses. This clustering analysis calculates the number of Gaussian distributions present in a dataset by maximum likelihood estimations and has been demonstrated as a well-suited method for the identification of dimorphism (Godfrey et al., 1993; Dong, 1997; Fabre et al., 2014; Manin et al., 2016; Mallon, 2017; Saitta et al., 2020).

We highlight a dimorphic variation in femora from the ornithomimosaur herd of Angeac-Charente (Figure 1A–B). This dimorphic variation is localized along the diaphysis (i.e. lateromedial curvature) and toward the distal epiphysis (i.e. lateromedial width) of the femur (Figure 1C–D). Distributions along the PC1 of complete femora (28.8%) and distal epiphyses (27.9%) are best described by two clusters with a ratio close to 1:1 according to GMM analyses (see Supplementary file 1 for details). PC1 scores from both analyses are not significantly correlated to the log centroid size, indicating that size-related effects have no impact on the observed dimorphism (p-value>0.1 for complete femora and distal epiphyses, Supplementary file 1).

Figure 1 with 7 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

The most important morphological variation of complete femora is a medial to lateral curvature of the femur (Figure 1C). The proximal third of the femur appears deviated toward the lateral side in specimens on the negative part of the PC1 axis, whereas specimens located on the positive part have straight to medially curved femora (Figure 1C). Coincidentally, the femoral head is directed medially in the negative cluster while it is inclined ventromedially in the positive one (Figure 1C). Regarding distal epiphyses, we selected 6 (out of 10) epiphyses from complete femora because the other 4 were taphonomically altered or pyrite encrusted only in the distal area, which would appear relatively more important in analyses restricted only to this area rather than on the complete morphology (Supplementary file 2). Nevertheless, for distal epiphyses, the most important morphological variation along PC1 is the expansion of the lateromedial width relative to the anteroposterior length, which is greater in specimens on the positive part of the PC1 axis than on the negative one (Figure 1D). In addition, we highlight that the 6 distal epiphyses from complete femora are consistently attributed to the same clusters between the two analyses (Figure 1A, B; Supplementary file 2). Hence, our study shows that the straighter the shaft is, the more robust the epiphysis is and that this relationship is dimorphic.

However, there is no robust bimodal distribution on proximal epiphyses, as shown by the GMM analyses (Figure 1—figure supplement 2; no consistency in the specimen attribution between complete femora and proximal epiphyses). Similarly, there is no dimorphism in the morphological variation of complete tibiae (Figure 1—figure supplement 3) along PC1 (24.1%) and PC2 (20.0%).

The closest extant relatives of non-avian dinosaurs are known to display sexual dimorphism with more or less visibility: birds display variation in their plumage and skeleton (Schnell et al., 1985; Owens and Hartley, 1998; Dunn et al., 2001; Székely et al., 2007; Clarke, 2013; Duggan et al., 2015; Manin et al., 2016; Hone et al., 2017; Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022), whereas the variation is restricted to the skeleton in crocodilians (Fitch, 1981; Farlow et al., 2005; Cox et al., 2007; Prieto-Marquez et al., 2007; Bonnan et al., 2008; Hone et al., 2017; Hone et al., 2020). The extant phylogenetic bracket (EPB) of non-avian dinosaurs (Witmer, 1995) thus implies they were sexually dimorphic too (Hone et al., 2017; Hone et al., 2020).

