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

Abstract

Since the mid-1970s, most investigators have agreed that the ‘bizarre’ structures (here referred to as ‘exaggerated’ structures) of dinosaurs – for example, the horns and frills of ceratopsids, the crests of lambeosaurine hadrosaurids, the domes of pachycephalosaurs – functioned first and foremost as signalling and combat structures used in mate competition (Farlow D Hopson, 1975; Molnar, 1977; Spassov, 1979; Ostrom & Wellnhoffer, 1986; Sampson, 1997, 2001; Dodson, Forster & Sampson, 2004). Padian & Horner (2010) argue that the mate competition hypothesis is not supported by available evidence, citing in particular the lack of data documenting sexual dimorphism within dinosaur species. In place of the mate competition model, they present a challenging and novel alternative, suggesting these traits functioned as species recognition features for identifying conspecifics, thereby facilitating social interactions such as herding, mating and parental care. Padian & Horner offer a pair of tests for distinguishing paleontological examples of exaggerated traits evolving under the influence of species recognition from those resulting primarily from sexual selection. The first test relates to the patterns of diversification of exaggerated structures, predicted to be random under the influence of species recognition and directional if driven by sexual selection. The second test invokes evidence of geographic overlap of closely related, contemporaneous species, thought to be a necessary condition for the evolution of exaggerated structures under the influence of species recognition (in part so as to avoid unwanted matings). These authors argue that known examples of exaggerated structures among dinosaurs pass both of these tests, indicating that species recognition is the preferred (though not necessarily sole) explanation. Padian & Horner highlight a major problem common to most previous studies addressing the function of dinosaurian exaggerated structures – lack of phylogenetic context. Comprehensive testing of adaptation hypotheses requires mapping of relevant characters onto independently derived phylogenies in order to search for evidence of evolutionary assembly of the purported adaptation. They also underline the importance of assessing the full range of alternative hypotheses as rigorously as possible, rather than accepting one explanation as the default. We fully support both of these contentions. Nevertheless, we disagree with several of the paper’s central conclusions, including: (1) the necessary correlation of overt sexual dimorphism and sexual selection; (2) the required linkage between sexual selection with a directional pattern of diversification; (3) evidence for the geographical overlap of multiple closely related dinosaur taxa bearing exaggerated structures. In addition to countering these claims, we propose two alternative predictions that allow putative species recognition traits to be distinguished from sexually selected ones. With regard to the exaggerated structures of dinosaurs, the species recognition hypothesis fails both of these tests, and the sexual selection hypothesis remains by far the best-supported explanation. Citing Darwin (1871), Padian & Horner claim that sexual dimorphism is effectively the sine qua non of sexual selection. They argue further that the apparent absence of sexual dimorphism in dinosaurian exaggerated characters is Journal of Zoology