Fig 1.
Developmental stages and landmarks of two ephippid fish.
Mimetics and non-mimetics of both C. faber (A-C) and P. orbicularis (D-F), where (A) shows mimetic juvenile, (B) non-mimetic pre-adult and (C) non-mimetic adult C. faber; and (D-E) shows mimetic juveniles, and (F) non-mimetic adult P. orbicularis. Dark bars denote 5cm scale, and dots in adults of both species denote the 16 landmarks used for morphometric measurements in the present study.
Table 1.
Description of analyzed landmarks.
List of homologous landmarks used in the present study, with the description of each landmark.
Table 2.
Multiple Analyses of Variance.
MANOVA results showing variation in measurements made on mimetic (MIM) and non-mimetic (NMI) individuals of C. faber and P. orbicularis. Values are mean values (except F values) with P values of < 0.001 separating groups in all cases.
Fig 2.
Comparative shape analysis of C. faber and P. orbicularis.
General shape variations between mimetic and non-mimetic stages for C. faber and P. orbicularis, where A) are mimetic individuals of both species and B) are non-mimetic individuals of both species, as analyzed bythe Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA). Grey dots represent individual values and black dots represent mean values. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) for mimetic individuals; C) presents a clear distinction in general body shape (small and round in C. faber; small and oblong in P. orbicularis (90.73% variance covered by PC1, 2.74% variance covered by PC2), while PCA of non-mimetic individuals of both species; D) shows a tendency to develop a rounded body shape, with greater variation due to inclusion of some elongated individuals (91.03% variance covered by PC1, 4.40% variance covered by PC2). In both cases, green dots represent C. faber and red dots, P. orbicularis.
Fig 3.
Constrained canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) ordination plot (Euclidean distance) of mimetic (MIM) and non-mimetic (NMI) individuals of two ephippid fish (C. faber and P. orbicularis) based on morphometric measurements data, showing the levels of similarity among groups of mimetic individuals (MIM, circles) and non-mimetic individuals (NMI, triangles), C. faber (white symbols) and P. orbicularis (black symbols).
Fig 4.
Linear analyses of fins in C. faber.
Allometric relationships of dorsal and anal fins of C. faber represented by single linear regression: A) Dorsal fin height regressed against SL; B) Anal fin height regressed against SL; C) Relative height of dorsal fin regressed against SL; D) Relative height of anal fin regressed against SL; E) Distance between the edges of dorsal and anal fins regressed against SL. Vertical dotted lines indicate transition between mimetic juvenile—subadults (ca. 8 cm) and non-mimetic subadults to non-mimetic adults (ca. 25 cm).
Fig 5.
Linear analyses of fins in P. orbicularis.
Allometric relationships of dorsal and anal fins of P. orbicularis represented by single linear regression: A) Dorsal fin height regressed against SL; B) Anal fin height regressed against SL; C) Relative height of dorsal fin regressed against SL; D) Relative height of anal fin regressed against SL; E) Distance between the edges of dorsal and anal fins regressed against SL. Vertical dotted lines indicate transition between mimetic—non-mimetic (ca. 14 cm).
Fig 6.
Comparative linear analyses in C. faber and P. orbicularis.
Comparative allometric relationships between C. faber and P. orbicularis: angle formed between the edges of dorsal and anal fins regressed against SL (A—C. faber, D—P. orbicularis); fish body area regressed against SL (B—C. faber, E—P. orbicularis); log centroid size regressed against SL (C—C. faber, F—P. orbicularis). Vertical dotted lines indicate transitions among growth stages (ca. SL 8cm between leaf-mimetic and subadults, and SL ca. 25cm between subadults and adults in C. faber; ca. SL 12cm between leaf-mimetic and non-mimetic in P. orbicularis).