Morphological and allozyme variation of

səhifə	3/5
tarix	27.06.2016
ölçüsü	0.91 Mb.

1 2 3 4 5

T 3. Mahalanobis’ D²distances (upper semi-matrix) between populations of the fruit bat Eidolon helvum from the Gulf of Guinea, and their associated probabilities (lower semi-matrix). Abbreviations: RM, R´ıo Muni (mainland); B, Bioko; P, Pr´ıncipe; ST, Sa˜ o Tome´; A, Annobo´ n. (∗) Significant after Bonferroni adjustment of the significance level to a table-wide or=0.05

	RM	B	P	ST	A
Males
RM	—	2.361	8.578	10.601	42.070
B	0.319	—	8.931	11.373	47.553
P	0.013	0.022	—	6.953	25.432
ST	0.001∗	<0.001∗	0.024	—	24.985
A	<0.001∗	<0.001∗	<0.001∗	<0.001∗	—
Females
RM	—	2.098	7.725	9.268	66.270
B	0.793	—	8.528	12.306	78.745
P	0.025	0.018	—	4.3965	55.816
ST	0.004∗	0.002∗	0.21	—	39.734
A	<0.001∗	<0.001∗	<0.001∗	<0.001∗	—

Males
Bioko

Río Muni

Príncipe

São Tomé

Annobón

Females
Bioko

Río Muni

Príncipe

São Tomé

Annobón
Figure 3. Neighbour-joining topologies based on selected morphological characters, by sex, built from

Mahalanobis D²distances between populations of Eidolon helvum from the Gulf of Guinea.

T 4. Allele frequencies at 15 polymorphic loci for the populations studied of the fruit bat Eidolon helvum in the Gulf of Guinea. Abbreviations as per Table 3

				Populations
Locus	Allele	RM	B	P	ST	A
Acon	a	0.9	0.75	0.84	0.889	0.833
	b	0.1	0.25	0.16	0.111	0.167
Adh	a	0.95	0.7	0.654	0.694	0.944
	b	0.05	0.3	0.346	0.306	0.056
Ak	a	1	1	1	1	0.944
	b	—	—	—	—	0.056
Est-1	a	0.9	0.85	0.846	0.833	1
	b	—	—	0.096	0.028	—
	c	0.1	0.15	0.058	0.139	—
orGpd-1	a	0.95	1	0.896	1	0.938
	b	0.05	—	0.104	—	0.063
orGpd-2	a	0.6	0.6	0.28	0.265	0.833
	b	0.4	0.4	0.72	0.735	0.167
Idh-1	a	0.95	0.95	1	1	1
	b	0.05	—	—	—	—
	c	—	0.05	—	—	—
Lap	a	0.95	0.95	1	0.941	0.944
	b	0.05	0.05	—	0.059	0.056
Me-1	a	1	1	1	0.972	1
	b	—	—	—	0.028	—
Pep-A	a	1	1	0.96	0.933	0.938
	b	—	—	0.04	0.067	0.063
Pep-B	a	0.95	1	1	1	1
	b	0.05	—	—	—	—
Pep-D	a	0.833	0.95	0.46	0.806	0.667
	b	0.167	0.05	0.54	0.194	0.333
Pgm-1	a	0.95	0.95	0.741	0.889	1
	b	0.05	0.05	0.259	0.111	—
Pgm-2	a	1	0.95	0.981	0.969	1
	b	—	0.05	0.019	0.031	—
Sod-1	a	1	0.95	0.685	0.528	0.167
	b	—	0.05	0.315	0.472	0.833

T 5. Genetic variability measures for Eidolon helvum populations studied in the Gulf of Guinea.

Abbreviations as per Table 3

Population	Mean sample size per locus	Mean no. alleles per locus	% polymorphic loci (P)	Average heterozygosity ⁽^H_o⁾
RM	9.7	1.29	29.41	0.045
B	9.8	1.29	29.41	0.056
P	25.5	1.32	23.53	0.066
ST	17.4	1.35	26.47	0.055
A	8.6	1.26	26.47	0.053
Mean	14.2	1.3	27.06	0.055

DISCUSSION

Morphological variation
Andersen (1912) and Rosevear (1965) considered sexual dimorphism as irrelevant for E. helvum. However, in all the populations studied, females were significantly
T 6. Wright’s (1965) F_STvalues (upper semi-matrix) of Eidolon helvum from the Gulf of Guinea and associated Nm (lower semi-matrix) obtained using Wright’s (1965) relation between populations, and Slatkin’s (1985) private alleles method (between parentheses). Abbreviations as per Table 3

	RM	B	P	ST	A
RM	—	0.029	0.095	0.089	0.187
B	8.371	—	0.088	0.067	0.179
	(7.51)
P	2.381	2.590	—	0.033	0.141
	(1.30)	(2.21)
ST	2.558	3.481	7.326	—	0.115
	(1.44)	(.723)	(2.05)
A	1.086	1.146	1.523	1.924	—
	(1.30)	(4.18)	(1.27)	(3.31)

T 7. Pairwise values of Nei’s (1978) genetic distances (upper semi-matrix) and modified (Wright,

1978) Rogers’ (1972) distances (lower semi-matrix) between insular populations studied of the African fruit bat Eidolon helvum. Abbreviations as per Table 3

	RM	B	P	ST	A
RM	—	0.000	0.013	0.011	0.022
B	0.058	—	0.013	0.008	0.024
P	0.121	0.121	—	0.004	0.023
ST	0.111	0.100	0.075	—	0.016
A	0.154	0.159	0.153	0.131	—

São Tomé
Príncipe
Río Muni

Bioko

Annobón

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

0.08

Figure 4. Wagner phenogram based on modified (Wright, 1978) and Rogers’ (1972) genetic distances between populations of Eidolon helvum in the Gulf of Guinea. Cophenetic correlation=0.989.

larger than males, particularly the skull. Bergmans (1990) has shown this trend for other populations of the species. The population from Bioko is on average slightly larger in body size than that of the mainland, as Eisentraut (1964) had noticed, but these diﬀerences are not statistically significant. The populations from Sa˜ o Tome´ and Pr´ıncipe are slightly smaller than that of the mainland, and the individuals from Sa˜ o Tome´ are a little larger than those from Pr´ıncipe, although the diﬀerences are not statistically significant. It seems that there is a trend towards a reduction in size associated with a reduction of island area, but the small number of islands precludes

any statistical testing. In agreement with this trend, E. helvum from Annobo´ n shows particularly reduced measurements for all data sets (Appendix 2). The measurements for this population are the smallest ever reported for E. helvum, including the subspecies E. helvum sabaeum from the other extreme of the range, in the Arabian Peninsula.

1 2 3 4 5