A femoral dimorphism of the same nature was demonstrated to be sex-specific among populations of extant tetrapods such as carnivorans and primates. Dimorphism in the femoral obliquity (also termed ‘bicondylar angle’) was observed in humans, for which females had higher angles than males (Parsons, 1914; Tardieu et al., 2006; Hunt et al., 2021). Moreover, a higher lateromedial width of the distal epiphysis (also termed ‘epicondylar width’ or ‘bicondylar breadth’) was demonstrated to vary between sexes in gray wolves and other carnivorans, as well as in primates (Alunni-Perret et al., 2008; Gaikwad and Nikam, 2014; Morris and Brandt, 2014; Cavaignac et al., 2016; Morris and Carrier, 2016). Whereas no similar sexual dimorphism had been shown – or studied – in non-archosaurian sauropsids to our knowledge, many relevant examples are available in extant and sub-fossil archosaurs. A higher distal width in males than females was demonstrated in wild and captive Alligator mississippiensis using linear and geometric morphometrics (Farlow et al., 2005; Bonnan et al., 2008). Handley et al., 2016 demonstrated that femoral distal width of the more recently extinct flightless bird Dromornis stirtoni was also higher in males than females. To do so, they coupled morphometrics and multivariate statistics with the observation of medullary bone, a sex-specific tissue present in bones of egg-laying female in archosaurians (Dacke et al., 1993; Schweitzer et al., 2005; Schweitzer et al., 2007; Canoville et al., 2019). The same kind of sexual dimorphism was observed in modern birds like California gulls (Larus californicus; Schnell et al., 1985) and in the two extant species of ostriches (Struthio c. camelus and S. c. molybdophanes) but with reversed proportions between males and females (Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022). Furthermore, Duggan et al., 2015 demonstrated that young male domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) had more laterally curved femora than females and that this sexually dimorphic feature disappeared along ontogeny. However, to our knowledge and aside from Duggan et al., 2015, data about femoral obliquity is generally unavailable in most studies including sex determination in birds and other sauropsids. Therefore, because the femoral dimorphic features we highlighted in the Angeac-Charente ornithomimosaur herd were also demonstrated to vary between sexes in more or less closely related extant vertebrate clades, we infer it to be sexual.

Ontogenetic allometry was often misinterpreted as sexual dimorphism in archosaurs, as demonstrated in the early dinosauriform Asilisaurus kongwe, the crocodylian A. mississippiensis and the bird Rhea americana (Griffin and Nesbitt, 2016; Hone et al., 2017; Hedrick et al., 2022). However, we found no allometry along the first PC axis (Supplementary file 1), which, in addition of rejecting ontogenetic allometry, indicates that the dimorphism is not related to size, as suspected by the homogeneity of femoral lengths highlighted in Supplementary file 3 among complete femora. Therefore, this indicates no sexual size dimorphism (SSD) in the femur of the Angeac-Charente ornithomimosaurs. SSD is one of the most documented sexual dimorphism across all living organisms, whether it is biased toward females or males (Darwin, 1874; Fairbairn et al., 2007). There are many examples of observations and/or inferences of SSD and allometric relationships in extant and extinct dinosaurs (Larson, 1994; Bunce et al., 2003; Clarke, 2004; Székely et al., 2007; Remeš and Székely, 2010; Olson and Turvey, 2013; Handley et al., 2016; Manin et al., 2016; Fajemilehin, 2017). However, Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022 demonstrated that female ostriches had more robust limb bones but smaller average body size than males. This decoupling between size and shape dimorphism is concordant with our results and emphasizes that sexual dimorphism is not necessarily reflected by body size or allometry between limb segments. Thus, size-independent sexual dimorphism should be investigated further extant archosaurs in order to improve inferences about sexual dimorphism in fossils, which are most often represented only by isolated bones.

