QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online December 15, 2004
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 113-127 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01345

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Material Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Meyers, J. J. Articles by Herrel, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Meyers, J. J. Articles by Herrel, A.

Prey capture kinematics of ant-eating lizards

Jay J. Meyers^1,* and Anthony Herrel²

¹ Physiology and Functional Morphology Group, Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5640, USA
² Laboratory of Functional Morphology, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium B-2610

View larger version (120K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. M. horridus: points digitized and used to calculate kinematic variables. 1, eye; 2, tip of the upper jaw; 3, jaw vertex; 4, tip of lower jaw; 5, throat below jaw vertex; 6, tongue tip; 7, prey. Note the relatively long neck, especially when compared to the other species (see Figs 3A, 4A, 5A).

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Composite phylogeny used to address the evolution of feeding behavior (see Table 3) between ant specialists and dietary generalists. Broken branches denote ant specialists, while all others are considered dietary generalists.

View larger version (118K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Typical ant feeding event in P. vitticeps. (A) P. vitticeps capturing ant prey. Time (s) is given in the upper right of each frame. (B) Selected kinematic profiles. The gape distance profile is similar to all iguanians but very different than M. horridus. Colored dots denote onset of mouth opening (red), prey contact with the tongue (yellow) and maximum gape (blue). Onset of slow open (SO), fast open (FO) and fast close phases (FC) are denoted by dotted lines.

View larger version (118K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Typical ant feeding event in U. notata. (A) U. notata capturing ant prey. Time (s) is given in the lower right of each frame. (B) Selected kinematic profiles. The gape distance profile is similar to P. vitticeps and P. platyrhinos but very different than M. horridus. Colored dots denote onset of mouth opening (red), prey contact with the tongue (yellow) and maximum gape (blue). Onset of slow open (SO), fast open (FO) and fast close phases (FC) are denoted by dotted lines.

View larger version (131K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Typical ant feeding event in P. platyrhinos. (A) P. platyrhinos capturing ant prey. Time (s) is given in the lower right of each frame. As in all iguanian feeding events, prey capture occurs using the tongue. Upon tongue retraction, the rotation of the dorsal papillae is visible as the prey is transported into the mouth. Note the characteristic shape of the tongue, which is very similar to P. vitticeps and U. notata but unlike M. horridus. (B) Selected kinematic profiles. The gape distance profile is typical of iguanians showing the slow open phase before prey contact. Colored dots denote onset of mouth opening (red), prey contact with the tongue (yellow) and maximum gape (blue). Onset of slow open (SO), fast open (FO) and fast close phases (FC) are denoted by dotted lines.

View larger version (95K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Typical ant feeding event in Moloch horridus. (A) M. horridus capturing ant prey. Time (s) is given in the lower right of each frame. Note the pointy shape of the tongue at full extension, uncharacteristic of iguanians during prey capture but very similar to iguanians when tongue flicking. The entire capture event occurs in just over 100 ms. (B) Selected kinematic profiles, showing the abbreviated slow open phase (only 20% of the cylces contained a slow open phase) and the longer fast open and fast close phases. Colored dots denote the onset of mouth opening (red), prey contact with the tongue (yellow) and maximum gape (blue). Onset of fast open (FO) and fast close phases (FC) are denoted by dotted lines. Note the difference in time scale between Figs 2 and 3.

View larger version (106K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Plot of the three significant axes from the factor analysis showing the position of the different species in kinematic space. The ant-eating species (Moloch and Phrynosoma) are significantly different than the generalists (Pogona and Uma) on axis 1. The other two axes appear to separate the species phylogenetically, with all species comparisons being different except for the agamids P. vitticeps and M. horridus on axis 2 and the phrynosomatids U. notata and P. platyrhinos on axis 3.