We did not identify any other dimorphism in either the proximal part of the femur or in complete tibia of the Angeac-Charente ornithomimosaurs (Figure 1—figure supplements 2 and 3). However, sexual dimorphism was observed in the proximal ends of femora in extant ostriches (Charuta et al., 2007; Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022) and California gulls (Schnell et al., 1985). In addition, the anteroposterior width of the femoral shaft was demonstrated to vary between sexes among savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis; Rising, 1987) and three species of steamer-ducks (Tachyeres pteneres, Tachyeres leucocephalus, and Tachyeres patachonicus; Livezey and Humphrey, 1984). Yet, and accordingly with our results, size-independent dimorphism in the avian tibiotarsus seems less common across the EPB. Indeed, to our knowledge, occurrences of shape dimorphism in the tibia was demonstrated only in California gulls (e.g. width of the shaft; Schnell et al., 1985) and in ostriches (e.g. anteroposterior width of the distal epiphysis; only in Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022 but not in Charuta et al., 2007). Furthermore, our observation that sexual dimorphism could be restricted to the femur in the Angeac-Charente ornithomimosaurs and modern archosaurs raises the question of the potential co-variation between the femur and the pelvis. Sexual dimorphism was observed in the ilium of several birds mentioned previously, such as ostriches, steamer-ducks, savannah sparrows, and California gulls (in the antitrochanter width, acetabular width, and synsacrum width and length; Livezey and Humphrey, 1984; Schnell et al., 1985; Rising, 1987; Charuta et al., 2007). All measurements were higher in male birds than in female birds except for the width of the ilium, which was higher in female ostriches when measured by Charuta et al., 2007 but not significantly different between sexes in Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022. Additionally, female alligators had a deeper pelvic canal (i.e. distance between the ventral side of the first sacral vertebra and the ventral margin of the ischial symphysis; Prieto-Marquez et al., 2007). The dimorphism was located preferably on the femur rather than on the tibia in the Angeac-Charente ornithomimosaur, which suggests that the pelvic area might as well be dimorphic and that seems to be generally the case in some modern avian dinosaurs too (Livezey and Humphrey, 1984; Schnell et al., 1985; Rising, 1987; Farlow et al., 2005; Charuta et al., 2007; Prieto-Marquez et al., 2007; Bonnan et al., 2008; Duggan et al., 2015; Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022). Could the ability to carry eggs restrict the location of sexual dimorphism closer to the hip region? Sexual dimorphism in the pelvic girdle, the proximal hindlimb and the morphological integration between the two in female extant archosaurs should be investigated further to answer this question. However, one would expect that dimorphism in the pelvic morphology would correlate with dimorphism in the proximal instead of the distal femoral portions. Perhaps the shaft curvature toward the lateral side of the femur could have enabled ornithomimosaurs with a wider pelvis (presumably female individuals) to retain their hindlimbs close to the sagittal midline. Nevertheless, the current dataset does not allow to further speculate without the possibility to sex each morphotype and without the integration of femoral with pelvic data.

Our results did not permit to confidently sex each morphotype. Most modern occurrences of femoral sexual dimorphism indicate a wider distal epiphysis among males than females, but Elzanowski and Louchart, 2022 showed that the opposite was also true for modern and subfossils ostriches. Furthermore, our results indicated that femora with the narrowest distal epiphyses (females in most of modern occurrences) had a laterally deviated shaft. However, Duggan et al., 2015 demonstrated that only juvenile male Pekin ducks had a laterally deviated shaft, which is not congruent with our results that the widest epiphyses were associated with a straighter morphotype. Paleohistological analyses could enable to verify sex assignment by assessing the presence of medullary bone, as some gravid females may have died during their egg-laying cycle at the time of the mass-mortality event recorded at Angeac-Charente. Indeed, medullary bone was recently demonstrated as probably the most reliable indicator of sex with an extensive distribution across the skeleton (Canoville et al., 2019). A paleohistological investigation could also confirm the ontogenetic homogeneity among our femoral sample, as recommended by Griffin and Nesbitt, 2016, Hone et al., 2017 and Mallon, 2017.

Specimens used in this study are housed in the collections of the Angoulême Museum, Angoulême, France and are available under demand. 3D models used in this study are shared freely and publicly on MorphoSource.

1. 1. Pintore R

   (2023) MorphoSource

   ID 000519447. Femora from an exceptionally large population of coeval ornithomimosaurs yield evidence of sexual dimorphism in extinct theropod dinosaurs.

   https://www.morphosource.org/projects/000519447?locale=en

1. 1. Adams DC
   2. Otárola-Castillo E
   3. Paradis E

   (2013) Geomorph: An R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data

   Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:393–399.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12035

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Allain R
   2. Vullo R
   3. Le Loeuff J
   4. Tournepiche JF

   (2014) European Ornithomimosaurs (Dinosauria, Theropoda): An undetected record

   Geologica Acta 12:2083.

   https://doi.org/10.1344/105.000002083

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Allain R
   2. Vullo R
   3. Rozada L
   4. Anquetin J
   5. Bourgeais R
   6. Goedert J
   7. Lasseron M
   8. Martin JE
   9. Pérez-García A
   10. De Fabrègues CP
   11. Royo-Torres R
   12. Augier D
   13. Bailly G
   14. Cazes L
   15. Despres Y
   16. Gailliègue A
   17. Gomez B
   18. Goussard F
   19. Lenglet T
   20. Vacant R
   21. Tournepiche JF

   (2022) Vertebrate Paleobiodiversity of the Early Cretaceous (Berriasian) Angeac-Charente Lagerstätte (southwestern France): Implications for continental faunal turnover at the J/K boundary

   Geodiversitas 44:683–752.

   https://doi.org/10.5252/geodiversitas2022v44a25

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Alunni-Perret V
   2. Staccini P
   3. Quatrehomme G

   (2008) Sex determination from the distal part of the femur in a French contemporary population

   Forensic Science International 175:113–117.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.05.018

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bardua C
   2. Felice RN
   3. Watanabe A
   4. Fabre AC
   5. Goswami A

   (2019) A practical guide to sliding and surface semilandmarks in morphometric analyses

   Integrative Organismal Biology 1:bz016.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/iob/obz016

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Baylac M
   2. Villemant C
   3. Simbolotti G

   (2003) Combining geometric morphometrics with pattern recognition for the investigation of species complexes: Geometric morphometrics, pattern recognition and species complexes

   Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80:89–98.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00221.x

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Benton MJ
   2. Juul L
   3. Storrs GW
   4. Galton PM

   (2000) Anatomy and systematics of the prosauropod dinosaur Thecodontosaurus antiquus from the upper Triassic of southwest England

   Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20:77–108.

   https://doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2000)020[0077:AASOTP]2.0.CO;2

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bonnan MF
   2. Farlow JO
   3. Masters SL

   (2008) Using linear and geometric morphometrics to detect intraspecific variability and sexual dimorphism in femoral shape in Alligator mississippiensis and its implications for sexing fossil archosaurs

   Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28:422–431.

   https://doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2008)28[422:ULAGMT]2.0.CO;2

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bookstein FL

   (1997) Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Morphometrics of group differences in outline shape

   Medical Image Analysis 1:225–243.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/s1361-8415(97)85012-8

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Botton-Divet L
    2. Cornette R
    3. Fabre AC
    4. Herrel A
    5. Houssaye A

    (2016) Morphological analysis of long bones in semi-aquatic mustelids and their terrestrial relatives

    Integrative and Comparative Biology 56:1298–1309.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icw124

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Britt BB
    2. Chure DJ

    (2000)

    A reanalysis of the phylogenetic affinities of Ceratosaurus (Theropoda, Dinosauria) based on new specimens from Utah

    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20:183–236.

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bunce M
    2. Worthy TH
    3. Ford T
    4. Hoppitt W
    5. Willerslev E
    6. Drummond A
    7. Cooper A

    (2003) Extreme reversed sexual size dimorphism in the extinct New Zealand moa Dinornis

    Nature 425:172–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01871

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Canoville A
    2. Schweitzer MH
    3. Zanno LE

    (2019) Systemic distribution of medullary bone in the avian skeleton: ground truthing criteria for the identification of reproductive tissues in extinct Avemetatarsalia

    BMC Evolutionary Biology 19:71.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-019-1402-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Carrano MT
    2. Sampson SD
    3. Forster CA

    (2002) The osteology of Masiakasaurus knopfleri, a small abelisauroid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar

    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22:510–534.

    https://doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2002)022[0510:TOOMKA]2.0.CO;2

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cavaignac E
    2. Savall F
    3. Faruch M
    4. Reina N
    5. Chiron P
    6. Telmon N

    (2016) Geometric morphometric analysis reveals sexual dimorphism in the distal femur

    Forensic Science International 259:246.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.12.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. Conference

    1. Chapman RE
    2. Weishampel DB
    3. Hunt G
    4. Rasskin-Gutman D

    (1997)

    Sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs

    Dinofest International. pp. 83–93.

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Charuta A
    2. Dzierzęcka G
    3. Reymond J
    4. Mańvkowska-Pliszka H

    (2007)

    Morfologia I Morfometria Obręczy Oraz Części Wolnej Kończyny Miednicznej Strusia

    Medycyna Weterynaryjna 63:1090–1094.

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Clarke JA

    (2004) Morphology, phylogenetic taxonomy, and systematics of Ichthyornis and Apatornis (Avialae: Ornithurae)

    Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 286:1–179.

    https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090(2004)286<0001:MPTASO>2.0.CO;2

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Clarke JA

    (2013) Feathers before flight

    Science 340:690–692.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235463

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Clutton-brock TH

    (1986) Sex ratio variation in birds

    Ibis 128:317–329.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1986.tb02682.x

    • Google Scholar
21. Book

    1. Colbert EH

    (1990)

    Variation in Coelophysis Bauri

    In: Carpenter K, Currie PJ, editors. Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perpectives. Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–77.

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Cornette R
    2. Baylac M
    3. Souter T
    4. Herrel A

    (2013) Does shape co-variation between the skull and the mandible have functional consequences? A 3D approach for a 3D problem

    Journal of Anatomy 223:329–336.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12086

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. Book

    1. Cox RM
    2. Butler MA
    3. John-Alder HB

    (2007) The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in reptiles

    In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Székely T, editors. Sex, Size and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism. Oxford University Press. pp. 38–49.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208784.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Dacke CG
    2. Arkle S
    3. Cook DJ
    4. Wormstone IM
    5. Jones S
    6. Zaidi M
    7. Bascal ZA

    (1993) Medullary bone and avian calcium regulation

    Journal of Experimental Biology 184:63–88.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.184.1.63

    • Google Scholar
25. Book

    1. Darwin CR

    (1874) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex

    New York: AL Burt.

    https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.23708

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Dodson P

    (1975) Taxonomic implications of relative growth in lambeosaurinae hadrosaurs

    Systematic Biology 24:37–54.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/24.1.37

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Dong Z

    (1997) Mixture analysis and its preliminary application in archaeology

    Journal of Archaeological Science 24:141–162.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0100

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Duggan BM
    2. Hocking PM
    3. Schwarz T
    4. Clements DN

    (2015) Differences in hindlimb morphology of ducks and chickens: effects of domestication and selection

    Genetics, Selection, Evolution 47:88.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-015-0166-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Dunn PO
    2. Whittingham LA
    3. Pitcher TE

    (2001) Mating systems, sperm competition, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds

    Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 55:161–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb01281.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Elzanowski A
    2. Louchart A

    (2022) Metric variation in the postcranial skeleton of ostriches, Struthio (Aves: Palaeognathae), with new data on extinct subspecies

    Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 195:88–105.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab049

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Fabre AC
    2. Cornette R
    3. Huyghe K
    4. Andrade DV
    5. Herrel A

    (2014) Linear versus geometric morphometric approaches for the analysis of head shape dimorphism in lizards: head shape dimorphism in Tupinambis

    Journal of Morphology 275:1016–1026.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.20278

    • Google Scholar
32. Book

    1. Fairbairn DJ
    2. Blanckenhorn WU
    3. Székely T

    (2007) Sex, Size, and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism, Oxford Biology

    Oxford University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208784.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Fajemilehin SOK

    (2017) Discriminant analysis of sexual dimorphism in zoometrical characters of normal feathered Yoruba ecotype adult local chicken in the tropical forest zone of Nigeria

    Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine 2:139–144.

    https://doi.org/10.31248/JASVM2017.060

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Farlow JO
    2. Hurlburt GR
    3. Elsey RM
    4. Britton ARC
    5. Langston W

    (2005) Femoral dimensions and body size of Alligator mississippiensis: estimating the size of extinct mesoeucrocodylians

    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25:354–369.

    https://doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2005)025[0354:FDABSO]2.0.CO;2

    • Google Scholar
35. Book

    1. Fisher RA

    (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection

    Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.27468

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Fitch HS

    (1981) Sexual size differences in reptiles

    Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Natural History University of Kansas 70:1–72.

    https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.16228

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Fraley C
    2. Raftery AE

    (2007) Bayesian regularization for normal mixture estimation and model-based clustering

    Journal of Classification 24:155–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-007-0004-5

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Gaikwad K
    2. Nikam VR

    (2014) Sexual dimorphism in femur

    IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 13:04–09.

    https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-13760409

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Godfrey LR
    2. Lyon SK
    3. Sutherland MR

    (1993) Sexual dimorphism in large-bodied primates: The case of the subfossil lemurs

    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90:315–334.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330900306

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. González EJ
    2. Martínez-López M
    3. Morales-Garduza MA
    4. García-Morales R
    5. Charruau P
    6. Gallardo-Cruz JA

    (2019) The sex-determination pattern in crocodilians: A systematic review of three decades of research

    The Journal of Animal Ecology 88:1417–1427.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Gower JC

    (1975) Generalized procrustes analysis

    Psychometrika 40:33–51.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291478

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Griffin CT
    2. Nesbitt SJ

    (2016) The femoral ontogeny and long bone histology of the Middle Triassic (?late Anisian) dinosauriform Asilisaurus kongwe and implications for the growth of early dinosaurs

    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 36:e1111224.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2016.1111224

    • Google Scholar
43. Book

    1. Gunz P
    2. Mitteroecker P
    3. Bookstein FL

    (2005) Semilandmarks in three dimensions

    In: Slice DE, editors. Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology. Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers. pp. 73–98.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-27614-9

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Gunz P
    2. Mitteroecker P

    (2013) Semilandmarks: A method for quantyfying curves and surfaces

    Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24:6292.

    https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6292

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Handley WD
    2. Chinsamy A
    3. Yates AM
    4. Worthy TH

    (2016) Sexual dimorphism in the late Miocene mihirung Dromornis stirtoni (Aves: Dromornithidae) from the Alcoota Local Fauna of central Australia

    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 36:e1180298.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2016.1180298

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Hedrick BP
    2. Schachner ER
    3. Dodson P

    (2022) Alligator appendicular architecture across an ontogenetic niche shift

    Anatomical Record 305:3088–3100.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24717

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Hone D
    2. Mallon JC
    3. Mannion P

    (2017) Protracted growth impedes the detection of sexual dimorphism in non-avian dinosaurs

    Palaeontology 60:535–545.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12298

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Hone DWE
    2. Mallon JC
    3. Hennessey P
    4. Witmer LM

    (2020) Ontogeny of a sexually selected structure in an extant archosaur Gavialis gangeticus (Pseudosuchia: Crocodylia) with implications for sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs

    PeerJ 8:e9134.

    https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9134

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Hunt KD
    2. Dunevant SE
    3. Yohler RM
    4. Carlson KJ

    (2021) Femoral bicondylar angles among dry-habitat chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) resemble those of humans: implications for knee function, australopith sexual dimorphism, and the evolution of bipedalism

    Journal of Anthropological Research 77:303–337.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/715398

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Kaliontzopoulou A
    2. Carretero MA
    3. Llorente GA

    (2007) Multivariate and geometric morphometrics in the analysis of sexual dimorphism variation in Podarcis lizards

    Journal of Morphology 268:152–165.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.10494

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Klingenberg CP

    (2016) Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics

    Development Genes and Evolution 226:113–137.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00427-016-0539-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Knell RJ
    2. Sampson S

    (2011) Bizarre structures in dinosaurs: species recognition or sexual selection? A response to Padian and Horner

    Journal of Zoology 283:18–22.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00758.x

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Knell RJ
    2. Naish D
    3. Tomkins JL
    4. Hone DWE

    (2013) Sexual selection in prehistoric animals: detection and implications

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:38–47.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.015

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Larson PL

    (1994) Tyrannosaurus sex

    The Paleontological Society Special Publications 7:139–156.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S2475262200009485

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Liker A
    2. Freckleton RP
    3. Székely T

    (2013) The evolution of sex roles in birds is related to adult sex ratio

    Nature Communications 4:1–6.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2600

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Livezey BC
    2. Humphrey PS

    (1984) Sexual dimorphism in continental steamer-ducks

    The Condor 86:368–377.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1366809

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Magige FJ

    (2012)

    Spatial-temporal variation in sex ratio and group size of ostriches (Struthio namelus) in the Serengeti National Park and environs in northern Tanzania

    Tanzania Journal of Science 38:15–23.

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Mallon JC

    (2017) Recognizing sexual dimorphism in the fossil record: lessons from nonavian dinosaurs

    Paleobiology 43:495–507.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/pab.2016.51

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Manin A
    2. Cornette R
    3. Lefèvre C

    (2016) Sexual dimorphism among Mesoamerican turkeys: A key for understanding past Husbandry

    Journal of Archaeological Science 10:526–533.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.066

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Mayr E

    (1939) The sex ratio in wild birds

    The American Naturalist 73:156–179.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/280824

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Morris J.S.
    2. Brandt EK

    (2014) Specialization for aggression in sexually dimorphic skeletal morphology in grey wolves (Canis lupus)

    Journal of Anatomy 225:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12191

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Morris JS
    2. Carrier DR

    (2016) Sexual selection on skeletal shape in Carnivora

    Evolution 70:767–780.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12904

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Olson VA
    2. Turvey ST

    (2013) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in New Zealand giant moa (Dinornis) and other ratites

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 280:20130401.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0401

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Owens IPF
    2. Hartley IR

    (1998) Sexual dimorphism in birds: Why are there so many different forms of dimorphism

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 265:397–407.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0308

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Padian K
    2. Horner JR

    (2011) The evolution of ‘bizarre structures’ in dinosaurs: Biomechanics, sexual selection, social selection or species recognition

    Journal of Zoology 283:3–17.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00719.x

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Parsons FG

    (1914)

    The characters of the English thigh-bone

    Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 48:238–267.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Piechowski R
    2. Tałanda M
    3. Dzik J

    (2014) Skeletal variation and ontogeny of the Late Triassic Dinosauriform Silesaurus opolensis

    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 34:1383–1393.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2014.873045

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Prieto-Marquez A
    2. Gignac PM
    3. Joshi S

    (2007) Neontological evaluation of pelvic skeletal attributes purported to reflect sex in extinct non-avian Archosaurs

    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27:603–609.

    https://doi.org/10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[603:NEOPSA]2.0.CO;2

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Prokopenko N
    2. Melnyk V
    3. Bazyvoliak S

    (2021) Biological features of egg productivity of black African ostriches under a semi-intensive keeping

    Ukrainian Journal of Ecology 11:33–36.

    https://doi.org/10.15421/2021_67

    • Google Scholar
70. Book

    1. Raath MA

    (1990) Morphological variation in small theropods and its meaning in systematics: evidence from Syntarsus rhodesiensis

    In: Carpenter K, Currie PJ, editors. Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. pp. 91–105.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511608377

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Remeš V
    2. Székely T

    (2010) Domestic chickens defy Rensch’s rule: sexual size dimorphism in chicken breeds: sexual size dimorphism in chicken breeds

    Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23:2754–2759.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02126.x

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Rising JD

    (1987) Geographic variation of sexual dimorphism in size of Savannah Sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis): a test of hypotheses

    Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 41:514–524.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1987.tb05822.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Rohlf FJ
    2. Slice D

    (1990) Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks

    Systematic Zoology 39:40.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2992207

    • Google Scholar
74. Conference

    1. Rozada L
    2. Allain R
    3. Vullo R
    4. Leprince A
    5. Tournepiche JF

    (2014)

    Taphonomy of the ornithomimosaur dinosaur herd from the Early Cretaceous lignitic bone bed of Angeac-Charente (France)

    74th Annual Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Rozada L
    2. Allain R
    3. Vullo R
    4. Goedert J
    5. Augier D
    6. Jean A
    7. Marchal J
    8. Peyre de Fabrègues C
    9. Qvarnström M
    10. Royo‐Torres R

    (2021) A Lower Cretaceous Lagerstätte from France: a taphonomic overview of the Angeac‐Charente vertebrate assemblage

    Lethaia 54:141–165.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/let.12394

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Saitta ET

    (2015) Evidence for sexual dimorphism in the plated dinosaur Stegosaurus mjosi (Ornithischia, Stegosauria) from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of western USA

    PLOS ONE 10:e0123503.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123503

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Saitta ET
    2. Stockdale MT
    3. Longrich NR
    4. Bonhomme V
    5. Benton MJ
    6. Cuthill IC
    7. Makovicky PJ

    (2020) An effect size statistical framework for investigating sexual dimorphism in non-avian dinosaurs and other extinct taxa

    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 131:231–273.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blaa105

    • Google Scholar
78. Book

    1. Schlager S

    (2017) Morpho and Rvcg – shape analysis in R

    In: Schlager S, editors. Statistical Shape and Deformation Analysis. Elsevier. pp. 217–256.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-810493-4.00011-0

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Schnell GD
    2. Worthen GL
    3. Douglas ME

    (1985) Morphometric assessment of sexual dimorphism in skeletal elements of California Gulls

    The Condor 87:484–493.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1367944

    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Schweitzer MH
    2. Wittmeyer JL
    3. Horner JR

    (2005) Gender-specific reproductive tissue in ratites and Tyrannosaurus rex

    Science 308:1456–1460.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1112158

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Schweitzer MH
    2. Elsey RM
    3. Dacke CG
    4. Horner JR
    5. Lamm ET

    (2007) Do egg-laying crocodilian (Alligator mississippiensis) archosaurs form medullary bone

    Bone 40:1152–1158.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2006.10.029

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Scrucca L
    2. Fop M
    3. Murphy TB
    4. Raftery AE

    (2016)

    Mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models

    The R Journal 8:289–317.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. Book

    1. Székely T
    2. Lislevand T
    3. Figuerola J

    (2007) Sexual size dimorphism in birds

    In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Székely T, editors. Sex, Size and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism. Oxford University Press. pp. 27–37.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208784.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Tardieu C
    2. Glard Y
    3. Garron E
    4. Boulay C
    5. Jouve J-L
    6. Dutour O
    7. Boetsch G
    8. Bollini G

    (2006) Relationship between formation of the femoral bicondylar angle and trochlear shape: independence of diaphyseal and epiphyseal growth

    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130:491–500.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20373

    • Google Scholar
85. Conference

    1. Wiley DF
    2. Amenta N
    3. Alcantara DA
    4. Ghosh D
    5. Kil YJ
    6. Delson E
    7. Harcourt-Smith W
    8. Rohlf FJ
    9. St John K
    10. Hamann B

    (2005) Evolutionary morphing

    IS 05. IEEE Visualization, 2005. pp. 431–438.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/VISUAL.2005.1532826

    • Google Scholar
86. Book

    1. Witmer LM

    (1995)

    The extant phylogenetic bracket and the importance of reconstructing soft tissues in fossils

    In: Thomason JJ, editors. Functional Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–33.

    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Woodward DE
    2. Murray JD

    (1993) On the effect of temperature-dependent sex determination on sex ratio and survivorship in crocodilians

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 252:149–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1993.0059

    • Google Scholar
88. Book

    1. Zelditch ML
    2. Swiderski DL
    3. Sheets HD
    4. Fink WL

    (2012)

    Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer

    Elsevier Academic Press.

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Romain Pintore

   1. UMR 7179, Mécanismes Adaptatifs et Évolution (MECADEV), Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Paris, France
   2. Structure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   romain.pintore@edu.mnhn.fr

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2438-614X

2. Raphaël Cornette

   UMR 7205, Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, UA, Paris, France, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Alexandra Houssaye

   UMR 7179, Mécanismes Adaptatifs et Évolution (MECADEV), Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8789-5545

4. Ronan Allain

   UMR 7207, Centre de Recherche en Paléontologie - Paris (CR2P), Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6357-1586

• 1,739

  views

• 166

  downloads

• 1

  citations

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